online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: You know you are not in the big city anymore when....
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 4 (view)
 
You know you are not in the big city anymore when....
Posted: 11/22/2009 2:53:40 PM

Speaking of which, I swear my neighbour who lives behind me has just adopted a duck, a puppy & an orca 'cause I've been hearing quacking, a puppy yapping & a whale moaning for the last couple of days.


I'm going to guess that's much more likely to be a basset hound than an orca... Do let us know if you find out for sure, please!
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Washing your hands work. I have not had flu this year.
Posted: 11/21/2009 11:15:01 AM
Using a paper towel to pull the door open is smart not ocd.
Think about touching that door knob with a bare hand (after washing) and then picking up a food article - sick!


Hahah... these discussions are so much fun. I must disagree with you up front. Regardless of the actual health merits to washing your hands, people who get excited about it clearly are being compulsive rather than rational. Consider...

Do you really think the food was clean before you touched it? What about the cutlery?

When you're eating at a food court or fast-food place, do you also scrub your hands after getting your change and before eating? The germ count on the money you just got is bound to be way higher than on the doorknob in the can.

What do you do about the doorknob on the way out of the restroom?

Do you wear a mask to avoid airborne infections (like flu) while mingling with the hordes?

The germs on the toilet stall door handle are the least of an infinite number of health risks you could concern yourself with. Among the less obvious risks is that of driving yourself crazy through too much concern with the subject. :P

---

Q: What are the dirtiest places in your household?

If you guessed "toilet, bathroom, floor" or any such you are dead wrong... The answer is

A: Your kitchen sink and dish rag. Telephones rank pretty high, too.

At least, that's true if you take the view that "dirtiest" really means "most germs," which you should be if health is your concern. If you're just concerned about visible dirt, great, more power to you, that's perfectly reasonable. But don't kid yourself you're any healthier by scrubbing extra-hard.

If you've got a bit of spare time, google "Charles Gerba." He's a famous biologist who's made a career out of studying this kind of thing, and discovered all kinds of fascinating and inobvious tidbits which can be summarized as "most of what we thought we knew about cleanliness is probably wrong".

---

Personally, I do wash my hands before leaving the toilet, not because I actually believe it's making me or anybody else significantly healthier, but because I just don't like the smell, feel or look of dirt on my hands. Otherwise I'm not much worried about this whole hand sanitizing insanity. Not only is it futile, I agree with the poster above who said it's counter-productive and you're healthier in the long run by giving your immune system a bit of exercise and letting it handle the small bugs.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 87 (view)
 
Bewbs
Posted: 11/20/2009 5:54:11 PM

Men looking at women's breasts in fact prolong their lives with years.


Now there's a bit of medical advice I'll be happy to blindly accept!
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 90 (view)
 
H1N1 vaccine. Are you getting a shot?
Posted: 11/20/2009 1:56:56 PM
On post #83 you claimed that vaccines are a cause of autism

No, I didn't. Read more closely.

I've seen this kind of rationale before when studies don't support what someone wants to believe.

*Sigh* these insinuations are becoming tiresome, so I'm going to shortcut this.

See, you've totally got my thrust wrong. I'm not one of the peasant hordes outside the ivory tower of science, massing with my torch and pitchfork because the edumacated folks aren't telling me what I want to hear and confirming my paranoid suspicions. I'm a disgruntled scientist who's come out of the ivory tower to tell you that your interpretation of those studies and results is wrong and you are over-reaching in telling people they should just trust the experts and do what they're told. I don't expect you to take my word for anything, though; just put away your boiling oil, stop kidding yourself that you're the voice of reason here, and listen for a bit. This attitude you're showing is the reason why average people are suspicious of the establishment and easy prey for conspiracy theorists. Save the ridicule for the few lunatics at the core of the conspiracy theories and give real answers to the bulk of people with honest and valid concerns. Real answers include consideration that our theories and models might be wrong, acknowledgement that all medical treatment comes with risks and side-effects, and the best possible estimate or summary of those risks and concerns.


If your imaginary smallpox disease comes along, giving vaccines and saving lives is a good idea. If your smallpox does NOT come along, giving vaccines and saving lives is still a good idea. If you muddy the waters by imagining various other diseases, giving vaccines and saving lives is still a good idea.


You seem really stuck on this notion that "since vaccines save lives, they must be a good idea." The problem with it is that it doesn't consider time at all. If a preventive measure saves 50,000 lives a year for ten years but then leaves us open to a plague which kills 5 million people, was it still a good idea? You sure can't say so based on the numbers. So please consider that your idea might not be true, even if it does obviously appear that way at first glance.

Moreover, I'm not imagining anything at all; there is a real phenomenon here observed in many different ways. All around us are diseases which have adapted to our attempts at prevention, evolved and are becoming more dangerous with time. Malaria, tuberculosis, and hospital superbugs like MRSA are three of the easier examples to name - and the last two are growing problems right here in Canada. Stretching out a bit: Would HIV have spread as far and fast as it has if people hadn't trusted that we could cure all STDs and not bothered with other precautions? How much more epidemic risk are we carrying simply because of increased population worldwide? I'm sure we could dredge up examples all day long if so minded. So far we're still ahead in the fight against most of these problems, but the trend isn't encouraging. We're already losing the battle against hospital-acquired superbug infections, we have huge bureaucracies set up to control epidemics and so far only a modest success rate (stopped SARS and plague, didn't stop H1N1). Other problems are certain to follow.

As to smallpox in particular: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7597/775
If I'm imagining anything about its continued danger, at least I'm in good company.

Anyway, I'm not trying to directly answer your implication that flu immunization is good because vaccination and polio immunization worked. I'm using the examples you brought up to show you the inherent risks in that whole way of thinking, and illustrate a different viewpoint - one coming from pure scientific and medical principles rather than public policy makers, holistic whackos or conspiracy theorists. It's one of the most solid, basic and proven of biological principles that all life adapts and evolves to meet challenges. So the only surprise in the appearance of diseases which bypass our defences is that people were surprised at all. It's totally predictable (or should have been in hindsight). Likewise, "do no harm" is an ancient principle of medicine with demonstrated benefits - and one which should be taken as a principle as well as a strict law. Risk of harm is harm when realized on a big scale, so "take the least risk possible" is also a valid way to look at it.

Immunization is messing with a complex biological system we still don't really understand all that well, and the real risk is not the far-out worries like thimerosal but the possibility that our tinkering will have side and ripple effects which come back to bite us in the ass, like auto-immune disorders and allergies. When the choice is between a killer disease like polio and an unclear risk of enduring damage, it's not much of a choice; obviously you stop the killer disease. When the choice is between that same unclear risk and a non-deadly but debilitating and distantly dangerous disease like flu, it's not clear. If for no other reason than to form a control group, lots of people can and should wisely decide not to get the shot. (Carrying on that line of thought, if it ever became possible to immunize against the common cold, that should be a no-brainer in the opposite direction and almost nobody should do it).

Whenever this subject comes up, the discussion seems to immediately be hijacked by conspiracy theories and people answering them, which is alarming because there are real valid issues to question here and they're not getting the exposure they should be.


Just because there's no evidence linking scratching your ass and autism doesn't mean there isn't a subtle connection. Its all the same pointless, meaningless speculation. Your argument is not supported by evidence.

I'm not making any argument about vaccines, thimerosal and autism. I'm answering your unreasonable claim that there is no connection. This is not a valid conclusion from the evidence; you're cherry picking the statistical studies which don't find any connection between vaccines and autism and ignoring the equally valid case studies that do show a connection between mercury and similar neurological disabilities, then going even farther to assert the statistical studies are a complete answer where really they're just more data. In other words, you're twisting the results to suit what you want to believe (exactly what you just accused others of). The honest and complete answer you should be giving is this: There's no evidence of vaccines causing autism, certain proof that they can't be responsible for all cases, and no evident reason why most people should be concerned about it; but it is clear that mercury can cause these kinds of problems, the exact correlation between exposure and damage is not yet known, and much more study is needed on the matter.


You're right that diagnosis is primarily based on behaviour, but there's many physical markers linked with autism.

Lots of things are comorbid with ASD (autistic spectrum disorder, for the onlookers). The problem is that none of them are anywhere near universally comorbid, so they're still not that much use for diagnosis. For a counter-example, you can diagnose Down's Syndrome with a high degree of reliability just by looking at the person's features. Autism diagnosis is nowhere near that level.

Anyway, do you really believe that the people who ran those vaccine-autism correlation studies were actually looking at any of that, rather than relying on official diagnosis numbers which must have been done by observation?



Almost certainly there are more and more false diagnoses caused by practitioners stretching the boundaries of diagnosis for various reasons; pressure, bias, simple keenness.

A good example of this is when an institution gets additional funding for supporting someone with autism - this leads to its practitioners being motivated to diagnose someone as having autism even if they aren't sure if they really have it.

Yes. That not only means gross numbers are going up more than they should be, it also means there are systematic uncertainties in autism statistics as well as the always-present random uncertainty: the quality of diagnosis and treatment for autism varies a lot from place to place (something which anyone can immediately discover just by asking people in the ASD community). If you're looking for an effect that's only visible in 0.1% of the population but can't do any better than a systematic uncertainty of 1%, it proves nothing when you see nothing (and likewise would prove nothing if you did see a small effect on that order).

It's not just institutes either; there are parents who want autism diagnosis so they can get benefits, quacks who would like to present it as an epidemic so they can claim to "cure" kids of it, government officials who need to justify their existence by finding problems to solve, and all manner of other hangers-on.

Coming full circle... that last category of hangers-on are well worth mentioning because I think that's the biggest reason why there's so much hype about flu shots. We've set up a system where we expect the government to watch out for us, spot health threats and take action on our behalf. There's a natural incentive there for officials to keep looking for more and more things they can address, not only serious problems like AIDS but things which might conceivably become serious (like the flu) and even semi-imaginary crises like peanut allergy hysteria. It isn't necessary to conjure up any conspiracy theory to explain all this (although no doubt vaccine makers are more than happy to recommend making vaccines "just in case"). It's just an inevitable result of social pressures and the system we have set up.

