Jump to content


Board Moderators
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mormont

  1. That's a deliberate choice. Fett is trying to move away from being Boba Fett the badass bounty hunter who operates by fear and intimidation. He and Fennec discuss this exact point WRT the helmet in episode 2, IIRC.
  2. We're talking about one of the few scandals of Boris Johnson's career that doesn't, in one way or another, involve anatomy so...
  3. Taking care of children is literally one of the most fundamental tasks of society. What does he think society is responsible for? ETA - I know. He's a Republican. They think society is for telling you how to raise your children, but not helping you to actually do it.
  4. Ford hates playing the character but he loves being paid a dump truck full of money. Anyway Alden Ehrenreich is presumably available!
  5. The Republic probably don't want any crime lord running Tattoine, but that's clearly a problem for later. But let's not forget that despite his recent change of approach, Boba Fett teamed up with Vader to carry out a contract on Han for Jabba, kidnapping him, freezing him and temporarily blinding him in the process, and Han would've spent the rest of his life as an ornament in what is now Boba Fett's throne room if not for Leia and the rest risking their lives to rescue him. They think the matter was settled when Fett died in a sarlacc pit. If they hear he's alive, at the very least they will want words with him.
  6. Yeah, guys, there is a thing that's called 'paint'. You can see the paint chipping on Fett's armour. Djarin opts for the mirror finish, but other decorating options are available. I've been thinking about where this is going to go and would love to see Fett and Djarin start their own Mandalorian sect, with Grogu and Fennec and Black Krrsantan and the mod kids and the Rancor for a mascot... but then I remember that there's no way Han, Luke and Leia would have just ignored Boba Fett turning up alive and running Jabba's old territory on Tattoine, and I think this has to end badly in some way.
  7. Well, that's the mindset, isn't it? We all tend to assume that most people think the way we do, whatever the way we think. That's why stuff like this matters: and that's why it matters that people in a position of leadership act with integrity. If we believe they have a mindset of making excuses, then we'll act the same.
  8. Bryce Dallas Howard was directing, which probably helped too. I'm viewing this as basically a bonus episode, as this season is seven episodes.
  9. This is especially true because the conditions that led to COVID-19 emerging and becoming pandemic still exist. There's every reason to anticipate that the global community will face another pandemic in the next couple of decades, possibly sooner. The more we go back to 'normal' the shorter that period of 'normal' is likely to last.
  10. Truly incredible how many senior government people just wander into parties by mistake. Presumably their heads are too full of important government business to notice their surroundings.
  11. OK, but I did ask you to explain what you mean by them being 'team players' and you haven't. I'm genuinely at a loss to understand what it is you did mean, if it's not them either accepting the risk of death or being isolated so that able people can opt not to take a safe vaccine? I agree there are no easy answers, and there's nothing casual about imposing a vaccine mandate by whatever means. It would be a very serious decision and we have rightly tried to avoid it. But the point at which we can continue to avoid the hard choice is approaching. If we want to get back the things you mentioned earlier, something has to give. I'm saying sacrificing a degree of bodily autonomy is the least bad of the available options, all of which (as you say) are bad. Yes. As I've said, it's not a lightly taken position but in cases like this, the rights of these two groups are not the same. On the one hand you have disabled people, who did not choose to be disabled: on the other hand you have voluntarily unvaccinated people, who did choose to be unvaccinated. Choices carry responsibilities that accidents of birth do not. That's why when forced to choose between the rights of someone who made a choice vs the rights of someone who has a characteristic they can't change, we should (all other things being equal) choose the latter. Never lightly, and never without due consideration, but the reverse situation - allowing the freely made life choices of dominant groups to damage the lives of others who can't choose the accidents of their birth - is worse. ETA - in what may be a karmic development, you choose, I've spent a chunk of the afternoon dealing with literally fifty-odd spam messages from some activist group screaming at us to oppose vaccine mandates for medical students, which isn't even a thing in Scotland at this point...
