Also In The News - part 3

[Zear0]

1 minute ago, Wymsey said:

A bit bleak for some flat owners..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro

 

They're bastards. My first ever place many years ago was a leasehold flat and I was fortunate that the service charge increases were trivial during my years there (happy years too being dead opposite the King's Head pub but I digress). 

 

When I went to sell the place, every single sheet of evidence required for conveyancing was a flat £75 charge. There was an instance where a colour copy was required (as it was a multi coloured utility drawing it was needed) they sent me the B&W copy, for £75 and then demanded I pay it again for the colour copy.

 

It's a completely unregulated sector and it's disgusting that they're still not restricted on how much they can extort people. Part of me thinks these leeches know the game is soon to be up and they're squeezing every last penny whilst they can.

[RobHawk]

40 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

If you consider pointing out unconscious biases as being harmful then that says far more about you than anyone else 👍

If you look back through the last 2 pages, I came into the conversation and was honest about my position. I may have unconscious bias, but I may also just have a different point of view. 

 

Rather than welcome me into the conversation and discuss the matters with me, educating me along the way, you've basically shot me down and ultimately called me a bigot. Not the best way to go imo. 

 

So I would consider myself a left leaning centrist, anti Tory and anti right wing. I have no issue with trans people but as I said earlier tend to approach things in my mind with what I consider to be a common sense approach. 

 

If you've turned me away from the conversation then how do you ever expect to win anyone over? Coz you talk about the right wing press, a point I agree with, stocking up a campaign against trans people in some sort of culture war but you can't even accept that some people such as myself, believe a decision on gender should not me made by or for children until they reach a set age. Now I don't think that's radical, it's why we don't let kids do a huge amount of things, because they aren't mature enough to make sensible decisions and the repercussions can be increased. 

 

So my challenge to you is, without sending me links, or using terminology I may not understand, show me why that viewpoint (as ignorant as I may be) is incorrect, and do it in a manner that is both understanding and inclusive. Do that my friend and you may be onto a winner. 

[The Doctor]

2 hours ago, RobHawk said:

If you look back through the last 2 pages, I came into the conversation and was honest about my position. I may have unconscious bias, but I may also just have a different point of view. 

 

Rather than welcome me into the conversation and discuss the matters with me, educating me along the way, you've basically shot me down and ultimately called me a bigot. Not the best way to go imo. 

 

So I would consider myself a left leaning centrist, anti Tory and anti right wing. I have no issue with trans people but as I said earlier tend to approach things in my mind with what I consider to be a common sense approach. 

 

If you've turned me away from the conversation then how do you ever expect to win anyone over? Coz you talk about the right wing press, a point I agree with, stocking up a campaign against trans people in some sort of culture war but you can't even accept that some people such as myself, believe a decision on gender should not me made by or for children until they reach a set age. Now I don't think that's radical, it's why we don't let kids do a huge amount of things, because they aren't mature enough to make sensible decisions and the repercussions can be increased. 

 

So my challenge to you is, without sending me links, or using terminology I may not understand, show me why that viewpoint (as ignorant as I may be) is incorrect, and do it in a manner that is both understanding and inclusive. Do that my friend and you may be onto a winner. 

I've already explained why that viewpoint is incorrect, on account of the basis of the belief being a societal bias towards cis people.

 

 

You then restated the same point and I explained again that it's underpinned by societal bias, and while most of that is unconscious bias, in practice it's still bigotry, because the intent or lack thereof doesn't mitigate the impact on those affected.

 

[RobHawk]

4 hours ago, The Doctor said:

I've already explained why that viewpoint is incorrect, on account of the basis of the belief being a societal bias towards cis people.

 

 

You then restated the same point and I explained again that it's underpinned by societal bias, and while most of that is unconscious bias, in practice it's still bigotry, because the intent or lack thereof doesn't mitigate the impact on those affected.

 

Thanks for your response, I'll be honest, with your first response quoted, whilst I could get the gist of what you were trying to say, I didn't really understand alot of the terminology used so I pretty much dismissed it. 

