James Brokenshire Trying To Defend The Tories Over Russia

[winkie]

So when/if it goes disastrously peter tong who or what do we blame it on.....Brexit, CoVid, bears, apples or chopsticks....or ourselves....after all we get the decision makers we deserve, all we can do is adapt to any changing circumstances to lower the risks of adversity.

[msi]

30 minutes ago, winkie said:

all we can do is adapt to any changing circumstances to lower the risks of adversity.

Lube and deep breathing exercises ares a good option.

[A.steve]

20 hours ago, Bob8 said:

I would presume that the Russians were rather keen to promote the nationalist vote in Scotland too. They were also keen to push anti-vax messages. That does not in itself discredit any of these things. I am personally benefitting from brexit.

Have you got a hypothesis about why Russian (intelligence?) would want to mount a campain to encourage people to refuse to take vaccines?  Where is the advantage by so doing?

[Bob8]

1 hour ago, longgone said:

i translate that as scared to rock the boat. 

...then you are illiterate. That is not on me.

[Bob8]

1 hour ago, longgone said:

The sad fact is remainers probably influenced more people to vote Brexit than any outside interference could have done. ?

well done chaps. 

Yes. It was far worse than murdering a woman to some people.

[Bob8]

32 minutes ago, A.steve said:

Have you got a hypothesis about why Russian (intelligence?) would want to mount a campain to encourage people to refuse to take vaccines?  Where is the advantage by so doing?

I am not that certain. Presumably they think some people are easily led. I have no better theory that the one of promoting discord.

[Bob8]

1 hour ago, longgone said:

i have a little rule that i always stick to i do the opposite of what the overall majority are telling me to do. 

those who shout the loudest are often those most affected.   

people voted for many different reasons maybe your siblings like approval from the same parents but not each other. 

Following the crowd and common sense are largely the same thing. We rarely think for ourselves, it would take overwhelming effort and we would be reduced to staring into the abyss.

[dugsbody]

35 minutes ago, A.steve said:

Have you got a hypothesis about why Russian (intelligence?) would want to mount a campain to encourage people to refuse to take vaccines?  Where is the advantage by so doing?

To stir up anti-intellectualism which is directly correlated with brexit, trump, etc. All of these movements are designed to increase friction and division.

The more confusion and friction created, the less harmonious a society will be. 

If you're interested in creating problems for a society, that would be a good approach.

Note: I have zero idea if any of this actually happens and I've stayed well clear of making a comment on it. But, I'm just pointing out the methods would make sense.

[Bob8]

2 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

To stir up anti-intellectualism which is directly correlated with brexit, trump, etc. All of these movements are designed to increase friction and division.

The more confusion and friction created, the less harmonious a society will be. 

If you're interested in creating problems for a society, that would be a good approach.

Note: I have zero idea if any of this actually happens and I've stayed well clear of making a comment on it. But, I'm just pointing out the methods would make sense.

I see it as an issue, and one on this forum, that once people reject group think, they reject the bits that do not suit them, accept the rest adn then jump onto the next think that suits them better than the bits they did not like. They then declare themselves rationalists.

[A.steve]

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

I am not that certain. Presumably they think some people are easily led. I have no better theory that the one of promoting discord.

I can't imagine a coherent objective (that could appeal to Russia) that would involve leading people to be sceptical about vaccines.  To me, it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  Promoting discord is only valuable if the discord is of a type that undermines an adversary.  In order to promote discord, of course, the optimal strategy would be to play both sides - both promote vaccine scepticism... and the idea that vaccines are completely safe and effective - and that anyone who doesn't want the treatment must be a reckless enemy.  I don't see any alegations that Russia has promoted the second idea - but, without it, there is scant discord.

 

 

[Bob8]

23 minutes ago, A.steve said:

I can't imagine a coherent objective (that could appeal to Russia) that would involve leading people to be sceptical about vaccines.  To me, it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  Promoting discord is only valuable if the discord is of a type that undermines an adversary.  In order to promote discord, of course, the optimal strategy would be to play both sides - both promote vaccine scepticism... and the idea that vaccines are completely safe and effective - and that anyone who doesn't want the treatment must be a reckless enemy.  I don't see any alegations that Russia has promoted the second idea - but, without it, there is scant discord.

I was nodding in a agreement with you for a while.

Until, I started to suspect we differ on a point, when I write that I do not understand it, I am not yet at the point of doubting it substantially. The world is entirely made up of truths that I do not really understand.

