h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>You well know that RC and I are not in favour of child abuse. <<

Possibly that was a little crudely phrased, so explain again how whipping with a shebet (or a belt or strap of beating with a blunt object) for reasons of corporal punishment as recently outlawed in European law (that supersedes UK law if memory serves) isn't an abuse of a child?

>>Oh, so you don't believe in democracy, then!

With qualifications, obviously. I hardly need point out (do I?) that in 1935, Hitler was elected by a majority. Perhaps you need to read Popper on Liberal Institutions. Or consider how the Universal Declaration on Human Rights provides a statement of the limitaions on the laws that it is accepatle for even a democracy to enact.

RC:
>>I am not at all interested in debating* the merits of corporal punishment vs. what is deemed by the majority to be " humane " view of discipline

Well, you know what? I *am* interested. I don't care a fig about the parameters of debate set by your Bible. I don't see why I - whether part of a majority or minority - shouldn't argue that it is evil to whip children with twigs. Or rods.

I refuse to grant your Bible authority. I refuse to concede the moral high ground to you.

God Warner,you talk such bollocks!

'I refuse to grant your Bible authority. I refuse to concede the moral high ground to you.'

I'm with you, Ed.


Have a good sleep.

Sorry warner but I just had to put this in;
>>Majority is often a bad thing to invoke when talking about morality or knowledge.<<
Oh, so you don't believe in democracy, then!

Was it not a democratic decision that sealed the fate of Christ, allegedly, I am amazed to see that it is you standing against the message from the Bible.

Effers, thanks for that, I thought I was giving Gif a bit of benefit of doubt in my post but evidently it didn't come across that way sorry, can't be bothered looking up the text but he asked if I saw a parliament and later saw some lib dems and was told they were from parliament would I assume that parliament was full of lib dems, or something along those lines. I explained the rest I think, he was trying to argue that it was unreasonable to assume that Sodomy was acceptable practice in Sodom. I don't think that is a huge leap for the average imagination. If it is there is a hell of a lot more work to be done here on earth. I'll have to tell Jesus to wait a few generations when I see him. lol

>>I expect that if you watch some of the films and entertainment from say, the first 10 years, you will probably find it childish and boring<<

Many of the early films were sheer and utter genius. Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton(watch 'Young Sherlock' to see multiple exposure filming, Laurel & Hardy's, Fatty Arbuckle stuff all brilliant.



Effers: lying about placebos. Only when the 'ailment' is something that will go away on it's own i.e. a placeboic ailment NOT something that actually requries drugs. This can especially be good when someone is on the way to being a hypochondriac and the doctor knows full well that as long as they believe they are getting some drug they will 'get better'.

I am not talking about ailments that need specific drugs to be cured.

Yes, the lying part is an ethical/moral issue...but Dr's lie to people all the time to help people. If a doctor gave me a placebo and was sure it would work...then I have no problem there. It will not change my world-view, not affect my mental capacity for rational thought but would stop me suffering from whatever minor medical problem I had. I am making an assumption that with your medical history you wouldn't want a doctor giving you a placebo to try and help your bi-polar issue...I doubt whether they would as being bi-polar isn't erm *cough* all-in-the-mind but is a specific condition that does need proper medical inervention etc.

Yes, I know it sounds like I am contradicting myself from previous discussions....but not everything is black and white and that was about a different subject.

Um, Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy...

Were not 'the first 10 years' or so mentioned? That would be till 1910 at most I think Harold Lloyd started around 1916 (by the way I saw Safety Last at the cinema with live orchestra recently ).

Anyway, there was violence in the movies already in those early times - see Louis feuillade's 1912 version of Fantomas for example.

(Not to mention that you can have torrid eroticism without showing naked bodies )

How about:

'A trip to the moon'. 1902. French. Great imaginative film based on Jules Verne.

Buster Keaton was making his major stuff around 1920.

Was 'Safety First' orchestrated by Carl Davies?

I saw him conduct a Swedish Jazz group at a showing of 'The Freshman'.

Davies has done some Keaton orchestraions to I believe.

Wow, 1902! I'll have a look for that one

Er, it was the Bielefelder Philharmoniker playing. (And the score was the official one.)

3Dots I take your point about it being a different subject. But I still find it strange that you would condone the use of 'parlour tricks' by a scientifically trained person in the context of their work. If someone has what can be described as a tendency to hypochondria that should be addressed through the doctor telling the patient that that is the diagnosis. They can be advised to make changes in their lives, be referred for counselling or whatever the doctor might think would help. Prescribing pretend tablets shows contempt for the person's problems.

I am very clear in my own mind that such behaviour should play no part in modern medicine. In many people's minds it will undermine confidence in empiricist based medicine. I remember many years ago when I first heard about this idea of prescribing sugar tablets and it worried me a lot. For all I knew a doctor thought my problems were hypochondria but were not being honest with me. Ever since I have scrutinised the packets to see if they look sus in any way.