 

But as I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong, what you are saying is that by allowing young people to use puberty blockers, it saves them trauma in the long run, because they can transition more easily from an earlier age. I can see the sense in that. 

 

So the flip side to that would be what happens to those who take puberty blockers, but then change their mind later down the line? Even for those that take them and don't change their mind, is their a medical risk taking them at such a young age? 

 

I honestly don't know, so ask out of intrigue and trying to get a better understanding of the issue. 

 

Going back to the first post you quoted, the bit I do dispute is the bit about puberty not being a neutral act for everyone. Whilst I concede puberty may be alot harder for some people compared to others (including trans), it is a natural part of life and growing up. This has been happening since we lived in caves so I'm not sure what your point was here. 

[MPH]

US Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer has called for new elections in Israel, accusing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of prioritising his "political survival" above the country.
 

 

Ahem. This is exactly what I said several weeks ago… that  Netanyahu will keep this going for as long as possible to stay in office..

 

Once Hamas has been dealt with, they’ll turn their attention to Hezbollah too. He wants a legacy. He wants to be known at the one who ‘ dealt’ with Hamas and ‘ secured Israel’s sovereignty’. 

 

theres an agreement in place where no general election will be called whilst they are still at war.

 

Top Democrat Chuck Schumer calls for new Israel election https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68568586

 

 

Edited 14 March by MPH

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

US Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer has called for new elections in Israel, accusing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of prioritising his "political survival" above the country.
 

 

Ahem. This is exactly what I said several weeks ago… that  Netanyahu will keep this going for as long as possible to stay in office..

 

Once Hamas has been dealt with, they’ll turn their attention to Hezbollah too. He wants a legacy. He wants to be known at the one who ‘ dealt’ with Hamas and ‘ secured Israel’s sovereignty’. 

 

theres an agreement in place where no general election will be called whilst they are still at war.

 

Top Democrat Chuck Schumer calls for new Israel election https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68568586

 

 

I think you’ll find that some of us mentioned this in the week after October 7th 

It wasn’t difficult to work out what he might do to use the horrors of the attack to secure his premiership 

 

BN was political toast on October the 8th.  Whilst the destruction of Hamas is totally justified, the method was never going to be palatable to the majority of right minded people given their underground existence/ habitation amongst the civilian population. netenyahu will never leave a legacy of security and the Israeli people know this. Each month that passes reveals more and more that his self preservation is his primary concern.  National security simply a consequence  and little evidence that his actions are likely to deliver that. 

 

the end of the war will be fairly swiftly followed by the end of netenyahu and his right wing coalition.  Has Iran instructed Hezbollah to be less aggressive than they want to be in order that Israel will struggle to justify moving to a northern front?   If we see Hezbollah increase their attacks into n Israel ( they currently occur pretty much daily but could be way more intrusive) then you’d question if Iran want to keep netenyahu in place because what might follow could eventually lead to some type of settlement in the region. Would stability in the region suit Iran and Hezbollah ?
 

 Whilst the broadscale situation is a tragedy for civilians in Gaza, there will be much written in the future about the politics and diplomatic activity around this ‘war’. 

It is difficult to discuss the politics etc around the region whilst civilians are dying100+ each day.   But perhaps it’s possible ???  I guess we’ll find out soon 
 

 

[MPH]

25 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I think you’ll find that some of us mentioned this in the week after October 7th 

It wasn’t difficult to work out what he might do to use the horrors of the attack to secure his premiership 

 

BN was political toast on October the 8th.  Whilst the destruction of Hamas is totally justified, the method was never going to be palatable to the majority of right minded people given their underground existence/ habitation amongst the civilian population. netenyahu will never leave a legacy of security and the Israeli people know this. Each month that passes reveals more and more that his self preservation is his primary concern.  National security simply a consequence  and little evidence that his actions are likely to deliver that. 