Canadians have little faith in any other branch of government, so it's strange that health care is such a sacred cow here. Anyway, I'm off to boost my immune system with a nice big lunch.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 48 (view)
 
The wind is freaking me out.......
Posted: 11/19/2009 10:53:24 PM
Meh wind schmind. This little breeze is still nothing compared to the blasts we used to get back in my old hometown.

Wait wait ... what's happening with that tree outsi
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 87 (view)
 
H1N1 vaccine. Are you getting a shot?
Posted: 11/19/2009 8:23:02 PM
As the H1N1 vaccine prevents millions of people from getting sick and hundreds or perhaps thousands from dying, its absurd to think that isn't enough to make flu immunizations "a good idea."

Not at all; there are lots of much bigger dangers in life that we tolerate routinely because the cost of addressing them is high enough to make it a bad idea. The chances of you dying from falling in the shower are probably higher, but if people campaigned for shower safety they'd be laughed at.

On the other hand, it is an absurd non sequitur to reason that because immunization is a good deal against smallpox and polio, it must be a good idea for influenza. That was my point; whether flu shots are a good deal or not depends entirely on the details, and there is lots of reason to consider they are not.


Another thing they don't tell you is that if a planet-sized comet strikes the earth, that will be devastating too. And another is that if the earth got sucked into a black hole, that would be devastating. Another thing they don't tell you is the color of the underwear they wore that day. There's lots of irrelevant things they don't tell you, because they're irrelevant.

No. The chances of a crisis erupting from an approaching comet or black hole are microscopically slim, but there is a very real prospect of smallpox reappearing - by mutating again, because we missed some repository of it somewhere while vaccinating everyone, or (perhaps most of all) because somebody uses it as a biological weapon. That makes it very relevant to discussions of whether vaccination is a good idea. Just to be clear, I absolutely do think smallpox immunization is a good thing to do - but we can't just blindly assume it's worked and there will be no comeback from it.

In any case, that's just one illustration of the problem with the principle of immunization, not a complete argument. If you want to get right to the heart of the matter, the barest possible reasoning is something like this: our immune systems need to be trained by exposure to various diseases, and there's considerable evidence that we are making more and newer (but less obvious) health threats for ourselves when we skip that exposure. Given that, we should all be asking whether it's a good idea to avoid exposure to disease just for convenience.

I don't think this is a novel idea, either: probably many or most of us were deliberately exposed to chicken pox by our parents at a young age, because they understood the basic idea. Why people don't see or apply that same thinking to flu nowadays is interesting and worrying.



I've probably been immunized against more things than most people ever will be (last time I checked, I think the list was smallpox, polio, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, yellow fever, typhoid, hepatitis A & B, Japanese encephalitis

And Japanese encephalitis too? Damn. You got me beat hands down.


I think I forgot meningitis, as well. Many of those are from years travelling in Africa and Asia, and therein lies a personal experience which is one of the things that first drew my attention to this whole issue. When I first started travelling, like almost everybody I got diarrhoea. At times it was quite spectacular; I remember spending an entire week on the can in Hanoi. I already knew then that gratuitously popping things like Lomotil or Imodium was really not a good idea in the long run so I just grunted it out (literally). After a year or two travelling, I had this problem less and less often till it pretty much disappeared. Understand, I wasn't sitting in one place all that time, I was wandering all over the world. So it wasn't that I'd simply become accustomed to the local bugs; that variety of exposure had given me good general immunity which lasted long after I left the areas in question. (It didn't protect me at all against giardia, sadly, and I still had to take cures for that, but that's OK. As I've suggested, I'm not against medicine, I just think we should be more sensible and personally responsible in deciding when to use it.)

Despite its limited relevance, the mercury debate is interesting so I have much more to say about it. Those who just care about flu shots can skip everything below this line. :)

---------------------------------------------------



It's also very well known from case studies that heavy metal poisoning (mercury in particular) can cause symptoms much like autism, as well as other neurological disabilities.

I don't see the relevance.

If you believe autism is bad then that should be reason enough to avoid things which might cause similar impairments, no?

It's also relevant in that nobody knows what ultimately causes autism, or if autism is even one condition at all. While some presentations of it are clearly hereditary, others might be caused by other things - including mercury poisoning. There are also more complex possibilities, such as poisoning combining with hereditary predisposition to tip the balance and cause problems for people who might not otherwise have trouble.



Furthermore, the current state of psychology/psychiatry/neurology is such that diagnosing neurological disorders, including autism and even more grossly obvious things like MS, is subjective and difficult - and there's no likelihood of that changing any time soon.

Irrelevant. And not entirely correct either - we are getting better and better at diagnosing autism, even when its subtle, and this increased awareness is shown by the increase in autism diagnoses (changing diagnostic criteria is another factor that increases these numbers as well).


The World Health Organization has concluded that there is no evidence of toxicity from thimerosal in vaccines.


You look to be two or three steps behind me on this particular point, and missing what I'm saying. I'll tackle it again in a different order:

The WHO and other bodies have concluded (as you say) that there's no evidence of toxicity because of large-scale statistical studies done over a long time frame. My point, and hence the relevance of autism diagnosis, is that those studies only prove there is no obvious and measurable connection, because that's all they're capable of showing. The probability of error in diagnosis is so high that there's no chance of showing a subtle effect, which is the big concern here. We know that mercury poisoning in large doses does cause gross disabilities, and at the other extreme we know that very small doses do not cause obvious effects. There's still a lot of grey area in between and it's not clear what a safe exposure level is - but estimates keep trending downward. That is; as we learn more, it becomes more and more clear that even levels we thought safe are probably not.

Autism isn't the only such disorder which people investigate, but it's a handy one to look at. Diagnosis on this continent is done on the basis of the DSM-IV manual, and whether we're talking about classical autism, Asperger's syndrome, high-functioning autism or PDD/NOS, diagnosis hinges on the same three things (the "triad of impairments"): difficulty with body language, difficulty with social behaviour, and impaired imagination. All three of those criteria are very subjective and diagnosed on the basis of observation, not through any actual physical markers.

Not only that, it's not even possible to track cases of Asperger's syndrome over a comparable length of time with vaccination records because the category has only existed since the DSM-IV (1994). Yet, since AS is the "mildly impaired" class of autism, such people are exactly the sort one should look at if you want to spot whether there are minor effects on health from vaccination or other things.

Also, that there are more cases being diagnosed now doesn't mean we're becoming better at it; quite the opposite. Almost certainly there are more and more false diagnoses caused by practitioners stretching the boundaries of diagnosis for various reasons; pressure, bias, simple keenness. This "medicalization" is a well-known (and dare I say it, obvious) phenomenon; no matter what strange behaviour anyone shows nowadays, somebody somewhere can find a diagnostic category for it. While I agree that part of the increase in cases is because of heightened awareness, unfortunately along with that there's likely a whole bandwagon of people being put in that category just because (in short) they're geeky.

The bottom line is we can't conclude much of anything definite about what relationship there might be between environmental effects and autism, or any other neurological disorder, until we can reliably diagnose them on some physical basis and then track correlations. We're not there yet, and we know there are problems when exposure is strong enough so we shouldn't be closing our minds to the possibility of influence on a smaller scale. This, by the way, is the standard way of deciding if drugs and similar things are safe for use. It's not practical to test them for many years so researchers accelerate the process by giving large doses and extrapolating downwards from the results.


Ethylmercury and methylmercury have very different toxicities. Methylmercury accumulates in the body in repeated exposure over time, and thus is toxic. Ethylmercury does not. Thimerosal contains ethylmercury.

True; thimerosal is not something to panic over, and neither are any amalgam fillings you already have or the tuna you may be eating. Some may be panicking here, too, I'll admit. :) I'm not telling anyone to panic, though, and my point is much more reasonable. Even though the risk from these things is very small at worst, if you don't need to take it, why do so?


And if mercury was a legitimate concern, people would rally against seafood, not thimerosal, since seafood contains more.

Bad example... Doctors and scientists do advise against eating too much tuna or other high-mercury seafood (one can per week is the current recommended limit, if I recall rightly). A shot of thimerosal is even more exposure on top of that, albeit short-lived. Small risks can add up to bigger ones.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 83 (view)
 
H1N1 vaccine. Are you getting a shot?
Posted: 11/18/2009 1:19:34 PM
The lifeguards with their 'pact with the devil' have been giving these 'lifejackets' year after year after year after year preventing countless millions of illness' and deaths. Lets look at the results of these demonic atrocities they cause:


No. You're lumping all vaccines together, and they are decidedly not all of equal effectiveness, safety or benefit. Immunizing kids against polio is a no-brainer. That doesn't remotely prove that it's a good idea to immunize them against flu as well.


Thanks to immunization programs that require children to receive vaccinations, infectious diseases like smallpox and polio have been completely or nearly eradicated in the United States.


What they never tell you with these boasts is this: if and when smallpox re-appears (fairly likely since it's thought to be just a random mutation of cowpox) it will be absolutely devastating because almost nobody will have any immunity to it. Even those of us who were immunized against it as kids have long since lost our immunity: the protection conferred by shots varies greatly, and smallpox immunization is thought to be good for only about 20-30 years. That's why there are still stockpiles of variola (smallpox) around; so we can quickly mass-produce more vaccine if needed. Of course, if the new strain is different enough from the old that vaccine doesn't work, we'll have a rather large problem on our hands. If smallpox does erupt again, people will have fond memories of this silly fuss about H1N1 and how trivial it seemed compared to that real problem.

This is the trouble with immunization: it's an artificial technique which heightens your defences against very specific threats, at the cost of bypassing your natural immune system - which has evolved to work remarkably well generally. As long as you can control everything that happens to you, it's a great trade ... but ... we can't control everything in our environment and we don't understand our own immune systems all that well and so there's pretty much guaranteed to be new threats we haven't foreseen (like SARS and H5N1 and even H1N1). We should be questioning whether the whole approach is right, and a few people do (google "Hygiene hypothesis"). Unfortunately, the majority of the human herd seem content to thunder on blindly accepting that we've got it right. Since we got so very many similar things wrong in the 20th century, you'd think we'd learn and be more respectful of what we don't understand, but apparently not. *sigh*

Don't misunderstand: I'm not any kind of anti-vaccine campaigner and I've probably been immunized against more things than most people ever will be (last time I checked, I think the list was smallpox, polio, tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough, yellow fever, typhoid, hepatitis A & B, Japanese encephalitis and probably a couple more I forgot about). When a disease is very likely to kill you or ruin your life, like hep B or rabies, it's an easy call: go get the shot. For stuff like flu or hep A that's not really all that dangerous, more of us should really be considering the matter more carefully and not blindly taking advice on the subject.


