Interesting Stuff Thread

Hotblack Desiato · 16-12-2015 02:07AM

9. That's above average, same as having two legs :pac:

looksee · 16-12-2015 09:12AM

9/14 I wonder are we all getting the same ones wrong. I made a few good guesses, I'd say I was only totally confident of about 6.

8mv · 16-12-2015 02:34PM

8/14

recedite · 16-12-2015 09:19PM

The point of the quiz is apparently to show that one brand of BS is much the same as another. But even though stuff such as polygamy, death to apostates, and the stoning of adulterers may feature in both the OT bible and the Koran, you'll find that Christians and Jews have moved on, and don't actually apply these laws.

Choc Chip · 17-12-2015 01:16PM

2. Painfully embarrassing.

I'd have been better picking the first answer all the way down.

Shrap · 17-12-2015 01:42PM

Choc Chip wrote: »

2. Painfully embarrassing.

I'd have been better picking the first answer all the way down.

You're braver than me ;-) I got 3, but didn't dare post it till someone else went first! And all 3 were guesses.

magicbastarder · 17-12-2015 02:27PM

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/01/i_get_it_%E2%80%93_you%E2%80%99re_an_atheist_you_should_still_capitalize_%E2%80%9Cgod%E2%80%9D/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

TL;DR - use 'God' rather than 'god' because it's a name.

Pherekydes · 17-12-2015 02:46PM

I got two, too. Not a bit embarrassed.

recedite · 17-12-2015 07:42PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/01/i_get_it_%E2%80%93_you%E2%80%99re_an_atheist_you_should_still_capitalize_%E2%80%9Cgod%E2%80%9D/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

TL;DR - use 'God' rather than 'god' because it's a name.

The true nature of creation may be in dispute, but the proper usage in this case is not. Webster’s Dictionary tells us that a “god” is “a spirit or being that has great knowledge, strength, power, etc.” while “God” is “the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being … worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims …”
One is a noun. The other is a name. If it weren’t a name, it would be necessary to use a different sentence construction, as in: “They forced the sergeant to swear to the god,” or, “Is the god good?”

I think "the god" is the most correct here (as they almost admit at the end of this quote). Especially if the sergeant does not consider the god to actually exist.
If you wanted to be more specific Yahweh, Jehovah and Allah are the proper names. These are nouns. If you write God as a noun, then you are implying that there is only one true God, and all the others are fake gods.
Surely that is disrespectful to the Hindu gods?

Absolam · 18-12-2015 07:16PM

12/14. Who knew North Korea doesn't ban churches.......

robindch · 21-12-2015 12:14PM

Ok, one day late, but yesterday was the 19th anniversary of the death of Carl Sagan, and the tenth anniversary of the Kitzmiller v. Dover judgement, which largely did in Intelligent Design, but caused major speciation within the creationist movement in the USA.

Hotblack Desiato · 21-12-2015 02:42PM

Happy Winter Solstice

The real reason for the season!

magicbastarder · 04-01-2016 03:20PM

Is aer lingus unique in that it names its planes after catholic saints? Maybe they should consider naming them after irish town names instead. I'd prefer getting on a plane called bastardstown or man'o'war to one called saint declan.

silverharp · 04-01-2016 06:29PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

Is aer lingus unique in that it names its planes after catholic saints? Maybe they should consider naming them after irish town names instead. I'd prefer getting on a plane called bastardstown or man'o'war to one called saint declan.

its not very inclusive is it?, maybe some Protestant saints like Cromwell

Samaris · 05-01-2016 05:34AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

Is aer lingus unique in that it names its planes after catholic saints? Maybe they should consider naming them after irish town names instead. I'd prefer getting on a plane called bastardstown or man'o'war to one called saint declan.

Hah, it does? I dunno, I kinda like them having people-names rather than town names.

Although it'd only be a matter of time before there was a plane called Muff.

MrPudding · 05-01-2016 09:00AM

Samaris wrote: »

Hah, it does? I dunno, I kinda like them having people-names rather than town names.

Although it'd only be a matter of time before there was a plane called Muff.

And if that plane had to make an emergency descent...?

MrP

recedite · 05-01-2016 01:55PM

Horse and Jockey would be another good one.
We have some quirky placenames alright, and with most air passengers being fluent English speakers, the idea has the potential to bring a wry smile to peoples faces, knowing that all the planes were named after Irish towns and villages.
Smiles are always good for business.

MrPudding · 05-01-2016 04:59PM

I was listening to Radio 4 yesterday and there was an interesting segment. it was related to "Growth Attenuation", something I had never heard of. In simple terms, for those that don't know, it is using hormonal treatments to stop growth in profoundly disabled children. When I first heard it I was a little shocked, to be honest.