 

the end of the war will be fairly swiftly followed by the end of netenyahu and his right wing coalition.  Has Iran instructed Hezbollah to be less aggressive than they want to be in order that Israel will struggle to justify moving to a northern front?   If we see Hezbollah increase their attacks into n Israel ( they currently occur pretty much daily but could be way more intrusive) then you’d question if Iran want to keep netenyahu in place because what might follow could eventually lead to some type of settlement in the region. Would stability in the region suit Iran and Hezbollah ?
 

 Whilst the broadscale situation is a tragedy for civilians in Gaza, there will be much written in the future about the politics and diplomatic activity around this ‘war’. 

It is difficult to discuss the politics etc around the region whilst civilians are dying100+ each day.   But perhaps it’s possible ???  I guess we’ll find out soon 
 

 

 

there were some who said he was toast and he’d be gone soon  back in November and  I tried to argue that he won’t be gone for a long time especially not whilst there was a war going on and I specifically mentioned to some of them that he’d prolong the war partly for this reason- so my response was to them, I didn’t mean it to sound like I was trying to laud it over everyone.

Edited 14 March by MPH

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

I think you’ll find that some of us mentioned this in the week after October 7th 

It wasn’t difficult to work out what he might do to use the horrors of the attack to secure his premiership 

 

BN was political toast on October the 8th.  Whilst the destruction of Hamas is totally justified, the method was never going to be palatable to the majority of right minded people given their underground existence/ habitation amongst the civilian population. netenyahu will never leave a legacy of security and the Israeli people know this. Each month that passes reveals more and more that his self preservation is his primary concern.  National security simply a consequence  and little evidence that his actions are likely to deliver that. 

 

the end of the war will be fairly swiftly followed by the end of netenyahu and his right wing coalition.  Has Iran instructed Hezbollah to be less aggressive than they want to be in order that Israel will struggle to justify moving to a northern front?   If we see Hezbollah increase their attacks into n Israel ( they currently occur pretty much daily but could be way more intrusive) then you’d question if Iran want to keep netenyahu in place because what might follow could eventually lead to some type of settlement in the region. Would stability in the region suit Iran and Hezbollah ?
 

Whilst the broadscale situation is a tragedy for civilians in Gaza, there will be much written in the future about the politics and diplomatic activity around this ‘war’. 

It is difficult to discuss the politics etc around the region whilst civilians are dying100+ each day.   But perhaps it’s possible ???  I guess we’ll find out soon 

 

Hard to argue with his motives really, but I also think they rightly believe they have gone this far, they would be mad not to see it through.  They will just find themselves here again in another 20 years or so if they cannot remove Hamas and then hand over to a new Government who can credibly help create a new leadership for Palestinians - no doubt with lots of international help.  I just don't see how stopping now resolves anything apart from the obvious reduction in immediate loss of life, which of course is very important.

[Zear0]

Anywhere offering decent odds on Putin winning the "election"? 

[st albans fox]

18 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Anywhere offering decent odds on Putin winning the "election"? 

As a westerner you can get 3/1 at coralofski (kgb branch) on Kremlin high st 

but you have to place the bet in person ……..

[The Doctor]

12 hours ago, RobHawk said:

Thanks for your response, I'll be honest, with your first response quoted, whilst I could get the gist of what you were trying to say, I didn't really understand alot of the terminology used so I pretty much dismissed it. 

 

But as I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong, what you are saying is that by allowing young people to use puberty blockers, it saves them trauma in the long run, because they can transition more easily from an earlier age. I can see the sense in that. 

 

So the flip side to that would be what happens to those who take puberty blockers, but then change their mind later down the line? Even for those that take them and don't change their mind, is their a medical risk taking them at such a young age? 

 

I honestly don't know, so ask out of intrigue and trying to get a better understanding of the issue. 

 

Going back to the first post you quoted, the bit I do dispute is the bit about puberty not being a neutral act for everyone. Whilst I concede puberty may be alot harder for some people compared to others (including trans), it is a natural part of life and growing up. This has been happening since we lived in caves so I'm not sure what your point was here. 