  12. There are so many aspects to this that are absolutely damning and should be fatal to Johnson without even needing to get into whether any laws were broken. Not the least of which is that he has repeatedly stood in front of Parliament and the press to answer questions about parties that happened in Number 10 and deliberately concealed the fact that he knew of other parties that hadn't come to light yet. He's had chance after chance to come clean and has chosen, every time, to hope that he can get away with it (even when it's already clear he can't).
  13. OK. It's absolutely there whether you've seen it or not, though. I don't mean it as a personal attack but an attempt to make clear to you what it is you're actually advocating, because you don't seem to appreciate that. And indeed, you go on to not appreciate it at length. What does 'indulging them' mean in this situation? Why are you using that term to describe protecting them from an illness that could kill them? How is an immunocompromised person to be a 'team player' here - by catching COVID and going to hospital or dying? By staying isolated indefinitely? Is that a reasonable thing to ask of someone as their contribution to a society? More reasonable than asking someone to get a perfectly safe vaccination even though they don't necessarily want to? Do you understand what you're saying, and why it amounts to systemic discrimination? Yes. Largely because we have prevented many of the diseases that would kill them from becoming or remaining pandemic through compulsory vaccination programmes and other public health measures that involve compromising on the sovereignty of the individual. So here, you appear to be explicitly advocating that disabled people should shoulder the burden of their own disability rather than cause inconvenience to the able. Do you not recognise that this is institutionalised discrimination against disabled people? That building a society for the able, that is inaccessible to the disabled, putting up barriers in that way, is discrimination? You also misunderstand the story, I think. But let's not get sidetracked. But there are policies that would make them safer than they are now. Talking about 'completely safe' is to set up a false dilemma. I've said before, but to summarise: we have to reach a level of immunity in the population that reduces the prevalence of COVID to a manageable level and that means vaccinating those who remain unvaccinated. The evidence is that some intend to do it but haven't got around to it: they need a push. Others are unsure: they need more information. But the evidence is also that in most countries, at least some of those who are outright opposed to vaccination must be vaccinated for us to manage this disease in a sustainable way. Now, at least some of those people are actively resistant to measures that force vaccination - but they're also actively resistant to persuasion, appeals to public responsibility, etc. There is literally nothing we can do that will not push them further into the anti-vaccination camp. We can't change their beliefs. We can only try to change their behaviour: give them reasons to get vaccinated that aren't about the merits of vaccination. So, I would be allowing employers to require vaccination. If that doesn't work, I'd be limiting access to certain spaces for the voluntarily unvaccinated. I'd make the inconvenience of not being vaccinated as great as it has to be to get to the levels of vaccination we require.
  14. Towards the end, that's fair. It wasn't clear to me whether that was because Hodgson had reached the end of his natural cycle, having taken them as far as he could, or whether he was now in decline as a manager. We'll find out, I guess. And I'm assuming that (given his age and how long managers at Watford typically last) everyone involved understands that this is a short term fix. It'll be a tough ask, for sure. I'm not saying that Hodgson is an absolutely top drawer appointment, but given that Watford are in relegation trouble, have a habit of firing managers and have owners who tend to interfere, the top drawer was not an option: and given that Hodgson has experience in getting clubs out of relegation battles, it seems a decent fit.
  15. This is some wild shit. The police investigating the PM for a possible crime should be grounds for an immediate resignation, not an excuse for him not to resign.
  16. Good appointment by Watford but Roy, is doing the gardening really so dull?
  17. I think you may have some blind spots, then. If you've not seen the societal wrath directed towards the obese, or drug users, or seen people suggest that smokers be denied or surcharged for medical care, then ok, you haven't seen it, but it absolutely happens. Sure, but there are other core ideological foundations to build society on - one of which is that, well, we're a society. We have responsibilities to others. To maintain a society, we all have to agree to certain basic rules, one of the most fundamental of which is that we take reasonable steps to avoid transmitting infectious diseases to each other. This is of course somewhat in conflict with the above principle. But resolving such conflicts is absolutely one of the things that society is supposed to do. ps I've said it before, but what about the sovereignty of the individuals who cannot protect themselves against this disease? What is your answer to that? Do they have to forgo their rights so that others can have theirs? If so, why can't we switch that around, and have the voluntarily unvaccinated forgo their rights? It's reasonably well understood in the field of human rights and ethics that where we have a conflict of rights like this - where the freedom of choice of some clashes with the inherent, unchangeable characteristics of another - society needs to support the latter group, and freedom of choice - which in other circumstances is rightly supported - needs to be compromised. Anything else is, to be quite frank, going to result in systemic discrimination against disabled people. If you're OK with that, well, I'm not.