From a biological standpoint, it doesn't make sense though. The vaccine didn't invade your child's 30 trillion cells and change the DNA in each of them to make him autistic. The child had autism when he left the womb, you just didn't know it yet.


Yes, there is a good point there and it's one of the faster ways to shortcut that debate. Vaccines certainly aren't the sole cause of autism because it's well known that autism runs in families and so there's at least a hereditary predisposition to it.

However...

It's also very well known from case studies that heavy metal poisoning (mercury in particular) can cause symptoms much like autism, as well as other neurological disabilities. Furthermore, the current state of psychology/psychiatry/neurology is such that diagnosing neurological disorders, including autism and even more grossly obvious things like MS, is subjective and difficult - and there's no likelihood of that changing any time soon. That presents obvious problems in running large-scale surveys to answer the question of whether small doses of neurotoxins cause subtle damage; even if there is a real effect there's not much chance of seeing it. It took decades of collecting data to convince the powers-that-be that spewing lead into the air with exhaust fumes was making people stupider and really not a good idea - and that's a downright easy thing to measure compared to autism rates.

Although neuroscience is a young field, it's already clear from it that chemicals in our environment do affect brain function, even when they don't show physical effects. That's not enough reason to panic, but it is reason to be cautious and there is a good proven approach to complex matters we don't understand well: tread lightly, be respectful, change as little as possible (that is the basis of the Hippocratic oath, is it not?) So... we haven't seen any evidence that the dosage of thimerosal in vaccines is damaging, but we do very definitely know that mercury is bad news and that's enough reason to be concerned. If you don't need to expose yourself to it, then not doing so is a smart strategy.

But anyway, the mercury flap still really doesn't say much about immunization. Thimerosal is just a preservative, and you can get some shots without it.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 124 (view)
 
Graduate degrees
Posted: 11/17/2009 3:10:18 PM
LOL..you actually have the time to go back to archived posts and quote?

It hardly took any time. The thread popped up on my screen and it was pretty easy to remember who was on each side of this memorable debate.


Theres no contradiction. Educated people are more interesting. It doesnt have to be formal, I said educated, not degreed.

So we agree there, then.

Your overall tone, Traveller, is one of cynicism toward academia. Why are you so cynical?

Not cynical, disillusioned. The two things are different! :) Anyway, it's for much the same reasons you said you were glad you'd changed career paths; too much first-hand experience with the world of academia. I know full bloody well that there are lots of people in academia who are there because they like the position and lifestyle, and who aren't motivated by any great desire to learn or teach - because I met and got to know scads of them personally while I was still stuck in academia myself.

At the more benign end were people who'd say "they have to fund this project for the good of the (academic) community." Bzzt wrong! Researchers aren't providing any vital social service like doctors or dentists that makes them inherently handy to keep around; they justify their existence by the work they do, and that's how it should be. At the other end are blatant as$holes such as the one Gourmand quoted, who really think they are better than everyone else and have some inherent right to crap on them. They're not even worth answering, better just to avoid them in the first place.

Why cant we accept someone without looking at their education?

Erm... you just said educated people are more interesting. Are you now suggesting we should accept people regardless of whether they're boring or not? :P I'll just assume you mean we shouldn't count their degrees, but please be more clear just to save confusion.

Anyway, I don't care if people have degrees or not. I have never cared. I've dated women with Ph.Ds and have ex's who never got farther than high school. My friends run the range from shopkeepers to professors and university department heads. My original point, repeated and misunderstood or ignored many times since, is that a degree doesn't tell you if people are interesting. It's weird and telling that so many people get defensive at that simple observation and seem to conjure up some (totally non-existent) bias against people with education. This is doing nothing to convince me I'm in any way wrong in thinking that lots of academic-types are motivated more by social instincts than any desire for learning or understanding.

You seem to imply that snobs are educated, I know alot of snobs who arent. Snob is as snob does.

Sure, there are lots of people who are proud of being stupid and ignorant. I personally think this is one of the bigger signs the US is on a road to disaster, and it's worrying to see the phenomenon popping up in Canada as well. Then there are the more traditional sorts who hate everybody with an education, and many of them might just be cases of sour grapes. This thread isn't about them, though. It's about graduate degrees and the people who claim to have them.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 122 (view)
 
Graduate degrees
Posted: 11/16/2009 10:11:39 PM
Peacethx... back in February you wrote:


Well, I have 2 masters degrees and a PhD and I shucked it all to become a makeup artist.

I think I should have done it sooner. The academic world is wild and wooley and filled with snobs and knob gobblers.
...
I have the same depth of conversation with my friend who is a nurse and who kayaks alot.
...
Not that I havent met some terrific people in academia. But for the most part, they werent a whole lot of fun to hang with.


Now you write:


Additionally, educated people are far more interesting to talk to. They can handle culture, politics, science, history, art and other topics. Most of the less educated folks I know, who I still dearly love for other reasons, dont have the same range and depth of conversation available to them.


That's quite a discrepancy there. Care to fill in the gap?

Personally, I usually find educated people easier to relate to ... BUT ... (and this is a big but) I do mean educated rather than schooled. A very large number of university graduates I run into (and even more students) don't seem significantly more capable of reasoning than the average joe. They just parrot with a bigger vocabulary. It might take a little bit longer to run into the limits of their knowledge but when you do they tend to get even more snotty, indignant and defensive about their ignorance than unschooled folks - and with a disturbingly small amount of practice it's usually downright easy to trip them up. These are the people who go around saying things like "history tells us..." or "we know from science..." ... and the ones who hate saying "I don't know." They're all about data and information rather than truth or understanding.

University is still one of the easiest ways to get started on a life of learning, and so it still selects people who really want to educate themselves and become more capable thinkers generally. It also attracts and selects snobs who just want a degree for more status, and I fear those people have largely taken over. Even if not, there are so damned many of them that, on balance, having graduated from university really says nothing in itself about whether people can think for themselves. I think the people who do manage to get an education out of their schooling achieve it because they put themselves in situations where they are challenged, not because of the formal structure of school.

What's the practical difference? Lots of people who don't go to university also manage that trick; you just need to know where to look to find them. They're out in the real world finding other ways to scratch their inquisitive itch. I've met several dozen semi-professional globetrotters and they are more knowledgeable in many areas, more interesting to talk to, and (much) more fun to be around than the university crowd despite a typically modest level of schooling. Many of them are also a whole lot more critical-minded than people who've supposedly been taught to think better, if only because they've seen with their own eyes that much of what they're told in school and by the media is wrong.

There's also a large crowd of people who have more potential than the university snobs we've both mentioned, but who just never had the chance to go to university because of circumstances. Probably many people here could say a lot on that subject.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Choosing the Perfect Gift!
Posted: 11/16/2009 10:12:49 AM
Mostly I just don't bother thinking about it any more. My friends tend to be the unmaterialistic sort and mostly not interested in giving each other gifts so we rarely do unless it's a souvenir of something new and interesting we did that year. With no kids to buy for, that only leaves one family gift to think about every year and it's nearly impossible to find anything they (or I) need or want so every year we just give each other a big box mostly filled with whatever food items look likely to please.

Maybe one of these days we'll finally believe each other when we all say "don't give us anything, there's nothing we need or want and we don't care" but probably not. :P No matter how much we hate playing games, some of them are just unavoidable. *sigh*

At least it's better than years ago, when the folks used to badger me repeatedly to tell them what they could give me, starting from around mid-October. That used to be seriously annoying.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 83 (view)
 
Doin' it with socks or shoes on
Posted: 11/16/2009 9:37:36 AM
Well this might be the most interesting thing you've necroposted to date, BE...

Anyway, thick wool socks really ruin the moment, and shoes are totally out!

... unless, that is, you're doing it on a hillside or rooftop or some other place where traction is probably a good idea. Flip flops are a sensible notion while doing it in the shower, too.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 8 (view)
 
You and your IDEALS....do you stuggle with them?
Posted: 11/14/2009 2:40:51 PM
Unlike apparently everybody else here, I didn't discover "The Happy Hooker" until long after I was a teenager... As I recall, I read it while I was stuck in Nairobi with giardia, back around 1995. So... The version I read had her postscript written 15 or 20 years after the fact, in which she commented on how naive she'd been regarding her pimp and similar things. Nevertheless, it was an interesting read which countered all kinds of common impressions of prostitutes, and I always appreciate it when people explode myths.


Was there something in your life that caused you to question your reality of what is? Something that takes you back and leaves you to question your direction in life?


Many things... I've made a career out of questioning apparent reality. :) That's probably as much a matter of personality as anything, but there have been things I've read and seen and experiences I've had with people that all together have made me not want to sit still and be part of the herd.


Is there something that still causes you to struggle when it comes to ideals.


Nowadays I'm pretty pragmatic, so it's tempting to say no ... but ... on the other hand I've just finished a couple weeks work systematically going through piles of old stuff I had in storage and willfully getting rid of it with an eye to actively forgetting and letting go of all kinds of old memories which are either not great or just taking up too much mental space. So something must have changed. It used to be important to me to remember all I'd seen and done (alone and with other people) but now I think "eh nobody cares but me" so why not pick & choose and colour my own thinking?

I don't know exactly when or why I switched from the old scientist-mode thinking, so the cause can't have been too memorable. :) Probably it's just like the other times I suddenly decided to make big 90 degree turns in my life, some idea that just percolated up out of seeming nowhere.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 28 (view)
 
What did you dream of being as a child?
Posted: 11/11/2009 1:52:18 PM

Traveller-Where have you travelled to?