We really have two options:
1) Russia is promoting anti-vaccine propaganda, but a pair of nobodies like us  (I am being presumptious, but certainly I can count myself)  do not understand their motives fully.

2) The western powers are involved in a huge cover up to disguise that vaccines are a dangerous conspiracy.

I am perhaps used to living with big gaps in my understanding. I do not really understand how this computer I am typing on works. I have worked on vaccine development, but the full immune response is beyond my ken other than as the most basic cartoon like model.

Are vaccines safe? Yes. Are the absolutely safe; and the oxygen in the air you breath is carinogenic. But, I am in the industry, have worked in development and production, seen slack processes up close and will be giving them to my kids. Because, they are on balance for the individual and society far safer than not taking them. And, the vaccine scare stories are BS.

In some things, there is little value in promoting both sides. If one side is true and that is pretty evident and the other side is evident BS, you only need to promote the latter. If one is in your nations best interest and the latter is in Russia's then promote the latter. You can be pretty clear about it to, there is value in being seen to do it. If I want to split a happy couple up, I might push the idea one is having an affair, there is no need to push the idea that they are innocent to.

So, I confess, I cannot accept your suggestion that the lack of propaganda on both sides is an indication of much.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

Golden Visas for Russian and Chinese Oligarchs:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8553639/Tens-thousands-golden-visas-granted-wealthy-foreign-investors.html

How many made political donations?

 

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

Look how many Russian trolls have stopped posting on here since Brexit. Some of them were posting hundreds of posts a day and now their accounts are silent. 

[A.steve]

  

2 hours ago, Bob8 said:

We really have two options:

1) Russia is promoting anti-vaccine propaganda, but a pair of nobodies like us  (I am being presumptious, but certainly I can count myself)  do not understand their motives fully.

2) The western powers are involved in a huge cover up to disguise that vaccines are a dangerous conspiracy.

i can see a lot more than those two options.  My own position is that I feel the value of some vaccines, today, are over-stated.  I don' thtink they're very dangerous.  I do think that every individual should have the absolute right to refuse any medical procedure... including vaccination... even if everyone else believes that not vaccinating is idiotic.  Even if there is malicious anti-vax propaganda... why assume that Russia is the sorce?  Why couldn't it be a bunch of loonies who aren't acting for Russia who are responsible for promoting an anti-vax hoax?

[Bob8]

31 minutes ago, A.steve said:

 i can see a lot more than those two options.  My own position is that I feel the value of some vaccines, today, are over-stated.  I don' thtink they're very dangerous.  I do think that every individual should have the absolute right to refuse any medical procedure... including vaccination... even if everyone else believes that not vaccinating is idiotic.  Even if there is malicious anti-vax propaganda... why assume that Russia is the sorce?  Why couldn't it be a bunch of loonies who aren't acting for Russia who are responsible for promoting an anti-vax hoax?

The flu is about 30% effective. Not taking the vaccine is about 0% effective. Not taking the vaccine is therefore 100% less effective in terms of additional protection. This is not a secret.

Not everyone is as bright as you. Most on this board would consider themselves critical thinkers (I am not particularly, perhaps you are?).

YOu do not have to wear a seatbelt unless you are riding in a car, at which point it is required. I would see it as similar.

[Bruce Banner]

48 minutes ago, A.steve said:

  

i can see a lot more than those two options.  My own position is that I feel the value of some vaccines, today, are over-stated.  I don' thtink they're very dangerous.  I do think that every individual should have the absolute right to refuse any medical procedure... including vaccination... even if everyone else believes that not vaccinating is idiotic.  Even if there is malicious anti-vax propaganda... why assume that Russia is the sorce?  Why couldn't it be a bunch of loonies who aren't acting for Russia who are responsible for promoting an anti-vax hoax?

Agreed.

 

[Confusion of VIs]

2 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

Agreed.

 

Do you also agree that people have a right not to be put at risk by people who refuse a vaccine.  Of course this may or may not be an issue but in principle  

 

[Bob8]

5 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Do you also agree that people have a right not to be put at risk by people who refuse a vaccine.  Of course this may or may not be an issue but in principle 

On another forum, I am arguing the more liberal position funnily enough.

It is the balance and you must accept consequences. Initially, that your child or you are more likely to get ill and put others at risk, and also that measure may be taken to minimise that added risk. This can be incentive based, it is all words (as an extreme, have the vaccine and you can send your kids to school - yay!).

