Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SP,I should clarify, we were the only party at that meeting who would abolish the NHS, as a state bureaucracy that organised health affairs in a market system. Also, since we'd be abolishing Britain, it would no longer be a national health Service, but a World Health Service.
Islington Keep our NHS Public Hustings Islington (Link)About 50 people present again, pannel was drawn from both halves of Islington, Emily Thornbury (who was quite effective) for Labour, UKIP, Lib_Dems, Greens and us present, Tories were a no show (and got a kicking in abstentia for that).As a topic focussed meeting, in front of people who want to defend the NHS, it was a tough gig. I started by saying we wer the only party that wants to abolish the NHS, but ended the night asking why if everyone there supports health care free at the point of use, they don't support clothes, foods, housing, etc. free at the point of use? (One member of the audience told me afterwards that was a good point, and he would use it later).You can tell this is a seat that isn't in play, apart from the incumbants, the other candidates are uniformly hopeless, especially the UKIp candidates.6 party members and 2 sympathisers were in the audience, and asked a couple of questions about the need to abolish capitalism. Leaflets were distributed afterwards.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000788Unless someone else is standing in Penge, Ian is there…Interestingly, the Beeb don't list class war, but do give us a pro-forma link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/manifesto-guide
Candiates and agents should be aware of the rules around treating, and should avoid food of any sort at election events. Sadly, this is why I can't get my round in for the duration of the election… It's a hard life.
Right, two things:1) Nomination papers in, accepted, and deposit paid: Islington north is go!2) Hustings last night, 6 candidates and 40 people (who managed to find the venue) on Housing. A pleasant evening, even the Tory (clearly mindful of the seat he is contesting) called for state intervention to build houses, and all the candidates basically agreed the market isn't working (made my job easier). I think I fluffed my opening speech a little, but I got the last word with a short answer: "Abolish landlords" (The question was about evictions).It was followed on twitter, including this tweet.https://twitter.com/IslingtonPRS/status/583337499432493056
01042015 = data01/04/2015 = InformationThe process of debate invovles awareness of the idiosyncracies of human minds, that's what it's for. One, long, glorious, never ending argument.
Lbird,maybe, there is no verification, just continual validation. The information, which is, as you'll recall, distinct from data (due to the active ingrediant of mind) is declared reliable. That's it.If someone comes yup to you and says: "The Earth is flat", you can ask them what reliable process led them to that truth claim. If you have a different rpocess, you can produce that, and the debate is on. if neitehr side demonstrates a flaw in the validity of the other, a draw is declared, else one truth claim is declared invalid (or at least inferior).
LBird wrote:So, why claim that we're not 'saying, in practice, anything much different'?You either still don't understand what I'm saying, or are falsely presenting to others that there is nothing really radical about what I'm saying.Because, from what I can see, we are arguing for the same processes, and AFAICS your 'vote of truth' is an inessential frippery, a redundant icing on the cake. If we are voting on the reports of technical experts, then we will have no direct access to their data. We will only be voting on either they're logic or on their method. We're an oversite committee voting to validate, not verify.Any vote will be the 'truth' for the majority, but not for the minority, who will in practice go on believing their own view and trying to become a majority.It would be as significant as 'royal assent', which does make Acts of parliament, literally, Real, but which is frankly pro-forma.So, what we're both arguing for is for democratic control of resources, with the community setting research principles and priorities, upon which we will debate.
LBird wrote:YMS wrote:He isn't saying, in practice, anything much different from the rest of us.So, since enlightenment has dawned, YMS, why not just say it, openly, for all to see, just like me?'Truth' in socialism will be decided by a vote.There. Easy-peasy.None of that 19th century bourgeois science nonsense about 'neutral, non-political physics' and 'scientists' producing 'Truth' which is a copy of the 'Real World' and is true forever.Well?I'm waiting, YMS.
Because that's not true, nor necessary. Voting can only reveal the desire of the voter, that's the only truth it reveals. So it can reveal what lines of research society wants to pursue, it can pronounce research ethical or unethical, it can pronounce it valid or invalid, but it cannot make black white or day night.
Vin,thing is, with his most recent pronouncement
Quote:Put simply, the producers elect 'experts', who explain to the electorate, and the electorate decide by a vote between explanations. Thus power lies with the producers, not 'experts'. If the expert can't explain in terms understandable by the producers, there is thus no 'explanation', and the expert won't be elected next time the producers wish to delegate research tasks.He isn't saying, in practice, anything much different from the rest of us. In fact, what he is suggesting is not that the vote acts as verification, but as validation, which is somethign a vote *can* do. So, we're all agreed that the community at large have to have democratic control of allocating resources to science and research, and that the outcome must be communicated in he way a well educated community (with leisure time enough to follow such things, if they want) can understand. There's no need to say "Professor Blogs is right" merely "Professor Blogs has demonstrated sound methodology, and research that is likely to produce a usable result (even if it is a negative)".
I suspect Oswald would have failed to replicate what Oswald had done, doesn't mean he didn't do it. Put another way: there is no excuse for a footballer missing a penalty, yet sometimes they do; some shots on goal should never come off, and yet, sometimes, at the big moment, they do. So far as I know, it has never been demonstrated that Oswald's shots were impossible. Also, lets not forget, that eye witness testimony is not reliable, and events are confused.Oh, and…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle#FBI_testsLooks to me like they did replicate it.
A lot of the hole holes in the narrative become very clear when one considers the key fact. The stupid buggers published the route in advance. After that, we're open to any opportunistic sod to do the deed. As a matter of intellectual self defence I can waste too much time on matters that don't amount to much: and I don't want to read about every last blood splatter or hw a bone fragment turned up in an unusual place. Such 'inconsistencies' belong to Poirot. We've got a prime suspect who was in the right place, whose biography and recent behaviour suggests he was predisposed to do the act and who, despite having some possibly unusual contacts, seems very much to have been alone and slightly odd. That'll do me. I do not believe there is a reasonable doubt that Oswald did it.
As a theory, it just sounds like Oswald did it with knobs on. Oswald did it. A freak kill shot from a rifle seems pretty far fetched to me. That the establishment would seek to cover the accident up, beyond a few back covering individuals, even more so. Plus there'd be a death bed confession by now.Oswald did it. On his own.
Hustings tomorrow night:Islington Tennants Association:Girdlestone Community Centre, Salisbury Walk , N19 5DX . The image and map on their website can help you find the building on the day: http://www. girdlestonecommunitycentre.co. uk/The publicised start time of the hustings will be 7pm.
LBird,Given that Pannekoek was a professor, that means his opinions of professors was a bourgeois lie, and that professors are on our side, which means he's right, and they're on the side of the bouregsoisie, which means he's lying, and they're on our side, which means they're on their side…Of course, his own history of Astronomy does make fascinating reading for the actual relationship between science and society…
