Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Actually, a lot of the debate in the spanner case revolved around a previous case involving boxing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner#Trial_and_conflicting_argumentshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Coney
There is a real question as to whether a member can be permantly banned from online party fora. Members here have experessed disagreement with placing members under moderation (which I do favour, and believe the EC or Moderators could do) since that allows members to express themselves still. But, realistically, if we're saying, as we would be wwere a member to be excluded from a party forum, that they cannot behave themselves sufficiently to do so, then really we should eb expelling that person from the party outright, not creating a second class member.If so, as per recent party discussions, the matter should be referred to the member's branch, and not the EC, per rule 29.
Rule 29 wrote:29. Charges against any member shall be submitted in writing to the Branch and a copy supplied to the member accused who shall be allowed 14 days to enter the defence.if the branch declines to act, there may be a case for enacting rule 31
rule 31 wrote:The EC shall forthwith submit particulars of the charge to all Branches and at the same time communicate the charges in writing to the accused and enclose a copy of this rule. Branches shall hold at least one specially summoned meeting to discuss the charge. The Delegates at the next Delegate Meeting or Annual Conference shall hear the case of the EC and of the accused; after which no further circulation of arguments for or against the charge may take place. The Delegates shall submit their findings to a Party Poll and the result of the Party Poll shall apply as from the date of suspension. No parties to the charge or dispute shall be allowed to sit as Delegates or Chair at Conference, ADM or any EC meeting where the case is being reviewed.A permanent ban (or even a sustained ban) is a different kettle of fish to a temporary "go calm yourself down" ban.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Has anybody ever watched speed chess? As the final seconds tick away, there is nothing as exciting as watching the players andrenaline in action.Better yet, Chess Boxing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing
Actually, Floyd Mayweather has built his whole career on not being hit. Scoring punches landed is about when someone fails not to get hit. It's not about the blood or violence, but about the determination and will.Judo and Karate lack the balletic fascination of boxing.
John Oswald wrote:Not just humans, but chimps too have the ability to reach and form peaceful solutions and alliances. Why imply that only humans do this and the "others" (i.e. chimps and other animals) don`t, whereas one is quite happy to attribute similarity where the negative (i.e. warlike) behaviour is concerned?We have to be careful with how we look at things. I remember talking to someone,a nd there was an issue in primatology about one type of Ape (might have been gorillas). During a confrontation between males, one would go over to a child, and pick it up. Some saw this as a type of hostage taking, but the counter suggestion was that the ape just wanted a cuddle, something to take away the bad feelings of cofnrontation. the effect was the same, that of terminating the show-down: intention is har to read in non-linguistic species.
I always used to be against boxing, but I caught myself watching a fight in the pub. Some poor fly weight was getting battered ever way but sunday. What struick me was, he wasn't giving up. He kept on going. Boxing is not about hitting the other fighter, it's about not getting hit, or keeping going if you have been hit. It's about amazing fitness, muscle toning and thinking, they used to call it The Sweet Science for a reason.The point is, as with all sports, the restrictions that are placed on the game (football would be easy without the off-side rule, for example).I'm not a fan of MMA, I just don't see anything admirable in kicking yiour opponent in the head on the floor (nor do I like knees and elbows being involved, as a former Judo player, I'm more ambivilant about strangles: there is an art).Obviously, in socialism, there'd be no money involved in sports, but you only have to look at the mad buggers who play hurling (for free) to realise there will always need to be some sort of outlet, for the pleasure, camaradery and pure bloody thrill of sport. there's a huge risk in horse racing (even dressage), that can't be elminated.
This is an interesting precis:https://theconversation.com/have-humans-always-gone-to-war-57321
Quote:But chimps demonstrate that war without civilisation does exist in a species similar to our own. Not only that, but similarities can be seen between chimpanzee and human hunter-gatherer warfare. For example, in both species, an imbalance of power and risk-averse tactics are often a feature of attacks: a group of chimpanzees will assault a lone rival, and hunter-gatherer groups avoid pitched battles in favour of guerrilla warfare and ambushes.It's a valid question, I think, to ask whether ambush and murder are war, even when carried out by groups. I'd have thought we would call it war when the defending party stands and fights (and dies) en masse.Actually, the abstract of the article linked to above does state: "When self-sacrificial war practices are found in humans, therefore, they result from cultural systems of reward, punishment, and coercion rather than evolved adaptations to greater risk-taking."I've not time to read the article now, but it's on Pubmed so it should be free to air. here's the abstract in full, which sounds like it makes sense:
Quote:Chimpanzee and hunter-gatherer intergroup aggression differ in important ways, including humans having the ability to form peaceful relationships and alliances among groups. This paper nevertheless evaluates the hypothesis that intergroup aggression evolved according to the same functional principles in the two species-selection favoring a tendency to kill members of neighboring groups when killing could be carried out safely. According to this idea chimpanzees and humans are equally risk-averse when fighting. When self-sacrificial war practices are found in humans, therefore, they result from cultural systems of reward, punishment, and coercion rather than evolved adaptations to greater risk-taking. To test this "chimpanzee model," we review intergroup fighting in chimpanzees and nomadic hunter-gatherers living with other nomadic hunter-gatherers as neighbors. Whether humans have evolved specific psychological adaptations for war is unknown, but current evidence suggests that the chimpanzee model is an appropriate starting point for analyzing the biological and cultural evolution of warfare.The UK media are startinjg to pay attention:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/08/nuit-debout-protesters-occupy-french-cities-in-a-revolutionary-call-for-changeAnd a slightly more snarky artivle from The Independent:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/police-remove-nuit-debout-protesters-but-the-revolution-is-set-to-continue-a6978596.htmlIt does make the good point that this ptrotest exists under official sufference.The most significant thing is that, unlike Occupy, it has clearly spread.I wonder if the no policy tactic is an echo of the John Holloway 'scream' stuff we were hearing about a few years ago. It certainly drives the journos mad.