They had an interview with a woman in NZ that had it carried out on her daughter. The daughter was starved of oxygen during birth for around an hour, and suffered massive brain damage. She effectively has the brain development of a new born, and it will never improve. They also had an English woman on, who was very against this treatment. To be honest, she came across as a little preachy.

The NZ woman made a number of good arguments, and certainly brought me round to being supportive, in principle, of the procedures (she also had her daughter sterilised). She was very defensive, and on occasion aggressive in her justifications for what she did, but I suspect she may receive a huge amount of grief for her decisions, and reacts accordingly.

I am not sure if I can get the R4 piece, but here is a article abut the NZ woman.

Thoughts...?

MrP

looksee · 05-01-2016 06:32PM

I agree with what she did; but it should be private and a decision made by the family without outsiders pushing their views.

We had a baby that became ill within days of birth (around 40 years ago). He had a degenerative brain disease, there was never any possibility of recovery, it was just a matter of waiting for him to die, which he did at 14 months. In the meantime his body grew normally, or even more than normally. By the time he was around 12 months old he was a dead weight of floppy, inert baby. He had to have a cot downstairs as it was too difficult to carry him up and down. If he had been going to continue to live in the same physical condition he was at that stage it would have been a very sensible idea to restrict his growth, though of course at that time it was not an option.

One eyed Jack · 05-01-2016 07:23PM

MrPudding wrote: »

I was listening to Radio 4 yesterday and there was an interesting segment. it was related to "Growth Attenuation", something I had never heard of. In simple terms, for those that don't know, it is using hormonal treatments to stop growth in profoundly disabled children. When I first heard it I was a little shocked, to be honest.

They had an interview with a woman in NZ that had it carried out on her daughter. The daughter was starved of oxygen during birth for around an hour, and suffered massive brain damage. She effectively has the brain development of a new born, and it will never improve. They also had an English woman on, who was very against this treatment. To be honest, she came across as a little preachy.

The NZ woman made a number of good arguments, and certainly brought me round to being supportive, in principle, of the procedures (she also had her daughter sterilised). She was very defensive, and on occasion aggressive in her justifications for what she did, but I suspect she may receive a huge amount of grief for her decisions, and reacts accordingly.

I am not sure if I can get the R4 piece, but here is a article abut the NZ woman.

Thoughts...?

MrP

From an ethical point of view, I don't support growth attenuation using hormones on children (it has other applications too!). I don't support the medical procedures that were made available to these parents (in the Ashley X case, these procedures were declared illegal).

From purely a moral point of view, I can understand where the parents are coming from, and I still can't say I would support them in what they chose for their daughter.

In saying that, I have long supported the Groningen Protocol, or infant and child euthanasia. I simply don't see how what they've put their child through has improved the child's quality of life. I think it was done to improve the parents quality of life, and that for me is where the moral dilemma arises, and certainly there are ethical considerations to allowing these kinds of procedures to gain widespread acceptance in wider society.

Shrap · 05-01-2016 07:48PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I simply don't see how what they've put their child through has improved the child's quality of life. I think it was done to improve the parents quality of life, and that for me is where the moral dilemma arises, and certainly there are ethical considerations to allowing these kinds of procedures to gain widespread acceptance in wider society.

It has got to be a case of the parents taking a personal decision in weighing up the odds (and who can judge, except them?). Perhaps it didn't improve the child's quality of life directly, but indirectly through improving the parent's quality of life it is likely to enable them to continue to give their child as good or better a quality of life as they possibly can. If you see the difference.

recedite · 05-01-2016 08:06PM

I agree that there is usually an overlap between the parent's interests and the child's interests in such cases. The parents may be making sacrifices to their own quality of life, and also to other children in the family.
So whats good for one, is usually good for all.

I've no direct experience of this thankfully, but a couple of years ago I was visiting a HSE house where Downs syndrome adults were living under supervised conditions. Immediately two of them appeared in front of me and one started shaking my hand so vigorously that it hurt. Of course he was only being friendly, but I was a bit shocked at his strength. The supervisor encouraged him to let me go, and explained that his parents would have liked to keep him at home, but they were unable to manage him because he was physically stronger than them. And there had been a few incidents. Downs syndrome is only a mild form of disability compared to what others have described in the last few posts.

kylith · 05-01-2016 08:19PM

I think that that girls parents made the right choice, which has enabled them to give their daughter a better quality of life than she would otherwise have.