Going by the "official" Century Club list of countries, I've been to Canada, the US, Ireland, N. Ireland, Scotland, England, Wales, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, San Marino, Vatican City, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Liechtenstein, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Morocco, Gran Canaria, The Gambia, Senegal, Mali, Burkina-Faso, Ghana, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, Macau, China, Corfu, Thrace, Rhodos, Western Sahara, Sumatra, Bali, Hainan, Crete, Gibraltar, Ethiopia, Ceuta, Monaco, Singapore and possibly a couple more places I can't remember.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 51 (view)
 
H1N1 vaccine. Are you getting a shot?
Posted: 11/9/2009 11:02:03 PM
My reading suggests that it is not a matter of ...if... it's a matter of when.

H5N1 is deadly to humans but not very infectious. If that changes it'll likely be very dangerous. If not, well yes, some other strain of killer flu will come along sooner or later.

I have wondered at times if all the fuss over the flu is indeed some sort of preparedness exercise for a really dangerous epidemic, but I don't have a lot of faith in that explanation any more. In any event, the real risk in hyping it up is that people become cynical and stop listening to any advice on the subject (just as they did with SARS, which was much more dangerous than this flu epidemic). Overpreparing is counter-productive. Hence my comment about crying wolf.


The 'Boy Who Cried Wolf" made up a fantasy in order to get attention :( Do you really think this is the same situation?


Separating hype from useful drill isn't always easy but there are clearly some people saying things for reasons that amount to "getting attention", and who knows how many more leaping on the bandwagon for other inobvious purposes? Just look at the squabbling idiots in our parliament arguing about whether the government has let us all down producing H1N1 vaccine. This is pretty transparent posturing for political gain, since a) it's not clear the risk is high enough to see it as a crisis, b) even if it is, it's not clear that our preparations will do much good (and there is precedent for rushed vaccines doing real harm), and c) does anybody really believe the opposition would have done things significantly better, anyway?
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 49 (view)
 
H1N1 vaccine. Are you getting a shot?
Posted: 11/9/2009 9:40:59 PM

You know if you have the chance to get the shot and dont, I think you are really taking a chance. Listen to what the people who have it are saying. It sounds nasty.

Also, don't you think when you get the vaccine you do it for other people too? Because none of us want to be carriers of a flu that can be potentially deadly, do we?


Too much drama. Flu, whether an older strain or the latest H1N1, mutation, can cause serious illness but it's not a killer disease to panic over, nor even one which requires special precautions. Every time you eat out you're taking a chance on getting food poisoning, Hepatitis A, and probably other illnesses which are all as dangerous as the flu - yet people don't panic and reshape their lives over those, they just take the risk in stride.

Yes, this strain of flu is new, but new flu strains are hardly a new thing. We've all survived previous exposure to many strains of flu totally new to our immune systems and are overwhelmingly likely to survive exposure to this one, too.

If you choose to go the route of taking vaccinations to lessen that already-small risk and make your life more convenient, that's your choice, but nobody should feel bad or guilty for deciding otherwise.

If a deadly strain DOES come along (ie H5N1 mutates and starts spreading from person to person), then it's time to worry. Until then, go re-read the story of the boy who cried wolf.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 50 (view)
 
Organ donation - Opt-in or Opt-out?
Posted: 11/7/2009 2:22:33 PM
... or... if it were your spouse/child/parent dying because some perfectly healthy idiot on a motorcycle crashed and was brain dead but didn't have a signed donor card with the potential to affect up to 9 other lives...

Erm... no. With all due respect for your loss, YGF, I can't let this stand. People aren't dying because there are no organs on hand to transplant. They're dying because they have diseases or injuries that leave them in need of new organs. This is like saying "I'm broke because people won't give me money." Harsh though it may be to say, it is ultimately the recipient's problem. While people should be applauded for donating organs it's their right and their choice not to, and there are lots of good respectable reasons why they might not want to donate.


Once again, the Canadian donor pool is sadly limited because we have seatbelt laws and gun control.

I hope that's dark humour and you don't really mean to say it's a bad thing that fewer people are dying accidentally!


The drivers' licence option is no longer valid and the only way to register is by actively sending in a card - postage paid even, for chrissakes, and still people are too lazy.

Lazy? This is the first I've heard that it doesn't go with driver's licensing any more, and now I'm wondering if the card I filled in ages ago still has any validity. Not only that, I don't know where I could check or get one of these postcards to send in. I don't think I'm being lazy on the matter; there are no end of equally important things to mind and we can't all think about them all the time.

That does point up one very obvious thing that could be done to boost donation rates - improve the abysmal communication on the subject! (Somebody suggested that already, right?)


Why not have the kids declare their intent in school? Before they get their drivers' licence? Grade 10-11, whatever, give them a card and have them fill in a YES/NO privately.

Can kids legally decide for themselves? If their relatives wanted to fight about it twenty years later, would a high-school form hold up?

What other places could we grab everybody and ask them to say Yes or No definitively? Health care paperwork won't do because there'll often be one person handling it all for the whole family. Maybe as part of the census? That doesn't happen often but it does catch every single person in Canada (as nearly as possible) with a form they have to fill in personally.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 7 (view)
 
What did you dream of being as a child?
Posted: 11/6/2009 9:23:44 AM
I wanted to be a scientist doing important experiments and working with big computers. Then, years later, I did in fact become a physicist working on the big collider ring in Switzerland with supercomputers all around me.

Then I got bored with that so quit and left to travel the world, and never went back to science. On to the next challenge... :)
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 40 (view)
 
Organ donation - Opt-in or Opt-out?
Posted: 11/6/2009 8:59:32 AM

TravellerSEB --- well you are long winded and are coming from a bit of the BS baffles brains technique lol ....you go

Name calling is not impressive, and neither are you.


Sorry , I respect your opinion as such ......but I do not agree with the argument you have presented

That first part is a blatant lie, since your last comment was clearly disrespectful... What was that about BS?

My argument is pretty simple, really. Presumed consent takes away a fundamental right and opens up potential for a very long list of abuses. We've already seen some of those abuses in other places and should be asking why they couldn't happen here.

I have yet to hear any argument from you in response. Why not answer the actual points? It's bound to work out better for you than trying to flame me... :)

Getting back to the land of reason ...


Try it this way - if there were a system that allowed for automatic organ donation, how long would it be before the bulk of the needed transplants were completed and the demand lower?


It's an interesting question. With constantly-improving techniques and a higher rate of success with transplants, the demand for them is probably set to rise for a long while to come. Probably it'll continue until some point far in the future when we can grow organs from stem cells, which would be an all-around better solution.


... or if they offered some tax deduction for a live donation (kidney, liver lobe) that people would be more willing to do that and not have to worry about taking time off work, etc?


Probably. Why stop there? We can buy organs directly as they do in some other countries and then we can have a long list of people lining up to sell them, just like they do. That would reduce the demand for organ-trafficking rings a bit but then we'd have to watch that our own system didn't coerce people into selling organs, and there would surely be a tremendous outcry as soon as somebody discovers that poor people are much more likely to sell bits of themselves than rich people. In short, we'd be more like the US and we can already see the downside to their way of doing things. Nevertheless, it's not a bad idea - the potential for corruption there seems a bit less than with presumed consent. I don't think it's likely to happen, though. Canadians aren't even keen on the idea of paying for blood donations (or weren't last I heard).


So far as the Chinese executions, my information was (at the time we did our transplant) that the Asian community had the lowest donor level in BC, yet one of the highest demand levels. A cultural thing? Thoughts?


Yes, it is clearly a cultural thing. Traditional Chinese belief has it that your ghost will reflect the shape of your body when you die (or something like that), so if you're missing body parts that's bad news for the afterlife. Probably most of them don't consciously believe it any more than most white Canadians believe in hellfire, but these kinds of beliefs tend to lurk in the backs of people's minds and influence their thoughts whether they like to consciously admit it or not.

But that's just a detail... the point is the tremendous potential for abuse there. The system in China is such that somebody might be convicted of fraud, executed, and then have their organs donated against their will. Are you ok with that? If so, are you still fine with it knowing that there are an awful lot of corrupt officials there and the only real protection against their abuses is to have connections of your own? Is it hard to conceive that there probably are judges being extra harsh in their sentencing so they can bump up their donation numbers and fill some quota for which they're being paid under the table? It's not hard to picture for those of us who've lived there.

That's the problem with this whole line of thinking. People just see the obvious benefits to the organ recipient but don't see all the potential problems for society in general. Why doesn't Canada have the level of abuse these other places do? Because we have a culture and a legal system which protects individuals and their rights. Lately there seems to be an endless parade of people wanting to chisel away that structure to satisfy their particular needs, and although they all clearly believe they are doing good the end result is likely to work out badly for everyone. Presumed consent for organ donation is just one clear and easy example of the phenomenon.

Also, I do entirely agree with the practical point that there are a whole lot more intermediate steps we could be taking to increase donation rates. Even above and beyond the arguments of principle, I don't see any need to make the system opt-out. It's just a lazy way of getting to the ends they want.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Organ donation - Opt-in or Opt-out?
Posted: 11/5/2009 9:04:23 AM

I 100 % disagree with the above statment and then as I read further in the thread I was dismayed to find many people who agreed and were against the opt-out system.


Personally, I'm dismayed by the number of people who apparently think they have some right to other people's organs after they're done with them!

Organ donations are a gift and a favour by kind-hearted souls who want to save lives. For people to start demanding them is beyond rude and well into outrageous. Yes, there is an endless list of people who can benefit from organ transplants. That does NOT, repeat NOT justify all measures to get them. People should not be seen as a stock of raw materials.

So you don't see why anybody would care what happens to their organs after death. So what? What business is that of yours? Who gave you the right to decide what should happen to their body? Presumed consent is just substituting "the government" for "you," no difference in principle.


I am all for human rights but if someone is going to die or suffer
while waiting to "protect " my rights after I sopped breathing is a bit extreme.... I am surprised because I find the argument against cold ,insensitive and without any real merit.