I see the bill for the Eu leaflet includes social media promotion. The leaflet is online, let the fisking begin… https://www.eureferendum.gov.uk/why-the-government-believes-we-should-remain/eu-referendum-leaflet/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social+&utm_campaign=euref&utm_content=9_4_2016_browndoor_lpostAt first glance the 'facts' are tendentious:
Quote:we will not join the euro • we will keep our own border controls • the UK will not be part of further European political integration • there will be tough new restrictions on access to our welfare system for new EU migrants • we have a commitment to reduce EU red tapeThese are the things that Cameron negotiated, which amount to minor fiddles on the relationship.
Spotted this last week, was waiting for Francophones to tell more:Nuit debout : genèse d'un mouvement pas si spontané
Quote:Le collectif Nuit debout qui organise depuis sept nuits des réunions place de la République à Paris et dans d'autres villes de province, se veut autogéré, sans leaders définis ni appareil organisationnel. Dans leurs AG qui durent tard dans la nuit, on trouve pêle-mêle des militants d'EELV et du Front de gauche, des syndicalistes, des militants associatifs, des étudiants. Sans porte-paroles officiels, ce collectif disparate et mystérieux s'appuie pourtant sur une communication bien rodée: diffusion des AG sur Periscope avec un franc succès, lives sur les réseaux sociaux, un compte Twitter avec plus de 21.000 abonnés. Leur premier tweet date du 22 mars, et appelle à manifester le 31 sous le hashtag #Convergencedesluttes.Machine Translation wrote:The collective that organizes Night standing for seven nights of meetings Place de la République in Paris and other provincial cities , wants self-directed , not defined or organizational unit leaders. In their AG that last late into the night , there is a jumble of activists of EELV and the Left Front , trade unionists, community activists , students . No official spokespersons , this disparate and yet mysterious collective is based on a well-honed communication: dissemination of Periscope AG with great success , lives on social networks , a Twitter account with more than 21,000 subscribers. Their first tweet March 22 , and called for a demonstration on 31 under the hashtag #ConvergencedesluttesShades of Bakunin, if they are resisting organisations they would shut us down before our mouths opened (as Occupy would have had we tried any formal approach).
Well, in essence, that's what the Labour Party did back in '45, they took out huge loans (or, rather, they converted shares into debt, which they paid interest instead of dividends).
Actually, there's a quality quote in that article: "Under the developed capitalist mode of production, nobody can tell where honesty ends and cheating begins."
Attended a fascinating discussion at a Skeptics in the Pub meeting last night, a former government intelligence adviser ('Horizon scanner') talking about the EU referendum. She made two interesting points: no-one has an interest in producing a clear costed account of the pro's and con's of leaving the EU. The Government want to stay, and have thus deliberately not costed the effects of leaving (in order to create FUD, Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). The out campaign are prefering to concentrate on nebulous concepts like sovereignty, and FUD over immigrants.She also noted how Cameron's stance, that an out vote is a starting pistol to a two year process of leaving the EU is a deliberate wrecking tactic, since the reality is it would take upwards of five years to leave,a nd this could be finessed.The dots she didn't draw, though, is that this level of obfuscation can only be because the vast majority of people do not have a direct dog in this fight: ther are no killer and obvious facts to draw us to support one side or another. This is a pure blue-on-blue debate.
This might be related, not necessarily an essential trend, but an interesting one: there has not been an IPO (Initial Public Offering — that is, of shares) in a tech company in the US in q1 2016:http://qz.com/652261/the-market-for-tech-ipos-hasnt-been-this-awful-since-the-great-recession/ Now, there could be multiple causes, but presumably a lack of cash floating around waiting to be invested, plus, possibly a dearth of new business ideas, and also a consolidation of the market whereby Google, Facebook and Amazon hoover up any prospective start-ups.
