UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
I genuinely don't know about people. Basically this is stuff I was told over thirty years ago so it's not really something I'd base a medical decision on.The problem with something like cabbage is that in humans they act as oestrogen blockers so it could be different between the species
I've been told that sweet potatoes contain lots of oestrogen.
FYI. One interesting excerpt from the article: " In human beings, phytoestrogens are readily absorbed, circulate in plasma and are excreted in the urine. Metabolic influence is different from that of grazing animals due to the differences between ruminant versus monogastric digestive systems."Vanessa, I'd ask your doctor rather than relying on anything any of us has to say. :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoestrogens
David wrote: "Vanessa, I'd ask your doctor rather than relying on anything any of us has to say. :-) ..."we're barely one up from 'the guy I met in the pub' :-)
Jim wrote: "David wrote: "Vanessa, I'd ask your doctor rather than relying on anything any of us has to say. :-) ..."we're barely one up from 'the guy I met in the pub' :-)"
Lol maybe you're one up, I'm a few rungs down!
Jim wrote: "David wrote: "Vanessa, I'd ask your doctor rather than relying on anything any of us has to say. :-) ..."we're barely one up from 'the guy I met in the pub' :-)"
But what if we saw it on Facebook???
Jim wrote: "David wrote: "Vanessa, I'd ask your doctor rather than relying on anything any of us has to say. :-) ..."we're barely one up from 'the guy I met in the pub' :-)"
I might be a few rungs above the guy in the pub...... but think I must add that the paleness that Ken acquired with his anaemia - I had put down to his tan fading....... so maybe not!!!!
Patti (baconater) wrote: "Jim wrote: "David wrote: "Vanessa, I'd ask your doctor rather than relying on anything any of us has to say. :-) ..."we're barely one up from 'the guy I met in the pub' :-)"
But what if we saw it on Facebook?"
Everything on Facebook is absolutely true. Mark Zuckerberg personally fact checks every item posted there. After all, it's illegal to publish anything that's false. I know. I read it once in a Kurt Vonnegut novel.
Geoff - I am struggling here, I really am. You asked a pretty weird question - for examples of when I had changed my mind. I have no idea why you need or want to know this. My guess is that you are fishing for something else to attack me with.And then when I answered it - twice - you decide that you don't like the answers and you want me to answer it differently.
I really don't know what more I can say. I have been 100% straight with you, even though the question is an odd one.
I can't say that I've changed my mind on something when I haven't. That would be downright silly. I have not changed my mind about the fundamentals of Brexit because almost everything that has happened post 23 June has confirmed what I expected.
And anyway I can't see what it has to do with anything on this thread. The rest of us are trying to talk about issues. We don't attack each other. We may not always agree, but we deal with it like civilized people.
I presume that you were hoping I would say something that would give you more ammunition for one of your ad hominem attacks. Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't play those games.
Let's talk about the issues.
Will,It's a simple and straightforward question and you are dodging it. Why? It's very simple and the answer is a number. You know the answer already, as do I, but you keep dodging around it.
No, it's not an ad hominem attack, it is so that everyone here that pays any attention to what you say, what sort of person they are dealing with. A person that constantly transmits and never receives and assesses information that comes in.
You have proven this now, by dodging the question any way you can. A classic bureaucratic response, never admit anything when asked a direct question.
You don't need to answer the question now Will, you are revealed to all here for what you really are. Thank you.
What are you talking about? I have answered your question twice and you're still wittering on about it. And as usual you revert to insults and, yes, ad hominem attacks.Here's a dictionary definition:
"ad hominem
ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adverb & adjective
1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."
And here's your last post:
"No, it's not an ad hominem attack, it is so that everyone here that pays any attention to what you say, what sort of person they are dealing with. A person that constantly transmits and never receives and assesses information that comes in."
Surely you must be able to see it? You say that it isn't an ad hominem attack and in the very next sentence you accuse me of being "a person that constantly transmits ..."
In other words, attacking me instead of the position I am maintaining. An ad hominem attack.
Everyone is bored with this now. And frankly it is saying a lot more about you than it is about me. But let me do you a kindness. I am going to give you a way out of the hole you are digging yourself into.
Just drop it. Let's forget that this exchange ever happened. I'll happily discuss with you or anyone else any topic or issue that comes up in this forum. But I will not resort to insults or personal attacks. Is it too much to ask that you do the same?
