Jump to content

flamingjimmy

Members
  • Content Count

    10,873
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About flamingjimmy

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 22/10/1987

Personal Information

  • Location
    South Central Sheffield

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Erm, uncomfortable though it is yes and not just in the future it's already happening. https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/2010-11/ComputersMakingDecisions/robotic-nurses/index.html
  2. It's a completely normal facet of human nature, to chuckle at close calls like that. It does seem a little bit weird, but so is laughing anyway, I mean think about it laughing is kind of odd behaviour. Likely evolved to help us socially but who knows anyone that tells you they can give you a full explanation for this is almost certainly just speculating. What is certainly true though is that we laugh for plenty of reasons other than we find something funny, it's a social lubricant imo for things like coping psychologically with (in your example) a pseudo near death experience, but see above I am only speculating.
  3. One man complains, everyone else says it's silly, and it'll probably be back on sale soon. Whoop de do. Oh wait no, what I meant is PC GONE MAD WHAT IS THIS COUNTRY COMING TO BLOODY LEFTIES!
  4. Serious discussion? You're joking right? You haven't discussed this with anyone on this thread, nor made any attempt to as far as I can tell. You just keep putting up big walls of text that for the most part aren't your own work. What's stopping you from actually engaging in a conversation?
  5. I can't fully explain that it's complicated, however to take one of your examples I would imagine that if the conservatives had dominated politics to the extent that they would have liked over the last half century we probably wouldn't have gay marriage. The short answer is that they are under pressure from society and the oppposition, can you imagine the outrage if Cameron or others in his party had made significant steps to block gay marriage and put up the fight? In 2013? No methinks they didn't really have much choice, the tide had already turned too much... thanks to progressives.
  6. Probably, I don't really know I'm unfortunate enough to've only really been politically aware during the time of New Labour. However social liberalism (the cause most identified with progressives) has pretty much triumphed over the last century or so. You're seeing the latest (and hopefully one of the last) fightback against it from the older generations right now with things like the election of Trump, and Brexit (too an extent, obviously more to both those votes but I think this aspect was significant, especially when you look at age breakdowns), but its too late to undo all the marvelous things that 'progressives' have done. So yeah, the progressives won the culture wars for the most part, we accept other races now for the most part, women have been significantly empowered and have control over their own reproductive cycles, we've stopped (again only for the most part) persecuting everyone who isn't a monogamous heterosexual. All the above things have been opposed by the kind of people who use 'progressive' as a dirty word but the world is much better because of what the progressives did in those areas. You talk about liberty but if the forces that fight against 'progressives' had had more victories in the past then there'd be far less liberty today. Just because the conservative party hasn't done anything like support Apartheid recently doesn't mean it's not still in them, they just know the tide has turned and they have to play a different game now.
  7. Erm, surely you'd need to be dead evidence to show that?
  8. How people can make this direct comparison between Wikipedia and the Daily Mail is beyond me. One of them is undoubtedly a force for good in the world, a grand open source project to try and gather together the world's best encyclopedia. A non profit organisation set up to collate and preserve the world's knowledge. It's not perfect but it is the world's most comprehensive and most used encyclopedia. The other is a for profit political propaganda tool with mass market appeal, that makes it's money from advertising on clickbait articles. 2 sides of the same coin? Not in this universe.
  9. I didn't start 'having a go' at you until you insulted me with the 'not even wrong' jibe. What about post 3901 is having a go at you? I provide some references for my statement and ask you to clarify what you didn't believe about it exactly. Now finally you come back that your main objection is the word 'dwarfed', ok we're getting somewhere. So is it just a question of degree then? Seriously help me out. I imagine there's more to it than that and don't want you to accuse me of ascribing to you positions that you do not hold so please help me out and actually clarify it. I'm sorry but inbetween the time when you asked that question and I came back to the thread others had joined in the discussion had flowed somewhat, sorry for not making an individual post just to respond to you and including cyclone and unbeliever in the discussion. I thought we could all get along. Yup, and it seems like you're still there. Join me here on terra firma. because as I pointed out you had misunderstood things. You thought I was ascribing something that I had said to you, when I wasn't I was just quoting myself. I'd love some clarfication, and I've done my best to actually clarify things when you've pulled me up on them. However you've still yet to answer what it is that you don't believe about my statement specifically. That's all I'm doing asking for clarification. You just spent the entire post doing just that, but by all means leave out the rest if it gets more colourful sure. Can't we just drop this and go back to the start, you respond to the question in post 3901 and we move on from there, or is the way I've conducted myself on this thread unforgivable?
  10. ?!? Have you had no sleep or something? I never said you said it, or agreed with it quite the opposite. I said it! It's right there one page back! You disagreed with it, or at the least challenged it and invoked a green conspiracy: "Do you have a reference for that assertion that doesn't come from the green lobby?" I then provided some references to back it up from the Guardian and the LSE, aswell as yes one link from a green lobby. I also asked you specifically what it was about the statement that you didn't believe. I think our wires have gotten crossed here, perhaps you should go back and read again too.
  11. What on earth you asked for references didn't you? And seriously you can't answer the question 'what is it that you don't believe?' [about my statement which you challenged] C'mon pull the other one and get off that high horse. It was only a page ago but in case you've forgotten the statement was this: '[the] influence [of the green lobby on governmental policy] is completely dwarfed by the vast money and resources poured into politics by the vested interests in the fossil fuel industries' And I haven't built any strawmen I've only asked you questions to try and get you to clarify your position.
  12. one of my all time favourite jokes! Seriously though I would kind of like someone with at least a rudimentary science/maths education and some understanding of statistics and significance values etc.
  13. All the deaths from Chernobyl were factored into the numbers I quoted earlier, and are dwarfed every year by the number of deaths caused by other methods of power generation. Per amount of power generated, Nuclear is the safest energy generation method we have. You'd be 10 times safer working in a nuclear power plant than you would be installing solar panels on someone's roof.
  14. So I'll echo Obelix's response from about a page ago: Do you have a reference for that assertion? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you're not just being cynical you're invoking a conspiracy that envelopes (as you yourself have pointed out) every single high ranking member of every major environmental group, with none of them ever coming out about it, over about 60 years. No really there isn't a conspiracy against nuclear energy (apart from that coming from the fossil fuel industry who actually do have massive vested interests in the regions of billions and billions of pounds in keeping us reliant on them). The grass roots green movement certainly isn't a part of it. It's just lack of education and people being silly for the most part.
  15. You think they genuinely know and understand that nuclear is relatively safe and environmentally friendly yet still deliberately choose to pretend that it isn't and lie about it in order to pursue the renewable energy agenda? That's insane! Why assume conspiracy when stupidity can much more simply explain it? Try Ockham's razor.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.