Flu kills far more old people than it needs to, as well as immunocompromised people. Getting young people to take the vaccine would make a huge difference, but there is little direct incentive at present (even the alturistic motive is not highlighted).

[Bruce Banner]

7 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Do you also agree that people have a right not to be put at risk by people who refuse a vaccine.  Of course this may or may not be an issue but in principle  

 

I obviously see the point, but enforced medical treatment would be the slipperiest of slopes so I would limit it to quarantine measures, as it always has been.

[Bob8]

1 hour ago, Bruce Banner said:

I obviously see the point, but enforced medical treatment would be the slipperiest of slopes so I would limit it to quarantine measures, as it always has been.

That seems reasonable.

[A.steve]

 

8 hours ago, Bob8 said:

The flu is about 30% effective.

This is an interesting point... especially in the context of a "Novel Coronovirus".  Does this new type of flu pathogen fall into the 30% where a vaccine may have a benefit or the 70% where it definitely has none?

 

8 hours ago, Bob8 said:

YOu do not have to wear a seatbelt unless you are riding in a car, at which point it is required. I would see it as similar.

I  also see it as similar.  However, while I comply, I do not agree with the laws making seat-belt wearing mandatory.  I accept that, statistically, across the entire population, of those who are in car crashes, those who wear seatbelts are dramatically more likely to survive - and to survive with far less severe injuries.  What I don't accept is that these statistics accurately capture all the relevant risks.  For example, they fail to capture the effect on those who were required to wear seatbelts but have not yet crashed. Seatbelts encourage a sense of invulnerability which, likely, promotes other risk-taking.  The statistics, of course, are not the crux of the best argument against seatbelts.  Similarly, the idea that it is OK to stand in a bus doing 50mph - but not ok to sit in a car doing 25mph - is absurd... but this, too, isn't the best argument. 

The best argument goes:  Sure - travelling in a car without a seatbelt increases the risk of serious injury or death... and most people do not see wearing a seatbelt as being a significant inconvenience.  Similarly, most people do not find it a big inconvenience to avoid throwing themselves out of aeroplanes for recreational purposes.  Does this mean we need to ban sky diving?  Most people don't find it essential to sit on top of running horses... when the horses (inevitably) fall, jockeys get injured... should we ban horse riding?  Most people don't see the need to explore the Arctic and Antarctic circles - or to climb mountains - or to bungee jump - or to swim with sharks.  These are also dangerous activities - should they be banned too?

I want to be able to choose to wear a seatbelt - I don't want to be required to wear a seatbelt.  I want to be able to choose to be vaccinated, if the benefit of so-doing is clear. I don't want to be subjected to forced medical procedures... in that direction lie eugenic atrocities.

P.S. I don't think I should be entitled to these freedoms on account of some superior analytic skill.  If I have elevated analytic ability - I should be able to benefit from the better choices it allows me to make... just as other people should be free to benefit where their skills present them with opportunities I do not have.  If the cost of this is allowing people to make bad decisions for themselves - so be it.  Those with something to offer the rest of society should focus on explaining - rather than imposing - their ideas.

[Bob8]

9 minutes ago, A.steve said:

 

This is an interesting point... especially in the context of a "Novel Coronovirus".  Does this new type of flu pathogen fall into the 30% where a vaccine may have a benefit or the 70% where it definitely has none?

 

I  also see it as similar.  However, while I comply, I do not agree with the laws making seat-belt wearing mandatory.  I accept that, statistically, across the entire population, of those who are in car crashes, those who wear seatbelts are dramatically more likely to survive - and to survive with far less severe injuries.  What I don't accept is that these statistics accurately capture all the relevant risks.  For example, they fail to capture the effect on those who were required to wear seatbelts but have not yet crashed. Seatbelts encourage a sense of invulnerability which, likely, promotes other risk-taking.  The statistics, of course, are not the crux of the best argument against seatbelts.  Similarly, the idea that it is OK to stand in a bus doing 50mph - but not ok to sit in a car doing 25mph - is absurd... but this, too, isn't the best argument. 