Once again, your backhanded generosity breaks through. I said:"You don't need to answer the question now Will, you are revealed to all here for what you really are. Thank you."
You said:
"Just drop it. Let's forget that this exchange ever happened. I'll happily discuss with you or anyone else any topic or issue that comes up in this forum. But I will not resort to insults or personal attacks. Is it too much to ask that you do the same?"
Your mock magnanimity is pathetic, Will.
Okay you two.Enough.
Take it outside the group, if you must continue.
If I see either of you address one another personally in this thread again, I'll delete your post.
I'm disappointed that it's come to this.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/what-experts-wish-you-knew-about-false-memories/Being experts, of course, their views may be questionable...
Now that is fascinating. It's basically the same story that Geoff has found in the Telegraph and David from the Scientific American. But the two sources have put a noticeably different spin on it. The research behind all this is that we all are prone to false memories. We look for evidence for something that we already believe in. That can prompt us to "make stuff up" without realising it. It could be (in part) what happened to those American swimmers in Rio who claimed they were robbed at gunpoint.
And it turns out that the more we know about a subject, the more likely we are to develop false memories about that subject. It's where conspiracy theories come from.
But then the Telegraph adds a headline that doesn't really fit the story: "Why experts get it wrong". It's an eye catching headline, but it isn't really justified by the story. The research shows that false memories are more likely to happen in people with a high level of knowledge in a subject. That could be a real expert or it could be an armchair expert. And, of course, the antidote to false memories is objective evidence and research - which is what experts do for a living.
And that is the problem that we see time and time again. Newspapers like to print lurid headlines because that sells newspapers. In particular they like to print stories which they already know will chime with their readership. So the Express continually prints "bad weather" stories, the Daily Mail focuses on the negative side of immigration, the Guardian looks for left wing stories and the Telegraph has an "anti-expert" bias.
So not only do we have false memories to contend with, but we also have print journalism which is trying to nudge us towards a particular set of opinions.
I have a a two year gap in my memory. It's really odd. I did have a miscarriage and now know a long while afterwards that I must have had postnatal depression. It wasn't a talked about subject like nowadays and I just thought it was fatigue. When there are quizzes asking topical questions on those years it's a complete blank for me. Some things are a complete surprise especially pop music of the time. Memory can play some very strange tricks.
Apparently it's called "confabulation" and is a lot more common than we might think ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabu...
So when we all think that Cadburys creme eggs were bigger when we were younger, we might just be fooling ourselves ;-)
There's also a strange phenomenon known as the Mandela effect, where large groups of people believe in the false memories. Some people think that this is proof of alternative universes.
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "I have a a two year gap in my memory. It's really odd. I did have a miscarriage and now know a long while afterwards that I must have had postnatal depression. It wasn't a talked about subject like..."That must have been a terrible time for you Lynne....... but interesting that it still impinges on your life now - a strange concept to deal with and I hope you're ok now xx
Yes thanks Flo, I'm fine, as I did come out if it eventually, I functioned day to day, usually sleeping when the toddler did and running round like a blue arsed fly to catch up on housework and cook before husband came home. It's actually given me insight into other people's depression and I hope I can be more understanding of other people's depression and problems. It's a bit weird but it does make me question some of these historic abuse cases from a different angle.
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "Yes thanks Flo, I'm fine, as I did come out if it eventually, I functioned day to day, usually sleeping when the toddler did and running round like a blue arsed fly to catch up on housework and coo..."I think my biggest "light bulb" moment into mental health problems, came during the psychiatric part of my Nurse training. We were learning about Schizophrenia and had to hold a conversation with someone whilst wearing headphones. Every now and then a voice would come through the headphones..... one thing that was said while I was talking to the other person was "Look at that cow over in the field" - of course, I looked out of the window. To the person I was having the conversation with - who hadn't heard what I heard - this came over to her, as me not listening to what she was telling me. Weird - but it hit home and helped me understand.
I remember in 2002 talking to other farming people at an agricultural show and they talked about 'last year's show'Except last year was 2001 when there were no shows.
An entire community had largely blanked a year out of their lives
That's really weird Jim. Was it because of Foot & Mouth that it was cancelled??