Obviously you're not ALL for human rights if you don't respect even that most basic right to decide what happens to your own body. As for it being insensitive ... yeh., taking organs from recently-dead people without their express consent is REALLY sensitive! Jeez. I can already hear the angry protests from hypothetical future furious families.


>> and frankly , I see nothing wrong with harvesting organs from executed prisoners. I think Clifford Olsen should have been chopped up and passed around long ago ....


A few minutes boning up on Google should turn up lots of problems. Aside from the basic question of whether prisoners give up all their rights or not, there's the concern that this encourages more executions. This is not some hypothetical horror fantasy, by the way. These are exactly the arguments raised about China's very high rate of executions, many of which are for non-violent crimes.

I do believe in donating organs, and I've been an organ donor for as long as I've had a driver's license. Nevertheless... if the system ever becomes "opt-out" I will immediately opt out and fire off a letter of protest while doing it.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 18 (view)
 
The M Word - Marriage
Posted: 11/4/2009 1:24:56 PM
I wish I could remember what questions I was asked about marriage in which quiz; then I might have some idea if this is reliable. If it's just catching people who are "interested" in marriage, that's not much use. On the other hand, if they all clearly and unmistakably answered something like "yes it's important to me to be married, as soon as possible" then I very definitely would like to know about it (so I can avoid those people)!
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Organ donation - Opt-in or Opt-out?
Posted: 11/2/2009 6:42:34 PM
I'm absolutely against an opt-out system. Protection of your person is the most basic of all rights and we should never, ever set precedents which suggest any organization (least of all one connected to the government) is entitled to our bodies in any way. There are just so many ways that can go bad it's frightening. It's not really much different in principle from the way the Chinese government harvests the organs of executed prisoners.

However, I have no problem with forcing people to give a definitive Yes or No answer to the question as part of the driver licensing routine.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 89 (view)
 
Flu shots...
Posted: 10/30/2009 10:10:21 AM

Thanks Traveller, that clears up one more question for me. I am high risk though, so wonder if in that case you would change your philosophy were you also?


Possibly. It's hard to say because it's a different way of thinking; I'm more focused on not getting into any of the high-risk categories in the first place. That works for me personally but might very well not apply to you; nobody knows our own health better than us so we all have to make up our own minds.

But on that note... the whole hype over flu shots is just one corner of a much bigger issue. Is it better to try to manage your health with technology, or to try to adapt yourself and stay naturally healthy? It's a philosophical issue but one with very real and immediate personal consequences. Our parents' generation grew up at a time when science & technology were whacking down ancient health problems, and a widespread attitude developed that you could solve all your health problems by taking a pill or some treatment. Somewhere around the eighties the problems with this way of thinking started to become so visible nobody could miss them, and nowadays we should all know better. I, and probably most of you, have watched a steady stream of "the folks" ruin their bodies over time to the point where nowadays (if they're still alive) they're held together by pills and surgery. The basic lesson is clear, yet we still stumble on the details; medicine should not be our first answer to every health problem that comes along.

The flu shot is just one example of the issue, but it's a good one. People have been around a long time and endured countless generations of flu before, and we've survived. It's tempting to think we can improve on that success with a little harmless jab but our bodies are complex (and at times chaotic) systems we still don't understand all that well, and everything we do to them has side effects which might be cumulative and might not be obvious. In other fields when faced with complex systems we don't understand, the obvious smart approach is to treat them with respect and proceed slowly, making minimal changes. The principle is just as valid applied to health.

On the other hand, it is fair to wonder if we've changed the environment to generate extra risk which requires an active response. If the plague starts spreading fast because of modern air travel, we shouldn't wonder about natural resistance and immunity but should just do everything we can to stop it. H1N1 is not in that category of problem (although it's quite conceivable another flu strain might be in future) and so, to my mind, does not merit the technological approach.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 87 (view)
 
Flu shots...
Posted: 10/29/2009 12:14:14 PM
I think it is disturbing with this virus that a perfectly healthy young person can die. Usually with the seasonal varieties we have experienced, it has been those with underlying conditions.


That's standard stuff for a new virus. The older you are, the more immunity you'll have to new flu strains because there's more chance you've already been exposed and developed antibodies to some other virus that's coincidentally similar. It's a hit-and-miss thing, though. A twelve year old might already be resistant to it because by sheer luck they caught some vaguely similar strain while living abroad, and a 35 year old might die from it because they've never had any exposure to anything similar and the virus infects them very quickly without antibodies to slow it down.

I don't plan to get either the H1N1 or the regular flu shots. Mostly that's because of basic philosophical disagreements with the entire notion of flu immunization - I said lots about it previously, but in short the point is that I think we're doing ourselves more harm in the long run by immunizing ourselves against diseases that aren't really all that serious. The new H1N1 strain isn't much more dangerous than regular flu (so far, anyway) so I figure taking my chances is the better option, and I just try to stay healthy generally so I'm even more likely to survive if I do get it. Besides, there's a fair chance I've already had it, about three weeks ago. :)

On the other hand, if H5N1 ever mutates and starts spreading person-to-person, I might very well be the first person in line for a shot!
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 49 (view)
 
how many threads?
Posted: 10/25/2009 9:55:54 AM
I am curious if anyone has an opinion as to WHY this may have happened. Is this not just the "ebb and flow" of the pond or is it much more sinister.....


It's an inevitable result of the self-moderation system POF runs. When you let people vote on which threads to keep, it's opening the doors for the Anal Self-Appointed Forum Police to kill everything they disapprove of, so naturally you wind up with one tedious thread after another.

Community forums are best run with a light touch, much like the mayor of a small town might use in his real community. Take action only when really needed. Ignore most differences of opinion and let people squabble. If they really start creating too much noise pollution it's generally better to point them to one thread rather than censoring them outright. I've seen more than one forum killed by admins and moderators who just never understand that adults won't put up with being nanny-ed.

To manage them properly you also need good technical tools, such as the ability to easily move posts from one thread to another, merge and split threads, and so on. Although I don't have any inside information, I guess POF is quite deficient in that area since I never see mods doing any of those things. It also helps a lot to give the users more power to filter out things they don't like; at a minimum that takes away any grounds they have for whining about threads they dislike for no good reason.

That's my not-so-humble opinion based on nearly thirty years contributing to forums, administering forums, moderating forums and writing the code for forum systems. Attach whatever value to it you see fit. I'll predict in advance that the Anal Self-Appointed Forum police will find ways to disapprove, but most other people will agree. Some might even say so. :P
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 5 (view)
 
The Tyranny of Excess Skin
Posted: 10/25/2009 8:08:29 AM
As I recall, the "loose skin" problem is actually a problem with remaining fat. Skin itself is very thin and quite elastic and doesn't hang loosely.

So maybe what you really need to do is lose that last 10 kg...
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 61 (view)
 
Are all men potential rapists?
Posted: 10/22/2009 4:08:40 PM
As a mother, would you call my plea for safer streets an angry philosophy?

No, but what does this have to do with anything? I don't have any problem with them warning people about rape, either.

I do have a problem with tactics which slander and alienate half the human race, regardless of who's behind them. If that happens to include a category of people you sympathize with, that is regrettable but ... as you say, it is about doing what is right. Telling people that all men are dangerous is clearly not right. Inferring it as she did is subtly less wrong but still wrong.

I can understand individual victims having all sorts of reactions to trauma including fear of and hostility towards men in general, and I'm not bothered by the occasional bit of nasty venting. This is quite a different thing from professional figures like Flynn making deliberate public efforts which stir up hostility and suspicion. That is irresponsible at best.

You call it bashing - as most men do who see their rights taken from them - I call it empowering as a woman.

What? You can't have power without attacking other people? Is this really what you want to tell us???

Rape Relief's approach is integrated and blended with its political belief that women suffer oppression from birth and should resist male violence by working together with others who are peers in their experience of that oppression. This approach is apparent in Rape Relief's approach to its work and the consistency between the way it works and its political beliefs, such as its offering of "Support, Education and Action" groups.

Thanks for posting that - that's the best example yet of the point I was making. Flynn's group is not simply out to counsel rape victims, they have much broader goals. Thus, it's fair to wonder if this provocative statement of hers is intended to be more than advice to prevent rape.


To know that this act of rape has it’s basis founded as a gender trait leaves much to be desired in the way of safety for a number of women.

Are you saying that rape is normal behaviour for men??? If so, we are done here.

ML said a while back....

the troubles with such "brilliance " are that they are demagogic and while one can only guess intent, the results often lead to inciting hatred because of peoples emotions and in particular those who "jump onto the cause" lacking abilities (or willingness)to reason.

Yes, that nails it. She's raising awareness at the cost of stirring up hostility towards men. Preventing rape is a good cause on which we can never do enough, agreed, but that doesn't make all means acceptable. This is no better than somebody advancing their cause by stirring up hostility towards women. The difference is that she can get away with doing it whereas a man who said similar things about all women would immediately be buried in complaints about sexist discrimination.

In fact, getting political power by stirring up anger and hate is just generally not acceptable and it seems to be becoming a more and more common thing in Canada lately. Are we so blind that we can't see tearing society apart is a bad thing? I suppose that's the most basic reason why I keep speaking up on these topics. Usually it's conservatives or Conservatives raising my hackles. This case is unusual that way.


MOST men do not rape. MOST men are not gratuitiously violent, and even those who might be predisposed toward violence tend to target other men and not women. I think it would be more helpful to avoid alienating an entire gender with those kinds of statements and stick to the reality that violence, including sexual assault, is wrong - no matter who does it, and no matter who its done to.

Well said ... however... this does touch on one point which I haven't noticed anyone make yet. A rather different answer to "all men are potential rapists" is this: most men would probably have to resist the urge to hurt or kill a rapist if they caught one in action (and a very great many would just go ahead and beat them senseless or dead). Probably a big part of the reason you don't hear more men speaking on the subject is that most men simply hate sexual predators and don't feel any need to say anything about it because they have no problems with that.


What is a better tact, is to state that the social status of women in various societies makes them victims of male domination. And that is correct for many parts of the world still. Behold Pakistani honor killings, arranged and forced marriages and forced female circumcision, to name a few atrocities committed in these cultures. What is important is that we all guard against our tendency as a species, to subjugate women and base power on sheer physical force.