  18. Yeah, that's a horse of a different colour. I can support measures like allowing employers to have a vaccine mandate, but at no stage would I support limiting healthcare for anyone who gets ill - vaccinated or not.
  19. The flaw in this argument, though, is that other vaccinations are already mandatory in many countries and it did not lead to these bad outcomes. A good example for this kind of discussion is mumps. Mumps vaccines are only around 88% effective. That means that 12% of vaccinated people (1 in 8) will get the disease. Since vaccinated people hugely outnumber the unvaccinated, that means that more of them become infected and (per HoI's argument) the MMR vaccine is mostly about protecting yourself, it isn't a public health measure and it should not be mandatory. Of course this is nonsense. We've seen what happens when parents decide to stop getting their kids MMR vaccinations and it is unpleasant. And that's when the disease is not pandemic or endemic.
  20. Thanks for the nice words, folks. I'm not really seriously looking, to be honest, just seeing what's out there, so to speak. Bumble allows you to select five 'interests' from a defined list, which weirdly subdivides into not only things like sports, music and films that you like but also 'values and traits' which is even more weirdly separate from 'values and allyship'. So you can have 'reading fantasy' but to fit that in you might have to drop 'trans ally'. I had a lot of trouble getting it down to the five most relevant things but some people seem to have had trouble finding five and went for some really bland options. 'Values' include things like 'being open-minded' which is either meaningless or code for kink, I'm not sure yet, but if it's the latter just say so.
  21. I, on the other hand, just created a Bumble account! Which has served to remind me of three things: 1. I have astonishingly few pictures of myself. Really, it's a problem. I took a few selfies but I'm not practiced at it. 2. Many people are really bad at selling themselves. Like, don't select a profile pic that's you and your bestie, I can't tell which one is you. And don't tell me you're looking for someone 'honest' or 'genuine' because that's what everyone is looking for, and it doesn't deter liars and fakes even a little bit. And surely you can come up with a more interesting hobby than 'city breaks'? 3. I am very picky these days and I'm OK with that.
  22. I feel like if my friends and colleagues did that and I fucked off after ten minutes, they might be miffed. But then again if my friends and colleagues had done that while we were in the first lockdown, I'd have told them all they were out of their minds and asked why they were doing something that was clearly not permitted. Particularly if I was in a position of leadership where the event was bound to come out sooner or later and be a PR disaster. But then again, none of that would have happened at my workplace, because like responsible people we had closed our offices and were all working from home, meaning such events weren't even possible. I'm sure every single person at Number 10 that day and at all the other work events had urgent work that was literally impossible to do from home. The decorator, for example. I mean yes, we plebs had to undergo a major fucking operation to get urgent repairs done and it was in fact literally impossible for us to book an interior decorator during that time because it was against the rules. But clearly, the Johnsons needed to get the wallpapering done.
  23. Yes, omicron has a high breakthrough rate and even before omicron breakthrough infections were a thing - as they are with all vaccines. No vaccine is 100% effective. But that's not an argument for saying that the voluntarily unvaccinated should be left alone or that we can't do anything for those who medically can't be vaccinated, still less that we shouldn't try. There's an awful lot of talk when it comes to vaccines of freedom of choice and rights. But those who can't be vaccinated have rights and we can't accept a serious, indefinite curtailment of their freedoms as just inevitable.
  24. If you can find a way to do this, I doubt there's a single cyclist who'd disagree. But even with a limitless budget, I don't think it's possible in UK cities.
  • Create New...