Will wrote: "But then the Telegraph adds a headline that doesn't really fit the story: "Why experts get it wrong"..."I thought so, too. Kind of turns on what "it" is, I guess. But news reporting of scientific studies seems to have it's own problems.
http://arstechnica.com/staff/2016/05/the-problems-with-science-journalism-dont-start-with-journalists/
T4bsF (Call me Flo) wrote: "That's really weird Jim. Was it because of Foot & Mouth that it was cancelled??"yes, the entire community pretty well blanked out the entirety of 2001
Interesting in 2011 they tried to have a ten year celebration but it never really took off, for most people it was still too close and too painful
Very painful for all - even those of us not directly affected like the farmers were - seeing funeral pyres of, what were in a lot of cases, perfectly healthy animals. I'm a bit confused with the dates though - was there another small outbreak circa 1996??? My Daughter was working on a TV series called Drover's Gold at that time and the special horned cows, that they had for the timeline of the programme, had to be culled because of an outbreak - and she had grown fond of them.
Was that the Isle of Wight one?I remember the 67-68 one which came near here, then there was one on the Isle of Wight, then we had the big one in 2001 followed by the screw up of 2007
It is notable that both the Isle of Wight and the 2007 outbreaks were due to vaccine escapes
No - it was filmed in Bristol, Cardiff, Somerset and Monmouthshire. It was set in the early 19th century - hence the need for the authentic cows of the period.My daughter did have a very small (blink and you've missed it) part in the drama. She was part of the production team and they were short of an extra!!
Perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me then..... I have just asked my Daughter and she can't remember having any concerns for their wellbeing - perhaps it was just a memory from the 67 outbreak!
no, the rights aren't being scrapped. The act is being changed so that we don't have a court on mainland Europe telling our courts what we can and cannot do. There's an awful lot of hysterical stuff talked about this
If we have rights, they are not because they are what this government or that government condescends to give us. We have rights because they dare not take them off us lest at the very least they're destroyed at the polls.
And if the polls are denied us, merely destroyed
The truth is that we don't know what a UK Bill of Rights will look like. It could be "better" than the European Directive on Human Rights or it could be "worse". And, of course, one person's "better" is another person's "worse". Might we see a ban on Burkinis or an erosion of workers' rights? Would either be a good thing or a bad thing? Who knows?Being an Act of Parliament, it would be possible for each Government to change it. So we might see a Tory Government using a UK Bill of Rights to reduce the powers of the unions. And then we could get a Labour Govt to put those powers back again. And repeat.
Of course, a UK Bill of Rights would only apply in the UK. When we travel we would have to rely on international law.
It's one of those situations where we could argue endlessly about which was better than the other. If you value sovereignty above all else, then you might want a UK Bill of Rights set by a UK Parliament. But if you have a low opinion of UK politicians you might want the moderating effect of an international law on human rights which is the consensus of many countries acting together.
Or put it this way. The European Convention on Human Rights was developed over many years and as a compromise between the competing views of many member states. A UK Bill of Rights could add or remove rights according to the views of the UK Prime Minister of the day. That could be Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Owen Smith, or Boris Johnson.
After all, the European Convention on Human Rights was drafted after World War II as a direct response to human rights atrocities by Nazi Germany. The whole idea was that human rights are so fundamental that they should not be left to the whims of individual states or politicians. I still think that's a pretty good principle to live by.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "This.http://www.thecanary.co/2016/08/25/th...
What the hell?"
I can't really speak to this issue, as what "rights" UK citizens have are, I assume, a fairly complex amalgam of common law, precedent, and stuff going back to things like the Magna Carta. Jim's point below is more relevant to this than anything I might have to say.
I will point out, though, that quite a few laws were enacted by the UK Parliament in the late 90s to bring the UK into compliance with EU directives, among these the Intelligence and Security Acts. These actually formalized oversight of the UK intelligence community. My understanding, and I'm certainly open to being corrected about this, is that, for example, MI5 still wasn't acknowledged officially as even existing before these acts. I always viewed these laws as a positive development in the UK brought on by its EU membership. I can't imagine backtracking to pre-EU policies in this realm, but I guess anything is possible. I know lots of 'mericans who are envious of the Official Secrets regimen in the UK, but I'm not one of them.
But, let's face it, I'm not a UK citizen. These are really issues more appropriately discussed by Jim, Will, Geoff and the others who are.
I will add, though, that a lot of us would really appreciate it if Nigel Farage would butt out of our current election madness...