More correct but still too simple. I could say lots more on the subject but that big can of worms would totally derail this thread from its intended course ... so somebody go start a new thread please.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 27 (view)
 
The google street viewer, what's your opinion?
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:15:21 AM
I tried it a couple times, found it quite impressive. They have a pretty sensible privacy policy and I don't think it's much of a concern. Everything they see could also be seen by normal people walking on the street, so the only problem I see is if they record something somebody would like to deny. They do listen to takedown requests, which sounds like a good enough solution to me.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 2 (view)
 
New Google Map feature, invasion of privacy?
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:11:15 AM
Duplicate thread, probably soon to be killed...
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Bus driver caught playing sudoku while driving
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:09:27 AM
It'd be even better if something was done about all the scumbags who ride the bus for free and often get verbally and even physically abusive to the bus drivers!


Sounds good to me. I wonder if things are any better now that they have the new "fare paid zone" policy?


I wouldn't tarnish a whole company because of one bad egg.


Who's tarnishing any company? It's just a simple question asking what people think, see, etc.


Aren't you the same fool who thinks the HST is a good thing? Duh!!


Something crawl up your backside and die? Jeez the mood is nasty around here lately. Maybe it's the return of the rain...


And texting! Tons of people (mostly kids... ie, under 25 years old... and women) out there texting while driving.


I haven't noticed that much around here, although I remember a couple big news stories including that conductor who crashed the train back east while texting. What I do notice is that every time I hear horns blaring in an intersection, or somebody almost runs me over in the crosswalk, there always seems to be a cell phone stuck to an ear in the middle of the mess.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Bus driver caught playing sudoku while driving
Posted: 10/21/2009 9:50:26 AM
In the news this morning ...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/10/21/bc-sukoku-bus-driver-vancouver-surrey.html

A bus driver was steering his down the highway out near Langley, pulled out a sudoku book and started doing puzzles on top of the steering wheel while driving. One of the passengers noticed him and had seen him doing similar things before, so he pulled out his phone and took a picture of the guy then turned him in.

Comments?

I've never seen anything that extreme but I've seen drivers yakking on their cell phone several times (and I don't mean just a quick call home to say they'd be an hour late, I mean in-depth conversations). I don't think it's a big problem but definitely something to keep an eye on.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just as easily bust all the regular bad drivers who almost run us over because they're too busy gabbing on their cell phones and not paying attention?
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Things That Make You Go Ewww
Posted: 10/20/2009 11:40:14 PM

Well, since you asked, when I am walking my hounds early in the morning sometimes I see what looks like human vomit on the sidewalk and then one of my dogs will start eating it.


Hahahah... Dogs are like a bottomless cornucopia of disgusting stories. If there's something disgusting around, you can count on the mutt to find it and either eat it or roll in it (or maybe even both).

Nothing would make me go "ewww" but I do recall having moments of queasiness when I found my dog eating from the cat's litter box.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 27 (view)
 
Are all men potential rapists?
Posted: 10/20/2009 9:43:41 PM

I simply suggested that the poster was trying to minimize the problem. I still think so.


No. I'm just sticking to the topic which is a claim made by a particular person that all men are potential rapists. See, it's written up there at the top of the screen. You are the one wandering way off topic with spurious arguments.


If this poster were to consider my comments with an open mind, perhaps he will find that even mavens could use a little educating from time to time, even when the source of that education is female, loud, unbound and passionate!


Educating on what exactly? Do you think I, or anyone else here, is unaware that rape is a problem? What exactly do you hope to achieve by ranting about it at great length and making rude insinuations? Do you think maybe you're going to convince some wannabe rapist here that it's not a good idea after all? Are you hoping to lead us further off topic to some other points you wish to make about gender inequality more generally? In short, what is your point? Do you even have one?

Clearly you are in that category of unreasonable people who like to fight. Thanks for demonstrating that; I'll remember it in future and not waste any more time on you here.


^ what I am talking about... if you don't know the guys fairly well, you just don't know.


While it's surely natural to be more afraid of men you don't know, I seem to recall that most rape by far is committed by someone the victim does know.

On my way out to pick up pizza tonight I was thinking further about that and it occurred to me that's one of at least three different ways you could interpret the statement "all men are potential rapists." It could be a simple warning to be suspicious of all men generally or it could be a specific reminder that just because you know somebody doesn't mean you're safe or it could also be a mean-spirited comment on male nature in general. Given that vagueness, if it's advice it's pretty crappy. On the other hand, if it's intended to force people to think seriously about the matter then it's a brilliant success.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Canada's anti-spam law
Posted: 10/20/2009 7:22:55 PM
Thanks for posting that! I should've been all over it when I heard the call on Friday but, frankly, I'm worn out fighting these f*#@ing battles so happy to let somebody else carry the can this time.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Are all men potential rapists?
Posted: 10/20/2009 6:15:28 PM
oh baloney. She is talking about rape. Unless you think that rape is a legitimate way for men to wage the so-called "battle of the sexes"? That is exactly my point. We take rape far too lightly in this society


WTF??? Talk about a leap to conclusions ... and one as offensive as the original statement. Kindly control yourself. You're spouting nonsensically.


Singling out men? I don't believe this male rights garbage.


What male rights garbage? She identified men specifically - "All men are potential rapists." That's what singling out means. What the hell does this have to with any men's rights sites??


These women are angry for a just reason!


Well that's the crux of the matter... If this were somebody else saying this I probably would've only commented that it makes sense as a practical matter although it's also rather paranoiac. However, this isn't just any random person saying this. Ms. Flynn has a history and a background which I was already somewhat familiar with, and I think it is a fair guess that she's bashing men in general. It's also certainly not true that all rape counsellors or victims blame men in general. The editorial BE cited quotes another equally prominent rape shelter spokeswoman who has quite a different view of life.

But don't take my word for it. Make up your own mind. ...

Their website is http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/faq/index.html The political and feminist slant of it will be immediately apparent.

Here's another telltale quote from Aurea Flynn:


I believe that woman only space is necessary for women to seek peer help and gain strength to enable them to resist sexist oppression, in an otherwise male dominated world. In a world where women only spaces are harder and harder to find, I am gladdened to hear about the new Women only Pharmacy in Vancouver, and thank the Vancouver Women’s Health collective for the good work they do.


That's from a comment she made defending Lu's Pharmacy (for women only) when they turned away transsexual women. (Whole thing at http://www.straight.com/article-240560/lus-pharmacy-rejects-transgender-customer).

There was an article about the centre in the Vancouver Courier some months ago, as well (maybe even a couple years now, don't remember) which had a lot more to say about the approach and counselling methods they took. I don't have an online link for it, unfortunately, but that's where I first read about her.

I think we can make a fair guess at her views and position from all that. She's a feminist advocate of woman's rights (all good so far) who thinks male-domination of society is evil (questionable logic but whatever) and who tends to get carried away with public statements and is willing to stir up anger and even hate to further her goals (which is totally not OK, with me at least). What are the goals of feminism? Looking into it from outside, it seems to me its value is in freeing women and giving them more power over their own lives. However, there really do seem to be some women who just want to use the feminist banner as a weapon to club the opposite sex, and going by her public statements she does appear to be one of them. For sure there are also lots of men equally guilty of equivalent behaviour, although they're not the immediate issue. Anyway, that sort of thing is what I meant when I said some people just want to win the battle of the sexes at all costs. I don't think they're really interested in educating anyone or settling anything, just fighting. Are you in that category? If so, please just let me know now so I can stop wasting time trying to reason with you.

Wandering onto other asides from the more rewarding bits of this thread:

Yes, there are woman rapists. They are much less common but far from unknown. I named one famous example already - Karla Homolka. Although inconvenient to those who want to believe rape is normal sexual behaviour for men, I trust that datum will be appreciated by those interested in truth.

For those proposing rapists be chemically castrated ... do you then believe that rape is about sex rather than power? Pretty much every authority I've ever heard from on the subject believes differently (as do I, for whatever it's worth). If rape is just another form of violence then it's worth questioning whether the causes that motivate it have anything to do with sexual urges - and thus whether castration would achieve anything other than "eye for an eye" punishment.

There's an interesting book (written by a feminist author) on subjects related to all this - "When She Was Bad." Check it out sometime, fascinating read.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Are all men potential rapists?
Posted: 10/20/2009 4:21:08 PM
How do you feel about Flynn's claim?


"All men are potential rapists" makes a certain paranoiac sense as a practical tip ... but ... I have the lurking feeling that it's more an angry philosophy than a practical tip, and this isn't the first time I've heard similar stuff from her group. Unfortunately, there are some people out there (both female and male) who just want to win the battle of the sexes at any cost.

As you might guess, I disagree with what she said and find it offensive, both for singling out men (*cough* Karla Homolka *cough*) and for its general cynicism.


Every human being has the potential to commit every act under the right circumstance if there is absolutely no fear of negative consequence.


More stuff in the category of "literally true but of no practical application."
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 81 (view)
 
Flu shots...
Posted: 10/18/2009 11:55:13 AM
I found this article quite interesting:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1

Apparently there are some researchers in the field questioning whether flu shots work at all, even for elderly and immune-compromised people. The group cited in the article reviewed immunization, infection and mortality rates and found the entire supposed benefit of flu shots could be explained more simply by another well-known and obvious phenomenon, the "healthy user" effect: people who get flu shots are less likely to die of flu because they tend to be the same people who take care of themselves in general.

I've never looked into that angle of it on my own; not being in any of the high-risk categories myself, it was enough for me to realize that a flu shot was a bad idea for me personally. However, ever since I moved back to Canada in 2004 I've wondered why there's such a big pressure campaign to get flu shots, against normal flu or H1N1. It's really quite strange and smells of hysteria, similar to the frenzied panic over peanut allergies in some quarters. That's one advantage of living overseas for a long time, I guess; these little incongruities just leap out at you when exposed to them fresh, whereas if I'd been here for years they might have snuck up on me with a sense of creeping normalcy.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Olympic Bridge Patrols??
Posted: 10/15/2009 5:55:44 PM
I do not buy into the 'Infringement of Civil Liberties' bullcrap when it comes to people committing suicide in a public place and law enforcement try to prevent stop them.


