Election prediction time

[Daggers]

Tobi will be in for a shock when he discovers Sam doesn’t exist. 

 

 

[Parafox]

6 hours ago, Daggers said:

She:

• enjoys pineapple on pizza
• remains in the middle lane after overtaking
• parks across two bays
• tells public servants she pays their wages when complaining
• discusses the end of TV dramas before everyone has the reasonable opportunity to watch them
• keeps her shoes on when visiting someone's home
• constantly licks her fingers when eating a donut
• remains at the till discussing the weather after paying
• places her bag on the seat next to her on the train
• replies to a text while in conversation with someone else
• always stands on the wrong side of an escalator
• picks up a croissant with her hand in Lidl and puts it back with the others
• stops without warning or reason when walking by shops causing people to trip by her
• uses both arm rests on a plane and stands the second it lands on the runway
• pushes onto a bus before anyone has been able to get off
• microwaves fish pie at work
• insists on showing everyone pictures of her children as babies on her mobile
• Writes Answers To Questions By Capitalising Every Word
• eats crunchy or rustling food at the cinema, discussing it loudly with someone else, while texting
• spends an entire train journey choosing a ring tone
• spends entire meetings making click noises with her biro
• will sit right next to you in an empty waiting room

There are other reasons why she's a vile woman - but you can probably work those out for yourself and thereby answer your other questions.

 

This is a "What Grinds My Gears" post in the wrong topic.

 

This an entire list of reasons to dislike so many of the public. 

 

I of course, do none of the above. 

 

 

 

 

 

Truthfully, I don't.

 

Well, maybe with exception of the pineapple thing.

[The Doctor]

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

This is a fantastic example of what I am talking about. Your statement that “the most effective evidence based treatment for gender dysphoria is transition” contains several of these axioms. The very concept of ”trans” is not even universally accepted, and not all who do accept that it is theoretically possible to be “assigned” the wrong gender accept that surgery is the appropriate remedy. In fact, those who disagree with you may well believe completely the opposite of those things and therefore deem you and others advancing such ideas to be truly dangerous. This is unfortunately how most debates on the big topics in British politics go, as neither side can identify where exactly the conversation should start from. It doesn’t naturally occur to you (by which I mean anybody) that others have a very different set of assumptions on which their arguments are based, and are perhaps just as motivated by noble causes as the next person, they just work from a different set of axioms. 

 

The argument about consent is an interesting one but I feel it would dominate the thread and lead to another closure. Do feel free to DM me if you would like to discuss it further. Here I am a bit concerned that if we drift too far away from Braverman and the current political climate in the United Kingdom, the thread will end up getting closed. 

I'm gonna say this as clearly as I can - medicine does not care about philosophical disputes about what gender is, it cares about what is effective and safe. whether you believe "trans" exists, whether surgery is an appropriate intervention, quite simply does not matter, because the evidence base we've got is that psychotherapy to reconcile the mind with the body is not effective, and that surgery/hormone therapy to reconcile the body with the mind is. Any arguments based on philosophy (which is what you're making) have zero value, and using language like mutilation to attack evidence based medicine is fear mongering and contributes to an environment of hate.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

I'm gonna say this as clearly as I can - medicine does not care about philosophical disputes about what gender is, it cares about what is effective and safe. whether you believe "trans" exists, whether surgery is an appropriate intervention, quite simply does not matter, because the evidence base we've got is that psychotherapy to reconcile the mind with the body is not effective, and that surgery/hormone therapy to reconcile the body with the mind is. Any arguments based on philosophy (which is what you're making) have zero value, and using language like mutilation to attack evidence based medicine is fear mongering and contributes to an environment of hate.

I don't know, I like a good honest epistemological circle jerk about the nature and use of scientific knowledge and the acquisition of it while people desperately need help. Don't you?

[David Hankey]

I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank all the "members" who have contributed and replied to me on this topic today now it's time for football so I probably won't come out and play again tomorrow, if I get permission.

[The Doctor]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I don't know, I like a good honest epistemological circle jerk about the nature and use of scientific knowledge and the acquisition of it while people desperately need help. Don't you?

*obnoxious philosopher voice* ah, but can you define help?

 

in all seriousness I find debate about what it means to be a woman and the nature of gender and sex interesting given it pulls heavily from biology, sociology and feminist scholarship, but they do need a grounding in more than just "but I learnt at primary school"

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

29 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

I'm gonna say this as clearly as I can - medicine does not care about philosophical disputes about what gender is, it cares about what is effective and safe. whether you believe "trans" exists, whether surgery is an appropriate intervention, quite simply does not matter, because the evidence base we've got is that psychotherapy to reconcile the mind with the body is not effective, and that surgery/hormone therapy to reconcile the body with the mind is. Any arguments based on philosophy (which is what you're making) have zero value, and using language like mutilation to attack evidence based medicine is fear mongering and contributes to an environment of hate.

