Sampson

Top scorers this season: Okazaki 7 - goal every 107mins Vardy 7 - goal every 212mins Mahrez 6 - goal every 229mins Gray 4 - goal every 259mins

Apparently Mahrez has now moved ahead of Izzett and Heskey as our 2nd top Premier League scorer (playing less games too).

Is Shinji already in his top scoring season for us? Would love to see him hit double figures this season.

Why for all intents and purposes should he be for it? It was always Tony Benn and the hard Left who were the anti-EU ones in the 70s and 80s. It's only been the past 15 years or so that most of the anti-EU crowd switched from the hard Left to the hard Right. Something about defeating socialism and creating a conspiracy to make sure only capitalism can be in place in Europe was always the paranoid shit Tony Benn used to trot out. It's clear as mud to anyone who listens that Corbyn and Macdonnell are still old school socialists who have been moderated by their party in which case being pro-Brexit is traditionally their natural stance. I'm surprised anyone still thinks Cornyn and Macdonnell would be anything other than pro-Brexit when they've campaigned against the EU in the past and are notorious for their stubbornness and their lack of changing their beliefs over about 40 years. I'm sure they would both happily vote out of NATO and give up our nuclear defences given half the chance with no moderation too.

Why are so many choosing Keith Weller and Dave Gibson? It's best central midfielders, not best wingers or inside forwards.

He's ok but we just don't suit him. Not really convinced he'll be great at another PL team like some on here are though. Think he's a similar player to Troy Deeney or like Ulloa was in his first 2 seasons here before he started going downhill - will probably get you 10 or 12 goals a season but not going to bang them in for fun to keep a side up.

8 - Albrighton, Mahrez 7 - Maguire, Morgan, Iborra, Ndidi, Gray 6 - Vardy, Schmeichel, Chilwell, Simpson Okazaki and Ulloa did well off the bench too. MOTM was a toss up between Albrighton and Mahrez for the 2nd or 3rd game running.

I love how you manage to turn a simple club badge into an existential horror film.

He's looked so much better under Puel this season as he was struggling a bit early on after a great second half of last season. Looks like he's not actually been instructed to just lob it forward anymore and so you can actually see how comfortable he is on the ball and how good his close control is now he's not just launching it. His cushioned assist for the 2nd and his through ball to Vardy for the 3rd were both quality. You hear a lot of criticism of players that "they are not as good as they think they are" but I think Albrighton is the opposite. He's a much better dribbler and has much better close control than I think he realises sometimes, just needs a manager to give him confidence in his own technical ability.

I'll go along with what a lot of people have said and say Kante, Drinkwater, Izzett, Lennon and Cambiasso. Far too early to say Iborra or N'didi yet. Parker and McAllister well worth mentions though.

Because Shinji took a touch before the own goal. Shinji was the last player to touch it before the goalscorer so the assist is his not Vardy's.

I think most our fans love him tbh. It's only a small but loud minority who seem to not rate him.

Our best free signing ever? One of Puel's biggest things so far has been getting Alnrigjron, Mahrez and Gray all playing well in the same side.

No mention of the goal at home to Palace in the title winning season where he dinked it over the oncoming keeper? He's scored some incredible technical goals over the past 2 years.

Some people just gave it in for Morgan and always have done. Honestly think he's been our player of the season so far. Certainly been the most consistently good.

But leiscmac was arguing that we literally should be moving towards a Socialist society as humanity to stop humans dying out. Of course it's a redundant debate, anyone who still believes in Socialism and a majority public owned economy is nuts and definitely scary. The debate now is which few industries are worth putting into public control, not about putting the majority of it under control. Capitalism and an overwhelmingly privatised Economy has proven to be the only sensible way to run an Economy. The problem is that you still get people trying to whip up Socialist ideals like Corbyn and Sanders are playing the youth for fools by selling them some glorification of the public sector whole demonizing the private sector constantly. I know Corbyn won't turn us into a Socialist economy, of course he won't - but it's the way he keeps name dropping Socialism to young people who don't understand what it means and always demonizing the private sector without reproach which is what frightens me - there was a recent poll that more people under 29 in the US view the word "socialism" as a positive term than "capitalism". My worry is plenty of young people who don't really understand what Socialism (i.e. a majority public owned Economy) and Capitalism (i.e. a majority privately owned Economy) actually mean are rallying against Capitalism and rallying behind Socialism without really understanding what they mean - and I hope it doesn't lead to the same disasters in the 21st Century when everyone around to warn then of the socialist states if the 20th century are all dead. No I don't mean Communism - Communism is the stateless, moneyless society which Socialist states are supposed to evolve into, but never do. Southern Rail losing their license and a 5% tax rise is not making the country Socialist which is what leiscmac was calling for. "Socialist Capitalism?" Where have you got that term from? That's a complete oxymoran - an Economy cannot be both majority publically and privately owned.