*sigh*...

The whole jumping issue is BS, but you bought it anyway (and so did I, at least at first). Raising the spectre of bridge suicides makes it more palatable to the public and nicely distracts attention, but I'm sure they're really much more concerned about the high probability of somebody unfurling a big anti-Olympic banner where everyone can see it. That's the real issue, and ... once again ... there is another thread to discuss anti-jumper measures.

More details would be nice. (The CBC really seems to have dropped off in quality since their last round of cutbacks). If they're just planning to watch people walking onto the bridge to see if they're carrying banners under their arm then I'm not bothered, but somehow I suspect it's likely to be much more intrusive than that - if only because simple monitoring obviously won't work (protestors can just stop a car in the middle of the bridge then get out with their banners).

 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Olympic Bridge Patrols??
Posted: 10/15/2009 2:48:57 PM
Having the attitude of "eh if they want to jump let'em" is not sympathetic. It's cruel.

Not big on irony, are you?

I've made my opinion loudly heard in regards to the jumpers topic.

This isn't about you and it isn't "the jumpers topic". It's about unreasonable restrictions on civil liberties. Please focus.

P.S. Thank you, BE, for bumping the jumper thread. All who want to carry on that discussion, please go there.


did you hear about the streets that will be closed in Vancouver? Not just the bridges

There are many alternative streets one can take and only a few bridges into downtown. If it's just a bunch of policemen keeping an eye on the bridge I don't have any particular problem with it. If they're wandering back up and forth taking up sidewalk space or, even worse, checking people who want to go over, that I do object to.


It's 2 weeks, if you can't handle not riding your bike across the bridges, which you admit you don't do every day, in the middle of February (why would anyone be riding their bike then?!), then I don't really know what to tell you.

Why would anyone walk or ride in February?

1) Because it's how we get around.
2) For exercise.
3) Because we like the view.
4) It's fun.
5) You might meet actual real live people.

In other words, for much the same reasons people indulge in all those winter sports of which the Olympics are supposedly the pinnacle. Not that it matters... I don't need to know why you want to drive to be against arbitrary road closures.


What I dislike here is the fact that they are forbidding people to protest.


Yes, that is generally obnoxious as well. One way to fight it is to keep an eye on the specifics they get up to - such as this bit, for example.

NEXT...
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Thinking of moving to Vancouver...what should I know to prepare myself??
Posted: 10/15/2009 1:21:22 PM

Final note, any recommended job agencies you ahve worked with earlier that you'd recommend?


I'm totally the wrong person to ask about that. Like many programmers, my experiences with recruiters are mostly negative. Their latest glorious achievement was when one f*#@ing idiot from Delaware called me up at 5:30 am to ask if I wanted a job doing Windows admin - twice! Around here, recruiters/agents seem to churn&burn through their jobs at a rate of about one a year, so I never know who's working where (and I rarely care, anyway).

While I realize the IT side of recruiting is a pirate ship compared to the rest of the industry, nevertheless I recommend networking rather than counting on agencies.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 4 (view)
 
2010 Winter Olympic medals
Posted: 10/15/2009 1:10:58 PM

I, for one, think they're hideous. To me, they look like something that's been left inside a hot car for too long. I don't see how the waves or ripples reflect on Canada as a whole, or even on the lower mainland.


I agree, they look like a bad joke. Who wants to wear a potato chip on a leash? Or even own one?

Having said that... I approve of them, as I approve of most things that will subtly discredit the travesty that is the Olympics.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Olympic Bridge Patrols??
Posted: 10/15/2009 1:07:51 PM
In the news this morning... Apparently there's going to be extra security on our bridges during the Olympics just to stop people from jumping or protesting:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/10/15/bc-olympic-bridge-security-vancouver.html

I'll confess up front to being one of those sympathetic souls who says "eh if they want to jump let 'em" and so I find this news annoying on many levels. As you might guess, I'm not keen on bridge security at all and not particularly impressed by special security efforts just for the Olympics either. Most annoying of all is the thought that this will probably make it painful or even impossible to walk or ride my bike across the bridges (which I do fairly regularly, although not every day).

What do the rest of you think?
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Thinking of moving to Vancouver...what should I know to prepare myself??
Posted: 10/15/2009 8:26:26 AM
So - the final thing is to find a temp agency or a job agency that can find something for me...


You might get lucky doing that, what with the Olympics only a few months away, but usually trying to job hunt remotely is a waste of time. Employers and agencies here aren't interested in you until you "have local experience" - a euphemism for people who've already lived here at least a few months. I suspect it's yet another manifestation of local clique-ism.

Most of what you'd find near UBC will probably be basement suites, and the student population is high. If that's what you want it should be reasonably cheap and it's a decent area. Some other areas are mostly apartments - Marpole and Yaletown. Some are mixed, like Kitsilano. Here's the short guide:

Yaletown - the trendy hipster area (although rapidly turning into the area for young families and single moms). Expensive but very convenient.

Kitsilano - where the beach people hang out. Nice and convenient (and expensive, naturally), but you risk dying of an overdose of cool while house-hunting. On the other hand, it has lots of pretty girls decorating the streets.

Marpole - a mostly working-class neighbourhood with heaps of apartment buildings. It's relatively cheap, unexciting but also unpretentious and friendly, quite convenient.

West End - the gay ghetto of Vancouver, although also home to lots of straight people. Heaps of skyrise apartment buildings of somewhat dodgy construction, quite nice and pleasant, not as hip as Yaletown but probably cheaper if you can find a place for rent there.

Richmond - suburban hell! Just don't even go there.

Burnaby - a bit like Marpole on a larger scale, only not as convenient and a bit more upscale depending on neighbourhood. Probably a bit cheaper than Vancouver but don't count on it, probably also not as much available to rent.

New Westminster - like Burnaby but more extreme.

Rent of $500-600 per month is optimistic at best for Vancouver, unless you're talking about one of those basement suites that students like. Definitely not the place to live if you're concerned about image and how it might affect your job chances. Rents in Marpole are around $700-$900 depending what size of place, whether you know the owner, how lucky you are. In Yaletown you're probably looking at more like $1200-$1400, and Kits would be somewhere between Marpole and Yaletown for rents (again, depending largely on whether you know people and if you're lucky).

There are other nice areas, too; I've thought of moving to Mount Pleasant, personally. However, finding a place in them isn't as easy so they're not where you want to look if you're new in town.

Public transit here isn't as good as Montreal but it's not terrible. If you're in Vancouver itself or close to Skytrain then it'll do you fine and you don't need a car. Lonsdale (North Vancouver) is probably quite manageable too, although I don't know what rents are like there.

You can hunt for apartments through the newspaper, but some of us find it more profitable to just go to the neighbourhood we like and walk around writing down phone numbers from the signs outside buildings. I bet many owners don't even bother to pay for any other advertising.

DON'T plan assuming that you're going to be working downtown and living somewhere else. For marketing jobs that's probably where you will wind up, but you never know. You might wind up commuting out to some industrial park in north Burnaby, too, or maybe even North Vancouver.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Does anyone actively work on the PoF site?
Posted: 10/13/2009 9:22:44 AM
Ok, most of you are just not getting it...

And to add to that, please tell me exactly how many companies you have ever heard of that don't cater to the whims of their customers?


Of course business owners should keep their customers happy ... but you're assuming that the users are his customers! We're not; we're more like the merchandise.

PoF makes its money selling ad space, so the real customers are the advertisers and Big Fish's goal is to have as many people as possible passing through the site and clicking on ads. If changes to the site would encourage people to stay here and not click on the ads, then from his perspective they'd be a bad move. Most things that would make the user experience better probably fall into that category, so it's not surprising he leaves the site ugly and hard to use. Forget about dating. PoF's business is SEO (Search Engine Optimization) and he's pretty good at it. The ideal for him is that the site be "just good enough" forever. Other successful SEO-driven sites that I've seen have been similarly mediocre.

What is strange is that there are still less obvious ways in which he strays from his formula which don't really make a lot of sense, at least at first glance. Why do the forums have no ads when the rest of the site does? Maybe he thinks doing it would be a net negative for advertising revenue. Why the "VIP Member" business? Does he want to annoy people and make them leave? Just conceivably the answer is yes, because regular users probably burn the most bandwidth while clicking on the fewest ads; that would explain the alienating forum changes, too. On the other hand, maybe he's just not that good or experienced at other aspects of business than SEO and was telling the truth when he said he's looking at paid subscriptions because he doesn't see the ad-revenue model paying off forever. Given his candid nature, I suspect the last explanation is probably it. But then there are also the unfixed bugs (like the one that messes up quoting when you edit a post), which can't be a good thing from any point of view.

Maybe the biggest mystery of all is why so many jump up to defend the Big Fish when people point out these things. He cynically disparages his users in public, so why should anyone have any qualms about returning the criticism? And complaining is about all you can do. Starting up a competing site isn't likely to go anywhere until and unless he really messes up and drives away the members en masse, which doesn't seem likely any time soon.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 108 (view)
 
E-mailing of passwords
Posted: 10/9/2009 4:03:07 PM
All the arguing about bill C-27 is irrelevant. Nobody can be breaking the law by any clause in that because it's a bill which has not yet become law (and may never do so).

The relevant law here is PIPEDA, and the issues with respect to it are pretty clear.

1) Passwords are definitely personal information (and all the stuff accessible once somebody has your password even more so).

2) PoF is obligated under PIPEDA to protect your personal information.

So ...

3) Is PoF breaching PIPEDA by mailing out your password in unprotected e-mail?

All the arguing about whether the information is important or not is also really just irrelevant opinion. The law doesn't consider whether the personal information is important or not. It is personal information; that's all that matters.

I say yes, PoF probably is breaking the law. It doesn't matter if you sign your life away in the Terms Of Service. There are still basic standards of reasonableness that must be met. PoF couldn't, for example, come around and steal your furniture even if you did agree to it when you signed up. That's an extreme example but the same principle. Certain things are assumed automatically in contracts because they are reasonable and expected in contracts (which is why 99% of us just skim over agreements fast rather than reading them in detail), and you have to go out of your way to emphasize them if you want to contract around them.