Actually the Americans who should be listening to Nigel Farage are the Democrats. The problem is they seem to have got themselves into a mindset where people who might vote from Trump are gun toting moronsNo, they're American citizens whose vote is worth as much as any other American citizen. What Farage can teach Clinton if she'll listen is the importance of reaching out to the marginalised and stopping some of her supporters slagging them off :-(
I wouldn't recommend Farage to anyone. Except perhaps as an example of what we should be trying to avoid at all costs.
Jim wrote: "Actually the Americans who should be listening to Nigel Farage are the Democrats. The problem is they seem to have got themselves into a mindset where people who might vote from Trump are gun totin..."I know quite a few gun owners who may well vote for Trump. No, they're not morons. Neither, however, are they marginalized. Guns are very accessible in this country, but they're not cheap. Certainly the AR-15 isn't. Gun collectors typically have pretty decent disposable incomes. The rhetoric begin tossed around by Democrats and Republicans is sickening, I agree. It's all blatant name-calling and insults. But I'd say the issues are less about "marginalized vs. elites," rather about dramatic shifts in technology, demographics, economics, and the world at large and the difficulty everyone has dealing with that. Politicians from both parties try to exploit the discomfort to their own ends. It's what happens when there's no longer any leadership or statesmanship.
Angry people make poor decisions. I know. We've had more than our share of experience in recent decades.
May has consistently looked to remove us from the EDHR now she gets to execute it. And put us on a par with those fine upstanding democratic states Khazakstan and Belarus
mind you there are EU member states I wouldn't want to be extradited to under a European Arrest Warrant
As always, I look forward to the constitutional crisis when the Scottish Parliament refuses to endorse this British bill of rights.
Maybe. But if I was extradited to an EU country, I would feel happier knowing that the Convention on Human Rights was in force there. Better that than the country had made up its own Bill of Rights, eh?In the same way a convention like the International Convention of Safety of Life at Sea helps to maintain safety on ships. If you get on a ship almost anywhere in the world, this convention sets minimum safety standards, such as how many lifeboats there are.
Or the Geneva Convention governing how countries go to war. Or any one of more than 450 international conventions that the UK is party to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...
That's why I am struggling with some of the rhetoric around UK sovereignty and a UK Bill of Human Rights. People are acting surprised - maybe they are surprised? - that some of the UK's laws are determined by international conventions that we have signed with other countries.
It's quite simple. The UK has power to set national legislation governing things which apply to this country only. When we need to agree legislation with more than one country, we sit down and negotiate a treaty or a convention.
That's not handing power to a foreign court. It isn't diluting our sovereignty. It doesn't stop us from introducing national legislation on things that aren't international.
If we want another country (or countries) to do something for us, we sit down and negotiate a treaty or a convention. It's nothing to be afraid of. It's how the UK (and every other civilized country) has been operating for hundreds of years.
Will wrote: "Maybe. But if I was extradited to an EU country, I would feel happier knowing that the Convention on Human Rights was in force there. Better that than the country had made up its own Bill of Rights..."except that the two major protagonists in the last war didn't follow the Geneva Convention and ignored it and as for being extradited to a country that has the Convention on Human Rights in force it's irrelevant if the judiciary is corrupt or the whole system is so ramshackle that you wait in the cells for several years as the prosecutor gathers evidence
The logic doesn't work there, Jim. Yes, there are times when people or countries break the law, but that doesn't mean that we should stop having laws. The same logic would apply to a UK Bill of Rights. It would be no good if people ignored it or it wasn't enforced.Just because laws don't always work that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.
The Geneva Convention was ignored by some of the protagonists in WW2 some of the time. But it did help to ensure that POWs were mostly well treated. Poison gas was rarely used. The fact that it was not always followed is most certainly not an argument for not having the Geneva Convention.
On the whole, international conventions work. Much of our freedom and success is built on the agreements we have reached within the international community.
So yes, some countries are better at implementing international conventions than others. But that does not mean that we give up on international conventions. A poorly implemented convention is almost always better than no convention at all.
No it means that international conventions are pretty meaningless because as you said, some countries are better at implementing them than others.So you cannot rely on them.
Much of our freedom and success is built on agreements we reached after many millions of people died as we put in place a government we could do business with.
Sorry, I'm struggling here. Most international conventions work perfectly fine. If they don't, the member states usually revise them with an amending protocol.It is certainly true that few things in life are perfect, but that doesn't mean we stop doing them. Cars sometime break down, but that doesn't make them meaningless. We don't stop using cars because you can't always rely on them.