The idea with puberty blockers is it buys time. If you come off them, as happens with everyone who takes them after a couple of years then puberty progresses normally (in the case of changing their mind) or via cross sex hormones (in the case of not changing their mind). There's no excess medical risk (it's important to stress that all medical products have risk, part of my job in pharma R&D is risk assessing drugs) of taking them at that young age because that's the age they're clinically effective at and are licensed for in the case of precocious puberty (they're not licensed for gender dysphoria because as I've said the patient base is tiny and it's not financially worth while for pharma companies to go through the variation process to add it as an indication particularly given off label doesn't imply experimental at all in the eyes of competent authorities). Puberty blockers after the age of puberty is very much a gate after the horse has bolted situation.

 

My point is that we see natal puberty as a neutral act that's fine to occur for all and cross sex puberty as a significant deviation, despite both having the same overall impact (significant changes to the body either way) because society views cis as the default, due to systemic biases against trans people. This I will concede is a more controversial view however it's built off similar sentiments regarding sex in radical feminist theory and race in critical race theory. Everyone has biases that they learn from society and the way it's structured, and, consciously or unconsciously, they enforce those biases in a way that functionally is bigotry in terms of impact - to stay on the topic of puberty blockers and youth transition generally, whether someone's motivation for pushing for a ban on youth transition because they consider trans people to be inherently inferior and something to be prevented at all costs (conscious bias) or because they just think it's a big decision to make at such a young age and surely people should wait till they're a bit more mature to make such a decision (unconscious bias), the end result is the same from the perspective of the trans child, a ban on their healthcare and the second person's intentions don't mitigate the impact on them.

[Lionator]

While the Russian election is obviously a murderous sham, it’s just a day of British/American posturing of “look how wonderful our democracy is” while everything rots around us, we have two geriatrics going for presidency and two austerity parties going for parliament. 

[Sir Shep]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

While the Russian election is obviously a murderous sham, it’s just a day of British/American posturing of “look how wonderful our democracy is” while everything rots around us, we have two geriatrics going for presidency and two austerity parties going for parliament. 

There never seems to be any decent alternatives now, New Labour hit all the right buttons for me back in the 90’s but nowadays there’s no one out there, just centre crap, far left or far right. 

[Wymsey]

This is quite scary that this sort of thing happens..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ced0n5p8wljo

 

[Greg2607]

2 hours ago, Sir Shep said:

There never seems to be any decent alternatives now, New Labour hit all the right buttons for me back in the 90’s but nowadays there’s no one out there, just centre crap, far left or far right. 

to be fair....... the way ALL of the Tories seem to "not be standing for re-election" I'm not sure there will be many to vote for! 

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, Wymsey said:

This is quite scary that this sort of thing happens..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ced0n5p8wljo

 

One day I’m going to go back through the thread to find out if all your posts here sound like clickbait

[Zear0]

 

Mystery solved. 

[Free Falling Foxes]

Dead animals placed outside shop.

[Wymsey]

No surprise that Putin wins the election.

[st albans fox]

29 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

No surprise that Putin wins the election.

Bugger 

I backed the second favourite 

got great odds though 

[Dunge]

I had to laugh the other day - A BBC reporter asked one of the actual other candidates for the Russian presidency what would make him a better president than Vladimir Putin.

 

His answer: “That’s for the voters to decide.” 

[fox_favourite]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

I had to laugh the other day - A BBC reporter asked one of the actual other candidates for the Russian presidency what would make him a better president than Vladimir Putin.

 

His answer: “That’s for the voters to decide.” 

Pretty sad state of affairs.

[reporterpenguin]

2 hours ago, Wymsey said:

No surprise that Putin wins the election.

Congratulations to him and his remarkable achievement getting 117% of the vote. 

[foxy boxing]

2 hours ago, Wymsey said:

No surprise that Putin wins the election.

Trump will be asking him for help with the US election. 

[SpacedX]