So, the key question is this: is it reasonable to mail out plaintext passwords periodically? Ten years ago it probably would have been, because most people weren't clued up on such issues back then. Even five years ago (when PoF appeared) you might get away with it. Nowadays pretty much everybody who does this for a living knows this is a bad idea, so it's very doubtful you could claim that their policy is reasonable. As time goes by and security awareness rises more, it'll become even more of a losing argument.

Probably the only reason the big fish hasn't had trouble with this is that nobody has cared enough to complain about it to Canada's Privacy Commissioner. I don't care that much, either, even though I do think it's a disgraceful security lapse. I just protect myself with a one-off password, and by never ever passing on any info here that I wouldn't want to be public. But eventually somebody will get burned here and complain about it, and then my guess is that POF will get a scathing assessment on the matter.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 33 (view)
 
President Obama Wins The Nobel Peace Prize!
Posted: 10/9/2009 9:46:57 AM

And how is this point ANYTHING other than completely irrelevant.

Apparently you are unaware that it only takes ONE person to nominate someone for consideration.


While I agree it's irrelevant that lots of bad guys have been nominated, don't think that just anyone can nominate people for a Nobel prize. There is a list of approved nominators, selected because (presumably) they know more than the average joe about their area.

So... what the nomination of these bad guys tells us it that there's a lot of internal debate over who gets the peace prize. In fact, judges have resigned over some of the more controversial awards. That'd be one reason why they look hard for different bases on which to hand out the peace prize.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 24 (view)
 
President Obama Wins The Nobel Peace Prize!
Posted: 10/9/2009 8:38:20 AM
There is NOTHING Obama has done that justifies this award. He's infact failed to accomplish anything of note. No health care, no peace, no end of terrorist threats, no reduction of poverty, hell not even regulations reactivated on wall street.


Nobel prizes aren't lifetime achievement awards. They're intended to promote effective change in their respective areas. Nowadays when Obama is besieged by domestic problems, it's easy to forget that he did keep his promise and order the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the wind-down of the Iraq war (and more generally start undoing all Bush's damage). As you say, he hasn't succeeded at any of this, but that's sort of the point ... they gave him the award to strengthen his position and make it easier to carry on, not simply as a decoration.

It's not the first time they've given the award out on that basis. Mikhail Gorbachev's award had a definite strategic odour to it. Much as I think the Dalai Lama is a nice guy, he hasn't actually managed to achieve much peace anywhere so his 1989 award was very clearly strategic.

Obama is also not (by far) the most controversial winner. I think Yasser Arafat is likely to hold that place for decades to come.

If the Nobel Prize does nothing other than to shake up Americans and make them realize that their perceptions of international politics are bizarrely skewed and out-of-touch, that might make this worthwhile all by itself.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Bread..
Posted: 10/5/2009 12:44:38 PM
I find myself eating less and less bread with time, mostly since I realized that almost everything we put on toast is unhealthy. That doesn't stop me from going to Subway, though.

Anyway, other sources of whole grains - oatmeal, granola, muesli, even some soups (load them up with barley).

You might try different ways of eating bread, too. I have a loaf of multigrain bread sitting on my counter for no other purpose than to dunk bits in the beef stew I made yesterday. I have been known to make whole-wheat dumplings, too.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 72 (view)
 
Flu shots...
Posted: 9/30/2009 8:50:17 AM

This Bear is really shocked at the degree of anti-science terror and paranoia around here.


Some of the anti-vaccine campaigners are obviously nutty, but I think for most people the backlash against flu shots has much more to do with the rather strange ongoing campaign from health departments to push these shots on people. So "anti-authoritarian" would be a more accurate label.


Vaccination is a very old, very well-understood treatment system that has proven itself incredibly useful and saved uncounted lives.


Old, useful, and life-saving are beyond dispute. "Well-understood" is quite another matter.


Many of the myths about autism, allergies and the like are so well debunked that every hoax site carries them, but paranoia rules.


Paranoia? Yes. Debunked? No, that's an overstatement. The "debunkings" of these theories generally pull out large-scale statistical data, from which it's fair to say that there's no obvious global link between immunization and these sorts of disorders. However, a lack of evidence is not proof of no connection. The problem with this approach is that many of the things people look at (autism, MS, or almost any other neurological disorder) are hard and subjective to diagnose so it's not clear at all that a subtle effect could show up in statistics with the current state of medicine, no matter what the cause. Contrariwise, it is abundantly clear from case studies that mercury exposure can cause these sorts of disorders so being concerned about it is quite reasonable.

However valid or invalid the dispute, though, it doesn't really say anything about immunization - thimerosal is just a preservative and not a necessary ingredient of vaccines. Some don't contain it at all.


We already know what pandemics do. Are you ready to face bubonic plague or syphillis without medical science? Should we stop trying to cure infectious diseases?


There you go with the fear-mongering again. Polio and smallpox and such are undoubtedly worthwhile to immunize against. That doesn't mean that all diseases are.


The idea that natural immunities are "better" and that vaccines are "medications" which will make us more sensitive is incomprehensible


Will they make us more sensitive? I've never seen any evidence for it, personally. Are natural immunities generally longer-lasting? Absolutely! This is very well-established. I've cited one example below. Are natural immunities "better"? That depends on your point of view. If the disease has little risk of killing you, causing permanent damage or long-term complications then it's fair to say you're better off without immunization, isn't it?

I got tired of debating this point long ago and dug up some stats on the matter from a reputable medical journal. Here, I'll reiterate it for you all:

R. J. Cox, K. A. Brokstad, P. Ogra (2004)
Influenza Virus: Immunity and Vaccination Strategies. Comparison of the Immune Response to Inactivated and Live, Attenuated Influenza Vaccines
Scandinavian Journal of Immunology 59 (1), 1-15.
doi:10.1111/j.0300-9475.2004.01382.x


Link here:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.0300-9475.2004.01382.x?cookieSet=1

On the subject of how long vaccines last:


The antibody response peaks 2-3 weeks postvaccination in primed subjects [36, 73, 74], and then wanes over time and is generally twofold lower by 6 months' postvaccination [18]



CAVs induce nasal-wash antibodies, particularly IgA, which peak 2\u201311 weeks postvaccination and generally gradually declines by 6 months [23]


(The two quotes are from sections referring to the two different kinds of vaccine available).

Understand that protection doesn't simply disappear but declines with time.. It's just a quick summary to say they're good for "up to six months." The point is you can't even count on protection from one year lasting to the next year, let alone building up with time.

On the subject of natural immunity:


Natural infection may lead to long-lasting immunity to the infecting virus, as demonstrated by the reappearance of the influenza A H1N1 subtype in 1977, when only subjects under the age of 20 years became infected [24].


Whether you get your immunity from the flu shot or naturally, there will still be lots of flu strains you're not immune to, so you're by no means safe from the flu no matter what you do. However, there is >some< chance of you being immune or resistant to it if you have natural antibodies from another strain of flu, and near enough to no chance from any shot you had longer than some number of months ago.

So, it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that the average person is better off not getting a flu shot. Note the precise wording: that doesn't mean the flu shot is bad for everyone - there are lots of "at risk" people who should get them. It also doesn't mean people are generally better off without any immunizations.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 29 (view)
 
US national health insurance and US suspicions
Posted: 9/26/2009 9:59:54 AM

Hmmm. . . the Canadians I know hold onto their Canadian citizenship because they know if they get really sick, they can go back to Canada and get taken care of.


If that's their only reason for keeping citizenship, they're making a big mistake! Health care isn't available to Canadian citizens, it's available to residents of Canadian provinces. You can't join the provincial health care system for a period of 3-6 months (depending on the province) after you move back, either.


Income tax will go up drastically to cover this.


Tax isn't the point by itself; is the total dent in your wallet going to be much more (or less) because of this, balancing taxes against medical fees? That all depends on how inefficient your current setup is.


BECAUSE doctors salaries will be capped, they won't work as hard.


On the other hand, they won't be tempted to push through as many patients as they can, as quickly as possible, either.


Because we can't sue doctors who work for the government, there may be gross negligence, sloppy surgical procedures, misdiagnoses, etc.


Why can't people sue them? Do Americans not sue the government? That seems very unlikely.


What happened? There were those parents who had insurance but chose not to insure children-let the state pay for it. They were following the guidelines, but they had insurance available to the children.


That is one problem with all these systems - people learn to work them and then costs just grow and grow. It's a real problem in Canada, although not yet a huge one. People learn to work private insurance too, though, so it isn't much of an objection.

However, most countries seem to have found the answer to the immediate problem there: any system has to be universal or it won't be worthwhile.


It'll get doctors geared toward CURING, not TREATING diseases, when they see that there's not as much profit in treatment anymore.


While not a bad thing, we'd all be better off everywhere if people were more concerned with preventing health problems in the first place. This is another problem implicit with health care schemes, public or private. Many people take less responsibility for their own health figuring their backside is covered by the system. One partial answer to it is to make everybody pay some amount every single time they go to a doctor, enough so they are never tempted to take it for granted but not enough to bankrupt them - five or ten dollars maybe.

Unfortunately, Canada totally flubs this (as does the UK, I gather). Here you pay a fixed amount per year and go whenever you want. The result is a widespread mentality that "you paid for it, might as well use it." People show up for every trivial complaint and doctors naturally expect most problems to be trivial as a result. Even worse, there are an endless stream of campaigning voices trying to get more and more people into doctor's offices to prevent every distant problem that might conceivably occur (ex flu shots), even as costs rise and rise. In BC fully half our provincial taxes now go to funding health care, and there's still no end of people crying to add more and more to the system. It's insane.
 TravellerSEB
Joined: 6/14/2007
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Nudist Camp
Posted: 9/25/2009 5:51:00 PM
it's FALL now right?...gets a bit nipply up here on the North Shore.


I wonder if there's a polar bear swim at wreck beach?

P.S. Is nipply a Freudian slip?
 
Show ALL Forums