Jump to content

ants

Members
  • Content Count

    4,919
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ants

  • Rank
    A Valiant Knight of the Fur!
  • Birthday 07/17/1978

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    Array
  • ICQ
    Array

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

5,160 profile views
  1. Yeah, is there any evidence that there is a majority of Democrat senators who support removal of the filibuster? What are the policies that can not be done by reconciliation, and can you explain why only doing those will save Dems in 20222? Because it feels like a lot of good stuff can be done via reconciliation.
  2. Your logic is flawed. You've taken an action (they want their ambassadors treated like diplomats) and then overlaid that with your own assumption on why they want that (that they see themselves as a country). There is no factual basis for making that deduction. Two alternative ones could simply be: Every man, her dog, or company would want the same, except the EU has the power to request it and get it; or That they see themselves as acting for a host of countries with those countries delegating them power to negotiate/act on their behalf in many ways (such as trade), and therefore as an extension of that and just for convenience they expect to be treated as diplomats. Both of those are pure speculation ... which is what you've done. But they're equally as valid. The second seems the most logical of the three.
  3. The interesting one for me was slides 20 and 22, which pretty much claim that the EU internal market is protected because the rules will be based on EU origin. Slide 23 also says there are controls on state-aid and standards (labour, environmental, etc.). With robust enforcement tools. I didn't read all the detail after the main summary.
  4. The start of that tweet thread is also really interesting. People's adherence of the rules is generally really good. Except the key rule of how long you isolate when you've got symptoms/are positive! Plus, the rules are laxer and the virus is more contagious, which means adherence won't necessarily have the same level of impact as the first lockdown.
  5. So he's an idiot then. It's also one thing to say that younger lives are more valuable than older lives, its another thing entirely to say younger people being able to live normally for 12 months is more important than older people's lives. Well, unless you're just going to shoot the elderly, let them die, and not try and save them at all, then even if you let it run riot as that guy wants then the beds are gone. And there is more and more emerging indicators that getting COVID, even for younger people not hospitalised, has long-term negative effects on your health.
  6. Ah anecdotes. Where its impossible to know whether you are totally correct, or if you misunderstood the contract you signed. I agree corporations aren't individuals; I'm not sure why that allows them to be pasted by negative stereotypes.
  7. Good on you for watching it and not making assumptions. Helps us all out. Certainly sounds like he's an asshole. And if he used the word eugenics, then that is pretty much that. I don't disagree with him that some lives are worth more, but that quality of life thing is BS.
  8. Changing the goal posts is a bit ridiculous. Plenty of insurers have been allowed to fail, what the US government did for one insurer during the middle of the worst economic crisis in a hundred years may not be the best benchmark to use. After all, the UK government is providing money to small businesses and individuals now; if we use your analogy that obviously makes them all evil too. I assume the Insurance Association is trying its best to minimise the look the insurance industry has received from the negative stereotypes that people like you are pushing. If they'd won I assume the Insurance Association would have had some similar announcement saying how they will continue to find ways to try and help policyholders through these tough times. Or something equally PR related. It's funny; you particularly would jump on anyone using stereotypes when it comes to individuals. It seems ones about insurance companies are just fine.
  9. Um, no. I watched that small clip and what was clear was there was zero context whatsoever. You and HOI have both said you haven't watched the full show. HOI has done a little digging which indicates that the context may be children versus older people, which wouldn't be eugenics. You've said its eugenics, full stop. So no, it isn't clear. It may be you're right, or HOI is right, but only one of you has done any further research and that seems to indicate it might not be eugenics.
  10. You mean they follow the wording of the contracts they enter into? All contracts have exclusions. That is mostly done to lower the cost for the consumer. In this case the wording was ambiguous enough to be tested in court. Why do you expect insurance companies to just hand over money when they may not be legally obliged to?
  11. I don't normally defend HOI, but if he was saying young people/children are more valuable and should be saved before older people, that isn't eugenics. That's actually a pretty widely held belief. You know, woman & children first, updated for the 21st millenia to children first?
  12. Why are they the worst? They believed their policies didn't cover for this, and so for decades haven't been putting this into their premiums. If they had, the insurance would have cost more. Now it appears their wording was unspecific enough that they'll have to pay for this circumstances. I'm not sure why they're anymore the bad guys that the people who haven't paid for this insurance but now want the cover. Someone was always going to be out on a limb here, and it is only appropriate a judge made the decision of who.
  13. I've not got a clue who Neil is .... but I find it warming that this argument clearly means Murdoch has no influence on his media empire given he doesn't do any editing. Phew!
  14. One of the good things Victoria did in its second lock-down was strict distance limits. So you could only go to places within 5km without a damn good reason (e.g. essential worker going to work). This forced people to stay local, but most importantly, made it easy for the police to enforce.
  15. Actually, there are studies that show this is a key facet of conservative versus progressive world views. So as much as I hate it, and think its inefficient rubbish, when they're doing this they are actually aligning with their base.
×
×
  • Create New...