It's all very well taking a hard reductionist line on what works, but in my mind ethical considerations should always be paramount in situations where 'trust' is an issue.

But thank you for your honest reply.

Edward the Bonobo

One has to remember that the Islamic states in the UN to not recognise the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. They want one for hemselves that allows them to follow Islamic laws rather than UN laws which are secular rather than from a god.

Effers:



Hardly a reductionist line. And yes, ethics do come into it...but ethics are far from black and white as well!!!

Dr's do worry about this a lot. Dr Ben Goldacre he of 'Bad Science' and a critic of homeopathy has said placebo's do have their place BUT from an ethical point of view the 'lying' to a patient is something that needs to be discussed.

Of course, homeopathy has been proven to be placeboic and yet it's prescribed on the NHS etc.

Hi TB,

>I read somewhere that a reassuring doctor who listens to their patient would also, sort of radiates a placebo effect.

Indeed. And that is something that complimentary doctors are often much better at than overworked NHS docs. Which is where we stray from science and ethics into politics - should doctors be encouraged (i.e. paid from taxes) to spend more time with each patient?

Gif

Hi Docsharp,

Effers is quite right that I meant no offense to you by disagreeing with you. I wasn't having a dig at your medical condition, or trying to trigger any kind of paranoia. I have no wish to be offensive, and if I've inadvertently triggered a sensitivity in you, I apologise and can only say in my defence that I was not aware of it.

On the other hand - this is a debate forum, and if I disagree with you about something I am going to say so (politely) and explain why. I do think you're thinking illogically, but I think that has more to do with an insistence on a certain interpretation of the Bible than any medical condition. Let me explain.

We agree that in the case of my Lib Dem analogy it's not justifiable to assume that all people are represented by a small sample. Good, that's what I was hoping you'd say. Similarly, if I said everyone in the Commons drives a car and you ran into the Commons Volvo Club, you wouldn't assume everyone in the Commons drives a Volvo. Or if I told you everyone in the Commons wears a tie and you ran into a group wearing green ties, you wouldn't assume everyone in the Commons wears a green tie.

So this is the point of my analogy. If I told you everyone in the Commons was a sinner, and you ran into a group of gay MPs, would you be justified to assume that all MPs are gay? Might you not just have met the Commons Gay Society, with the rest being thieves and adulterers(*)? If the answer is still 'no', why would you assume that everyone in Sodom was gay on the basis of one gang of criminals? If you're thinking logically, there must be a logical reason for you to come to a different conclusion. Bear in mind also that it's logically impossible for everyone in a functioning society to be gay (bisexual, perhaps).

And please bear in mind also that we are *told* what the sins of Sodom were in Ezekiel 16 - and homosexuality is not among them. I understand that the Jewish tradition has always been that the sin of the Sodomites in the story was inhospitality (as Jesus seems to think in Matt 10:13-14 and Luke 10:10-12 where he links the fate of Sodom with inhospitality).

Gif

(*) Obviously, I'm speaking hypothetically. Presumably there is at least one MP who has been scupulously honest in his/her financial dealing and unswervingly loyal to his/her spouse - contrary to what it sometimes feels like.

Hi SS,

Are you OK? Seriously, if you're losing control, get medical help - and not placebo!

Gif

Hi Warner,

>We would be foolish to think that somehow mankind in the 21st. century overall, have a higher IQ than those in the 19th or 20th, for example.

Actually, IQ is slowly rising. But I think that reflects a problem with using IQ as a measurement of intelligence rather than affecting the point you were making though.

>I'm sure you know that TV is a relatively modern invention. I expect that if you watch some of the films and entertainment from say, the first 10 years, you will probably find it childish and boring because it was illegal to swear or show naked bodies or promote violence etc.

Yeah, TV was heavily regulated from the outset - but you should look at some of the early photos or films. People doing stuff to roosters you're not likely to find anywhere on the Internet

>>Majority is often a bad thing to invoke when talking about morality or knowledge.<<
>Oh, so you don't believe in democracy, then!

That is a fair point. Can we live in a democracy and have individual opinions that we expect to be respected?

We have no choice but to live by what society decides is right - but in making that decision, we don't use the majority as an argument. We don't say "we've always done it this way, so it must be right." We question *why* something is right. We try to persuade people to change their ways and improve. Deocracies can change - that's one of their virtues - but they can only do that if they allow free debate. As soon as you say 'the majority has decided this so there can be no more debate about it', you don't have a democracy, you have mob rule.

Gif

Hi 3Dots,

>If a doctor gave me a placebo and was sure it would work

Well that's part of the problem - there are very few medical treatments *guaranteed* to work - and placebos are among the most variable in effect. The effects can be dramatic, or they can be zero - or even negative.

Personally, I'm in the 'thorny issue' camp, tending towards 'don't use them'.

Gif