leicsmac

Well, he had enough time to incite an insurrection attempt and to pardon at least few of his buddies, if you look at the list, but yes, point made. Agreed, though given the maxim "when they go low, we go high" has led us to, well, this...

In this regard, pretty much. I'll be the first to point out that the two "sides" in the US share several qualities, but then there's enough that differs between them to be meaningful, too. And yeah, it most certainly is a rather crazy world. One might hope that it doesn't get much crazier.

And it's not like January 6th insurrectionists aren't about to get out of jail free either.

Thank you, antivax BS by the likes of Bridgen on social media.

Yeah, this is just about where I come out too, but I would have abstained tbh.

If that's true (and it's entirely possible), then I would be curious to know exactly what form it would take that would allow us to have more control over pain and consciousness/action as someone approaches the end of their life due to a terrible illness than we have already. I understand the arguments being made here and they're legit, but for them to be truly workable in terms of policy one has to offer more for the terminally ill than just sympathy/"thoughts and prayers" and the concept of an idea.

... which is nothing compared to the societal pressure put on blokes by other blokes.

Good hitting and building the lead here.

Fair to say. For me, I see the idea of someone suffering terribly and for a long time, with people (or not) around them unable or unwilling to nullify the pain they're in, and think that denying them the other option to end that pain, is unconscionable. But on the other side, the safeguards for something like this have to be utterly ironclad because the moment someone dies not entirely of their own free will, the entire idea is invalidated. And I'm not sure how you guarantee something like that. Edit: I struggle with it a lot at a personal level tbh, is pain worse than death, or the other way round?

Yeah, there clearly were numerous secular people on the No side too. It's clearly a very complex and fraught ethical debate, and both sides made legit ethical points. I would have abstained, if I had the choice to do so.

From the Beeb: Harry Brook now has seven centuries from just 36 Test innings - a ton every 5.1 times he goes out to bat. Only three players in history can better that: Clyde Walcott (4.9), George Headley (4.0) and Don Bradman (2.8) The Don making everyone else look tame again.

https://www.guerillacricket.com/ Also, Brook is some talent.

Time is the most valuable resource for exactly this reason. Every other resource, at a fundamental level, is a means to utilise it as best a person can.

Case in point re yesterday's discussion: the front page of the Telegraph features on the Chagos Islands and on energy policy - tacitly backing what the incoming Trump administration would do (wrong on both counts) over what the UK are doing at the present time (correct on both counts). Not lies, but encouraging the wrong side of the discussion rather than merely reporting it.

I think it's as close as one is going to get. Reuters and Associated Press are good for bare bones factual reports, though.

Because unfortunately people pay more to be told what they want to hear than what really is.

Agreed. The Times is really the only one I'd take at face value most of the time.

Until it's verified by another reputable source, I think it's best to treat it with speculation as at the very least it could be embellished in a way that's sensationalist enough to get clicks but not enough to be libel. Goodness knows that happens often enough with the 'Graph.

No, but an observation about recent developments on it; why anyone with a modicum of sense or empathy would believe one word of what the Telegraph prints, about Leicester City or otherwise, perplexes me.

Barbaric is about right - it's unchecked individualism and social Darwinist thought taken to its logical outcome.

First mistake.

It's a fair argument to make. However, as time goes by and the future cost becomes more and more apparent, it's difficult to place all ofthe culpability on the influential con artists. Should the worst come to pass, those left behind likely won't be blaming them alone, either. They'll blame all of the apathetic and the self interested involved in the democratic process that led to that point too.

And most of the time in a democracy, the population gets the government it deserves.

And once again... When, exactly, did the survival of countless millions of human lives and our civilisation, and the concept of leaving a better Earth for the humans that come after us, become a partisan issue? I cannot understand why anyone wouldn't buy into that idea.

That it's a Beamer makes it still more poetic.