You are once again proving exactly my point. Your set of assumptions is not shared by everybody. That surgical intervention is “safe and effective” is not agreed upon; those who think differently to you clearly believe it is neither safe nor effective. In fact, they would probably claim that it causes irreversible damage and potentially a lifetime of medical complications, and that it removes any possibility of full detransition if the individual wants to do so. 

 

You may try to dismiss the point I am making as some sort of abstract philosophical concept unable to materially affect the discussion, but it is ostensibly is not that. It might be difficult to accept I know, but some people flat out reject the things you believe to be self-evidently true. The things you are saying about surgery and transgenderism look wholly unreasonable and morally wrong to those people.

Edited 9 July by MarshallForEngland

[The Doctor]

9 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

You are once again proving exactly my point. Your set of assumptions is not shared by everybody. That surgical intervention is “safe and effective” is not agreed upon; those who think differently to you clearly believe it is neither safe nor effective. In fact, they would probably claim that it causes irreversible damage and potentially a lifetime of medical complications, and that it removes any possibility of full detransition if the individual wants to do so. 

 

You may try to dismiss the point I am making as some sort of abstract philosophical concept unable to materially affect the discussion, but it is ostensibly is not that. It might be difficult to accept I know, but some people flat out reject the things you believe to be self-evidently true. The things you are saying about surgery and transgenderism look wholly unreasonable and morally wrong to those people.

if people want to argue against the evidence they can do so, the simple facts of the matter are that genital reconstruction surgeries have high satisfaction rates and are associated with improved health. that is ultimately the goal of any medical treatment, improved health and quality of life for the patient. shouts about "irreversible damage" are for the birds.

[Sampson]

14 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

You are once again proving exactly my point. Your set of assumptions is not shared by everybody. That surgical intervention is “safe and effective” is not agreed upon; those who think differently to you clearly believe it is neither safe nor effective. In fact, they would probably claim that it causes irreversible damage and potentially a lifetime of medical complications, and that it removes any possibility of full detransition if the individual wants to do so. 

 

You may try to dismiss the point I am making as some sort of abstract philosophical concept unable to materially affect the discussion, but it is ostensibly is not that. It might be difficult to accept I know, but some people flat out reject the things you believe to be self-evidently true. The things you are saying about surgery and transgenderism look wholly unreasonable and morally wrong to those people.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

Just now, The Doctor said:

if people want to argue against the evidence they can do so, the simple facts of the matter are that genital reconstruction surgeries have high satisfaction rates and are associated with improved health. that is ultimately the goal of any medical treatment, improved health and quality of life for the patient. shouts about "irreversible damage" are for the birds.

Can I trust that, if sufficient evidence to the contrary were presented, you would reverse your stance on any one of the claims you have made here? 

[The Doctor]

6 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Can I trust that, if sufficient evidence to the contrary were presented, you would reverse your stance on any one of the claims you have made here? 

yea I know where you're going with this, and the antithesis of a systematic review, commissioned by the Tories to give them an excuse to attack healthcare, with such brazenly stupid methodology as to act like surgical studies can be double blinded (what are you doing, putting a cone of shame on the patient until the study ends?) that's being shredded by international academia, is not sufficient evidence for anyone who isn't looking for post-hoc justification for beliefs they've already decided on.

[urban.spaceman]

Oh man. We were so close to 200 pages. 

[urban.spaceman]

 

[The Doctor]

4 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

"She said many Tories were clearly still traumatised. She said Suella Braverman, former home secretary, appears to be having a 'very public' nervous breakdown"

 

 

 

 

[Sampson]

5 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

She’s clearly setting herself up for leadership.

 

Vile woman but one who is clearly to the very right of the Tory party and unelectable so probably good for Labour. 

[Zear0]

9 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Couldn't possibly guess who the leak was from... 

[The Doctor]

settle in, the Tories are gonna be a popcorn sideshow for the next few years.

 

 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

35 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

yea I know where you're going with this, and the antithesis of a systematic review, commissioned by the Tories to give them an excuse to attack healthcare, with such brazenly stupid methodology as to act like surgical studies can be double blinded (what are you doing, putting a cone of shame on the patient until the study ends?) that's being shredded by international academia, is not sufficient evidence for anyone who isn't looking for post-hoc justification for beliefs they've already decided on.

