SpankyMcFarland

Individual practitioners are unreliable as a guide to best practice at the time but obviously those with expertise are better placed to understand the data in its full medical context. If I’m looking for answers to a medical question, give me a scientist over a politician any day of the week. The best sources of advice come from large studies that review as much reliable data as possible.

I don’t like to rely on what one scientist claims. Numbers matter which is why anecdotal reports about what happened to somebody’s friend or relative are useless even if they come from a scientist. Scientists are also prone to irrational beliefs especially when a field of research has been distorted by politics. Large reviews of appropriately gathered data matter. Double blind prospective trials matter too when they can be employed. Of course, in any epidemic, especially with a novel infectious agent, the recommendations will change as knowledge of the virus changes. With Covid we are still looking at a rapidly evolving field of knowledge where errors are constantly being corrected. That’s how science works.

That is terrible. I don’t defend them at all.

That wasn’t my question. Lord, give me strength. I will try to make this simpler: Do you believe yours is the only true religion?

That’s terrible but it’s not what I asked.

If the evidence really does change I am more than happy to change my opinion. Show us a similar large review from 2023 with a different opinion.

So what are the names of the teachers who actually killed Jews and the profs who admired those particular people? I can’t imagine too many of us being happy with profs who do that in Canada. That would be a very serious issue.

There are risks associated with any treatment. What one has to do is assess the risks against the benefits. Here’s a large review of the subject: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9538893/#ejhf2669-bib-0044

I wouldn’t have a strong opinion on pronouns either way.

The accusation that Trump is a liar is baseless? What sort of people am I corresponding with here?

So you believe you profess the only true religion in the history of mankind? Doesn’t that sound unlikely? As one writer put it: “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts Now I don’t dismiss religion lock, stock and barrel - the fact that every culture has had at least one suggests it played a key role in human groups - but I wouldn’t be playing favourites and naming one as the winner.

All religions are the inventions of men.

If Republicans want to make Biden’s age an issue they would be far better off choosing Haley.

Approval ratings mean nothing in an authoritarian state where he controls the media.

Haley drew attention to the age of both Trump and Biden tonight. Trump made some howlers in recent speeches, eg confusing Haley with Pelosi and trailing into gibberish about forts. He repeats the same line multiple times too. If anybody can tell him anything, they should advise him to cut the speeches in half at least.

Are you an open borders type of guy? I presume you understand the potential for trouble when massive numbers of foreigners are allowed into a country with no consultation whatsoever with the people of that country? That is what happened under the British in Palestine. And lots of Arabs were killed too, obviously. If the British were so concerned with the plight of European Jews, why didn’t they take them in Britain, a country far better able to absorb such numbers than Palestine? You think Russian Jews wanted to make ‘the desert bloom’, as the nonsense went, over living in London? The truth is that Palestine became a refuge of last resort because no Western country or empire would take anywhere near enough of them.

The RC church hasn’t been at the centre of power since the appearance of the nation-state. Since 1800, of the great powers only France and Austria-Hungary were Catholic and France had a decidedly ambivalent approach to any religion in the running of the state. Yes, Hitler and many Nazis were born Catholic but they were running a country that had been stridently anti-Catholic under Bismarck. Hitler had strong support among working class Protestants. I brought up Luther just to illustrate that Christian anti-Semitism is a widespread phenomenon not confined to any particular denomination.

No. What I am saying is this: the whole of Christianity and Europe had a problem with anti-Semitism, not just Catholics but Protestants and Orthodox Christians too. Both sides say it. Only one side actually did it.

Well, he certainly wasn’t correct on the Jews for starters. What I mean is you can’t blame the Catholic Church for all the other acts of anti-Semitism in Christianity, eg Russian Orthodox Church, Luther et cetera. Indeed, such madness persists in Russia to the present day. How many Catholic priests would get away with an accusation as outlandish as this? https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/in-russia-an-old-anti-semitic-blood-libel-gains-political-traction That’s a very poor excuse. Luther made things much worse for Jews in Germany, a problem that persisted for many centuries afterwards. For all his other faults, Cromwell was famous for his philo-Semitism and welcomed them. Where did many Jews go after the Reconquista in Spain? To the Ottoman Empire. Things weren’t ideal there but they were much better than in Catholic Spain.

The right is just as woke as anybody when it suits them but young people aren’t as easy to intimidate by accusations of anti-Semitism as older people. What does that statement mean to an atheist?

I am aware of that. Do you agree about Luther? The record is hard to deny there and the Catholic Church can hardly be blamed for it. Instead of turning the page on such hatreds he doubled down on them.

How many failing states have you visited recently? Places without power, water, law and order? Canada is not one of them.

I’m just trying to explain a very basic point. A car company CEO can’t talk to himself or the teachers’ union to sort out a labour dispute. The parties involved have to reach a deal or else it is nonsense. I know the Palestinians don’t have good leadership right now, so why not park the big matters there and focus on confidence building measures e.g. freezing settlement activity in the West Bank? Otherwise there’ll be nothing left to negotiate which is what Likud wants.

If you want a deal between A and B you really have to go to them for it. This ain’t 1917 any more.

With whom was this deal negotiated? Usually a bilateral matter is worked out out by official representatives of both entities. In this instance, it sounds like another stitch-up along Balfour Declaration lines where only party was at the talks.