The best argument goes:  Sure - travelling in a car without a seatbelt increases the risk of serious injury or death... and most people do not see wearing a seatbelt as being a significant inconvenience.  Similarly, most people do not find it a big inconvenience to avoid throwing themselves out of aeroplanes for recreational purposes.  Does this mean we need to ban sky diving?  Most people don't find it essential to sit on top of running horses... when the horses (inevitably) fall, jockeys get injured... should we ban horse riding?  Most people don't see the need to explore the Arctic and Antarctic circles - or to climb mountains - or to bungee jump - or to swim with sharks.  These are also dangerous activities - should they be banned too?

I want to be able to choose to wear a seatbelt - I don't want to be required to wear a seatbelt.  I want to be able to choose to be vaccinated, if the benefit of so-doing is clear. I don't want to be subjected to forced medical procedures... in that direction lie eugenic atrocities.

P.S. I don't think I should be entitled to these freedoms on account of some superior analytic skill.  If I have elevated analytic ability - I should be able to benefit from the better choices it allows me to make... just as other people should be free to benefit where their skills present them with opportunities I do not have.  If the cost of this is allowing people to make bad decisions for themselves - so be it.  Those with something to offer the rest of society should focus on explaining - rather than imposing - their ideas.

The activities you cite are people accepting their own personal risks. They do not involve endangering other people. You are allowed to race cars, but not on public streets.

[Bruce Banner]

7 minutes ago, A.steve said:

I  also see it as similar.  However, while I comply, I do not agree with the laws making seat-belt wearing mandatory.  I accept that, statistically, across the entire population, of those who are in car crashes, those who wear seatbelts are dramatically more likely to survive - and to survive with far less severe injuries.  What I don't accept is that these statistics accurately capture all the relevant risks.  For example, they fail to capture the effect on those who were required to wear seatbelts but have not yet crashed. Seatbelts encourage a sense of invulnerability which, likely, promotes other risk-taking.  The statistics, of course, are not the crux of the best argument against seatbelts.  Similarly, the idea that it is OK to stand in a bus doing 50mph - but not ok to sit in a car doing 25mph - is absurd... but this, too, isn't the best argument. 

The best argument goes:  Sure - travelling in a car without a seatbelt increases the risk of serious injury or death... and most people do not see wearing a seatbelt as being a significant inconvenience.  Similarly, most people do not find it a big inconvenience to avoid throwing themselves out of aeroplanes for recreational purposes.  Does this mean we need to ban sky diving?  Most people don't find it essential to sit on top of running horses... when the horses (inevitably) fall, jockeys get injured... should we ban horse riding?  Most people don't see the need to explore the Arctic and Antarctic circles - or to climb mountains - or to bungee jump - or to swim with sharks.  These are also dangerous activities - should they be banned too?

I want to be able to choose to wear a seatbelt - I don't want to be required to wear a seatbelt.  I want to be able to choose to be vaccinated, if the benefit of so-doing is clear. I don't want to be subjected to forced medical procedures... in that direction lie eugenic atrocities.

P.S. I don't think I should be entitled to these freedoms on account of some superior analytic skill.  If I have elevated analytic ability - I should be able to benefit from the better choices it allows me to make... just as other people should be free to benefit where their skills present them with opportunities I do not have.  If the cost of this is allowing people to make bad decisions for themselves - so be it.  Those with something to offer the rest of society should focus on explaining - rather than imposing - their ideas.

Again I agree. The seatbelt law was, and always will be, a gross infringement of civil liberties.

[Bob8]

3 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Again I agree. The seatbelt law was, and always will be, a gross infringement of civil liberties.

The old Bruce Banner is back!

I have missed you, Sir!

[A.steve]

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

The activities you cite are people accepting their own personal risks. They do not involve endangering other people. You are allowed to race cars, but not on public streets.

The illustrations I gave were (almost exclusively) risks to the person who made the decision to engage in the activity - but... one could argue... these activities do put other people at some risk.  The Arctic and Antarctic explorers may fall ill as a consequence of the extreme environment, and... if taken to a hospital by someone well-meaning may spread secondary infections and may delay care being given to another patient.  Similarly, the sky-divers might fall on someone else who happens to be walking where the sky-diver plummets to their demise when their parachute fails to open.  Everything everyone does has some conceivable consequential risk for others... This is why sensible boundaries are important.  It simply isn't sensible to argue that individual freedom should be curtailed whenever there is any conceivable risk to others.

No-one was talking about racing cars - on public streets or otherwise - that's a silly non-sequitur.

I assume you are aware that it is (currently) illegal to require anyone to accept any medical procedure in the UK?  Do you think this statute should be changed?  I don't.