It's not a trick question. Would you change your mind on the claims you have made if sufficient evidence were presented? I'm not asking if such evidence exists already or the extent to which existing arguments against your position hold weight. I am simply asking if a) you can imagine something which, in principle, would falsify one or more of the claims you have made and b) you would change your mind if such evidence were presented. I accept that you may not believe such evidence exists at this point and that the evidence in fact supports your current stance; the question is hypothetical - Is it in principle possible that something could cause you to change your opinion(s)?

Edited 9 July by MarshallForEngland

[Greg2607]

11 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

It's not a trick question. Would you change your mind on the claims you have made if sufficient evidence were presented? I'm not asking if such evidence exists already or the extent to which existing arguments against your position hold weight. I am simply asking if a) you can imagine something which, in principle, would falsify one or more of the claims you have made and b) you would change your mind if such evidence were presented. I accept that you may not believe such evidence exists at this point and that the evidence in fact supports your current stance; the question is hypothetical - Is it in principle possible that something could cause you to change your opinion(s)?

I think most of us form a world view based on the facts available to us at the time.  Once we've formed that view we typically need overwhelming evidence to change our mindset.  The fact that lots of us are aligned to one political party or another is a good example of this.... Our psychological filters show us the evidence that fits the world view we have and filters out the stuff that doesn't. 

 

I'm not going to weigh in in the trans debate... Mainly because I don't walk in those shoes, so how can I possibly imagine how that person /those people think or feel ... I think it's fair to say though, the entire debate is complicated and I doubt most of us have lived experience around it. 

[Sampson]

5 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

I think most of us form a world view based on the facts available to us at the time.  Once we've formed that view we typically need overwhelming evidence to change our mindset.  The fact that lots of us are aligned to one political party or another is a good example of this.... Our psychological filters show us the evidence that fits the world view we have and filters out the stuff that doesn't. 

 

I'm not going to weigh in in the trans debate... Mainly because I don't walk in those shoes, so how can I possibly imagine how that person /those people think or feel ... I think it's fair to say though, the entire debate is complicated and I doubt most of us have lived experience around it. 

You don’t need lived experience of it to know that “mutilation” is clearly inflammatory language designed to whip up hate and division though which is the point of this discussion. 

 

To the original point - yes, Suella Braveman is a cruel, nasty woman trying to create division in society to feed off it, it’s what the right of the Tory party do, sadly the moderate wing had their party taken over by these looney rightists after the 2016 referendum.

Edited 9 July by Sampson

[The Doctor]

23 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

It's not a trick question. Would you change your mind on the claims you have made if sufficient evidence were presented? I'm not asking if such evidence exists already or the extent to which existing arguments against your position hold weight. I am simply asking if a) you can imagine something which, in principle, would falsify one or more of the claims you have made and b) you would change your mind if such evidence were presented. I accept that you may not believe such evidence exists at this point and that the evidence in fact supports your current stance; the question is hypothetical - Is it in principle possible that something could cause you to change your opinion(s)?

if the evidence became that there were other similarly effective treatments I would entertain a debate around patient autonomy, invasiveness and cost-benefit. Still at no point would calling it mutilation be appropriate and not inflammatory 

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

Oh man. We were so close to 200 pages. 

I've been against politics threads on here in the past for various reasons. Partly because they go off-piste, party because they get too personal, partly because they become offensive, bitter and nasty, and partly because the 'left' have always dominated and there's been little balance.

 

However, I've enjoyed this thread over the last few weeks and learnt a lot. It's rekindled my interest in politics and I'm hopeful of the future under Starmers government.

 

Lets not collectively fvck it up this time and maybe instead focus on the positives and trying to make the country a better place.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

25 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

if the evidence became that there were other similarly effective treatments I would entertain a debate around patient autonomy, invasiveness and cost-benefit. Still at no point would calling it mutilation be appropriate and not inflammatory 

I'm sorry but it seems you're not fully answering the question. The opposing side's claims are that surgery causes irreversible physical and psychological damage to potentially vulnerable individuals, and that the surgery itself is incapable of bringing about the intended outcome because it is not possible to change one's gender in the first place. Can you imagine a) some sort of evidence that would prove those claims to be true (and therefore yours to be false) and b) changing your mind because of said evidence? Very straightforward.

 

 

[Daggers]

Dunning Kruger has some great theoretical evidence - but you can’t see it because it goes to a different thread. 

 

[Bellend Sebastian]

This was written a couple of months before the election but I thought it was very interesting and I suspect there's at least some truth in the arguments made: 

 

https://www.bylinesupplement.com/p/politics-isnt-about-politics-for