Greed was far more relevant in Socialist countries as well as in Feudalist ones before Capitalist ones. The idea that greed has been created by Capitalism or would suddenly disappear in Socialist countries even though it's been tried countless times and never does is bizarre. You think there's no greed in the few remaining Socialist countries like North Korea, Cuba, Venuzuela and Zimbabwe? What does public ownership of industry and business have to do with reducing greed, ambition or the need to survive? It doesn't. The amount of war between or revolutions in Capitalist countries is tiny compared to the amount of wars between Socialist or Feudalist or Mercantalist countries. If you want to reduce people's want to kill each other you give them Economic growth and comfortable lives where people can all eat and cloth themselves and receive the fruits of their own labour. Socialist countries never do that because people are not allowed the fruits of their own labour because it has to be distributed equally through incredibly inefficient means. People who are trained to do the kind of horrible jobs that make society work - like cleaning and unlocking the sewers for example aren't going to become trained in that job and then do it "for the good of humanity" - it's nonsense. It's a utopian unworkable concept that makes absolutely no sense and the fact that people still stick by it after well over 100million deaths have been directly caused by it through famine and the ruthlessness of forced re-distribution of goods and services because they create this bizarre false equivilancy of public ownership of industry and the magical disappearance of greed and suddenly everyone will get along. It's the most frightening form of zealotry and idealoguery imaginable. Socialism is the biggest con in human history and the most evil and frightening one too. After the hundreds of millions of people suffering, after the hundred million+ direct deaths of their own people by Socialist regimes, after continuously keeping its people being unable to eat. I just cannot understand how anyone still thinks Socialism is a good idea or that it will somehow cause some utopian future for humanity and it will somehow rid the world of greed and competition and give every worker a faur shake. It Just boggles the mind.

But that is "evidence" changes from religion to religion. There is evidence which contradicts it in different religions. You cannot say that all the evidence which points to the external soul being only in humans because that simply isn't true. It is true of certain religions, but probably not even true of the majority of religions in history. Even if certain people of certain religions think the evidence shows that, there are plenty of religions which don't and the fact is - humans have thousands of religions to choose from. If they *choose* to believe in a specific religion which says humans or even just homo sapiens have external souls whereas other animals which have a sense of self and we share 97% DNA with don't, then yes, I absolutely would say there's a sense of human hubris there when there are plenty of religions with their own evidence to the contrary and they make that particular individual choice.

But what is this evidence you keep mentioning? And what do moral values have to do with external souls? Just seems to me like you keep repeating "I'm agnostic" to defend yourself against explaining the actual evidence as part of the debate - I'm not debating your belief system, it makes no difference to the questions I am asking and what you are defending - simple fact is: religious teachings aren't evidence for anything - there are religious teachings that atheists go to heaven and religious people don't, there are many anamalism religious teachings which say non-homo sapien animals have souls - some of which have dominated some of the biggest cultures in human history - including Ancient Egypt, Japanese Shinto, the Romans and 12th century Mogolia (the biggest country in human history). Why are they not considered evidence but Christian teachings are? Why is the modern religions popular in the UK considered evidence, but the modern religions popular in Japan and Mongolia aren't?

Why? There's plenty of genuine evidence that chimpanzees have a sense of self and they certainly recognise themselves in reflections. Why would they be exempt from that because of "evidence" (of which there is none) of eternal souls existing?

Of course but the news would almost certainly have been specific about that if it were the case.

This is really sad to read but Webb is right, you can't beat yourself up about these things and only you can change it. One of things that makes Physics such a profound subject to me (and History also) is that it's a great reminder as to how small this all is and how precious life is and how you need to grab it by the horns while you're here - not through thinking your life is part of a grand narrative; not by religion or creating a piece or art or product that makes a difference; not by chasing some unrealistic fascist or socialist utopia; not by any of these things which will all be forgotten in time - Jesus, Mohammed, Julis Caesar, Napolean, Ghengis Khan, Alexander the Great, Karl Marx, Adilf Hitler, Socrates, Plato, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein... None of these names are truly "timeless", their notoriety exists in a miniscule corner of the universe in a miniscule period of time within it and all those names will all be forgotten in time. Despite being 3 of the greatest (if not the 3 greatest) military commanders in history, Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan and Napolean all died depressed - Alexander because he conquered the known world and had no land left to conquer and no life left to live when that was what defined him, Ghengis Khan because even though he conquered more land than any other person in human history still felt he could've conquered more and Napolean because he convinced himself he was bringing the enlightenment to the world and he'd lead the world to an enlightened Utopia which of course never materialised. We all have to do some shitty jobs in our life to get by - I spent a year in a call centre cold calling people to sell them PPI and was called some variation of "vile ****" or "disgusting human being" almost every day, but work isn't your life. It's just there to earn you money to spend on things to enjoy. And I managed to get through it by just thinking of all the things that job gave me - all the travelling, the drinks with friends and the lifelong memories it earnt me. If you can make a real difference while you're here, great! But the overwhelming majority of us won't, no one on this forum likely ever will, but that is a liberating thing, not a depressing thing! Because it makes you realise you have to make the most of it while you're here and that none of that matters anyway. We're all Sisyphus eternally pushing the boulder up a hill only to see it roll down again, but it's ultimately our choice as to how we think when we push that boulder up the hill. The late, great David Foster Wallace who sadly comiited suicide in the end left us with this great speech which is always worth watching every few months or so. I've watched it many times over the years and it never fails to remind me what's important in life.

The front page of today's Sunday Times is that Damien Green has porn on his computer... I mean seriously? Who gives two shits? No matter what Harriet Harman says it really is starting to feel like it's becoming a bit of a witch hunt now. It's even sadder because it's also completely belittling the people who have suffered genuine sexual harassment when it's being placed in the same newscycle as some of this crap.

I'm in a similar position to Webbo I think. The NHS isn't god or infallable and if privitising parts of it makes it better then - even if it is "negligible" that's surely worth it in this field as that's the difference between lives being saved and lives not being? - I'm all for it. Have to admit ignorance on how healthcare works in mainland Europe though, I've never really looked into it.

I just completed this quiz. My Score 80/100 My Time 59 seconds