One eyed Jack · 05-01-2016 08:48PM

Shrap wrote: »

It has got to be a case of the parents taking a personal decision in weighing up the odds (and who can judge, except them?). Perhaps it didn't improve the child's quality of life directly, but indirectly through improving the parent's quality of life it is likely to enable them to continue to give their child as good or better a quality of life as they possibly can. If you see the difference.

Sure I can see the difference alright - obviously enabling the parents to better manage the child's condition indirectly improves the child's quality of life in that respect, and no, I wouldn't judge them for trying to improve their child's life, but what I'm saying is that the way in which they have improved their child's quality of life shouldn't have been available to them.

The procedures shouldn't be available as an option to anyone, and I would argue that from an ethnical perspective with regard to the child's rights, while at the same time understanding the moral dilema it presents for parents.

Shrap · 05-01-2016 09:07PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn't judge them for trying to improve their child's life, but what I'm saying is that the way in which they have improved their child's quality of life shouldn't have been available to them.

So who IS to be the judge of whether this option should or should not be available? You say you wouldn't judge them, but you are judging it was wrong that they had this option.

It has helped at least one family to cope with profound disability, so therefore I'm happy it was available to them. The rights and wrongs of changing the child to alleviate the difficulty of the care issues aren't my call, thanks be to fcuk.

kylith · 05-01-2016 09:19PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sure I can see the difference alright - obviously enabling the parents to better manage the child's condition indirectly improves the child's quality of life in that respect, and no, I wouldn't judge them for trying to improve their child's life, but what I'm saying is that the way in which they have improved their child's quality of life shouldn't have been available to them.

The procedures shouldn't be available as an option to anyone, and I would argue that from an ethnical perspective with regard to the child's rights, while at the same time understanding the moral dilema it presents for parents.

I would disagree. What would be the point of allowing her to menstruate and likely cause her terrible pain (bad period pain can run in families)? Were she to grow to average size it's unlikely that her parents would be able to physically manage her. She would, as her mother said, spend the rest of her life in a bed staring at a ceiling that she can't even see. This way she can be brought outside, she will be able to stay with her family instead of being moved to a hospital or home. She will never have the capacity to understand what she has 'lost'.

Should all physically handicapped people receive this treatment? No, I don't think so. Should it be available to the parents of seriously handicapped children who will never recover to enable their condition to be better managed? Yes, I think so, with medical guidance. Her growth has been stopped, she hasn't had her legs amputated.

One eyed Jack · 05-01-2016 09:22PM

Shrap wrote: »

So who IS to be the judge of whether this option should or should not be available? You say you wouldn't judge them, but you are judging it was wrong that they had this option.

It has helped at least one family to cope with profound disability, so therefore I'm happy it was available to them. The rights and wrongs of changing the child to alleviate the difficulty of the care issues aren't my call, thanks be to fcuk.

There are all sorts of ethical committees would decide whether these measures should be available (I remember a couple of years back there was the whole issue of human cloning), but at specific country level, I think it would be decided by the courts -

The principal purpose of the treatment was to improve Ashley's quality of life by limiting her growth in size, eliminating menstrual cramps and bleeding, and preventing discomfort from large breasts. The combination of the surgery and the estrogen therapy attracted much public comment and ethical analysis in early 2007, both supportive and condemning. The hospital later admitted that the surgery was illegal and should only have been performed after a court order, a position that is disagreed upon by the attorney of Ashley's family.

In the United Kingdom, the British Medical Association stated, "If a similar case occurred in the UK, we believe it would go to court and whatever decision was ruled would be in the best interests of the child." Dr. Peter Hindmarsh, Professor of Paediatric Endocrinology at Great Ormond Street Hospital was troubled by the treatment decision being taken by a hospital ethics committee. "'I am not sure the ethics committee was the right place to decide,' he said, adding that it was not clear who represented the child's interests when it went before the committee."

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Treatment

recedite · 05-01-2016 09:24PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

enabling the parents to better manage the child's condition indirectly improves the child's quality of life in that respect...

The procedures shouldn't be available as an option to anyone, and I would argue that from an ethnical perspective with regard to the child's rights, while at the same time understanding the moral dilema it presents for parents.

Why should it not be available if it could improve the child's quality of life?

robindch · 05-01-2016 09:59PM

Science locates an explanation for the rude health of Senator Ronan Mullan and Pope Quinn:

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/happy-news-masturbation-actually-has-health-benefits-0

Shrap · 05-01-2016 10:08PM

robindch wrote: »

Science locates an explanation for the rude health of Senator Ronan Mullan and Pope Quinn:

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/happy-news-masturbation-actually-has-health-benefits-0

Well, thank you for that mental image :mad:

Interesting Stuff Thread

Comments