And anyway what is to say that a UK Bill of Rights would be any better than an international one?
Let's use your example. Let's imagine that you get arrested in a foreign state. Would you rather have that state be a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights or not? One gives you some protection, the other gives you nothing.
Sorry, but I can't understand your last sentence. Can you break it down for me please?
Will wrote: "Sorry, I'm struggling here. Most international conventions work perfectly fine. If they don't, the member states usually revise them with an amending protocol.It is certainly true that few things..."
It's simple.
"Most international conventions work perfectly fine. If they don't, the member states usually revise them with an amending protocol."
So actually they don't work, you've got to keep fudging them.
"It is certainly true that few things in life are perfect, but that doesn't mean we stop doing them. Cars sometime break down, but that doesn't make them meaningless. We don't stop using cars because you can't always rely on them."
When something is unreliable, you don't rely on it. You take out insurance, you ensure there are places you can get it fixed. You don't put any trust in it. There is no meaningful method of fixing a convention other than a long winded political process that could take generations. All the while you rot in a cell somewhere.
"And anyway what is to say that a UK Bill of Rights would be any better than an international one? "
None what soever. But it's far easier for me as a British Citizen to get it improved. All it need take is a general election. Changing an international one is virtually impossible
"Let's use your example. Let's imagine that you get arrested in a foreign state. Would you rather have that state be a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights or not? One gives you some protection, the other gives you nothing."
Simple, if that country has a corrupt judiciary then the fact they are signatory to a convention is meaningless. In fact it could be a handicap in that it gives our government the chance to fob you off with the excuse that you or your relative shouldn't have any problems because the country is a signatory. Rather than our country actually bothering to do something.
"Sorry, but I can't understand your last sentence. Can you break it down for me please?"
Simple, the reason many of these countries actually signed various conventions is that we destroyed them and rebuilt them in our image.
Of course international conventions and treaties work.One of the key things that Brexiters keep going on about is that they think we can get better deals and agreements with other nations, than we do currently as part of the EU.
And if a UK Bill of Rights can be so easily changed at the whim of the most recently elected government, it renders it rather worthless.
No, because the most recently elected government is elected by the people. That's what democracy means
Jim - all laws, whether domestic or international, are constantly being amended. That's not fudging. It is a sensible state of evolution. As people find their ways around existing laws, the civil service is constantly changing the laws to keep them effective. New legislation is needed to take account of new technologies. It is also democracy in action - a new Government can change legislation to implement its policies.The fact that international conventions or national laws are amended does not mean that they are being fudged. This is how democracy works. It is one of the things that all those bureaucrats do, whether they are employed by a state or an international organisation.
That doesn't mean that conventions or laws or anything else is so unreliable that we can't use them. Every single gadget that you own will eventually fail. Under your argument you would never own any machine or have any laws because they might fail some day. That's just silly.
The critical point is how unreliable something is - how likely it is to break, how frequently and how much usefulness you can get before it breaks. And it is pretty obvious that the global community has come up with a fairly good system of national laws and international conventions. It might not be perfect, but no-one has come up with anything better.
Is it easier for a citizen to change a UK law than an international one? Well, yes and no. With our first past the post system, UK laws are generally set by the Government of the day. The EU on the other hand as a system of proportional representation. So if you believe in green policies, say, you would find that there are relatively few Green party MPs in the UK (just one at the moment), but the PR system in the EU means that there are rather more green party (or similar) MEPs than in the UK.
Are international conventions "meaningless" in a corrupt country? That's a very black and white way of looking at the world, where something is either wholly effective or wholly ineffective. The reality is that most things are somewhere in the middle.
"Simple, the reason many of these countries actually signed various conventions is that we destroyed them and rebuilt them in our image."
Sorry, but I'm still struggling with this one. Who is the "we" in that sentence? What has the "we" destroyed? States? Conventions? Something else?
And that's how democracy has worked. We've voted to get out of the EU and we've voted in a government that never hid the fact it wanted to change the convention or repeal it. You are seeing democracy in action. Rejoice!As for the we, that is 'we the people' the ones who get given rifles, six weeks basic training and a nice plain white headstone.
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
I didn't know that about cabbage. I eat cabbage fairly regularly and my cancer feeds off oestrogen. I'm on oestrogen inhibitor pills now. I wonder if I should stop eating cabbage then, or would you have to eat a real lot of it to have any affect?