UK politics - Dry Your Eyes Mate, ...

[Spockydog]

All lives matter (unless you've got stage 4 bowel cancer). 

 

[BigFatCoward]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

All lives matter (unless you've got stage 4 bowel cancer). 

 

I prefer them when they are honest.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Brexit problems for businesses

 

[DaveSumm]

3 hours ago, Spockydog said:

All lives matter (unless you've got stage 4 bowel cancer). 

 

So often with these things, I can never tell if I’m more amazed that they actually think that, or that they’re stupid enough to say it on camera.

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

So often with these things, I can never tell if I’m more amazed that they actually think that, or that they’re stupid enough to say it on camera.

I’d want to watch the whole show to actually understand what he’s getting at here. On the face of it, it seems appalling, to say that to someone with cancer.

However I think the context of the conversation, from what I’ve read, was that if he had to choose between saving an 80 year like himself and a child like his grandkids then he knows what he would prioritise.

I haven’t seen the show so I don’t know the truth yet. However I’m inclined to not jump to conclusions when someone says something that seems completely against the pail, knowing how often things on the internet are taken out of context

[Liffguard]

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

However I think the context of the conversation, from what I’ve read, was that if he had to choose between saving an 80 year like himself and a child like his grandkids then he knows what he would prioritise.

I suspect that this, or something like this, is what he was trying to say. But damn that was some terrible phrasing.

[Spockydog]

Eugenics ftw. Eh, gang? 

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

I’d want to watch the whole show to actually understand what he’s getting at here. On the face of it, it seems appalling, to say that to someone with cancer.

However I think the context of the conversation, from what I’ve read, was that if he had to choose between saving an 80 year like himself and a child like his grandkids then he knows what he would prioritise.

 

That's clearly not what he said. Or have you forgotten that he was telling a woman, much younger than himself, that her life was worth less than others just because she was already sick? 

Here follows a public information broadcast for the permanently bamboozled:

Eugenics Must Not Be Allowed To Sneak Through The Backdoor With Coronavirus

Quote

The eugenics movement started in Britain during the late 19th Century, arising in the context of social Darwinism and the theory of the survival of the fittest. It quickly spread to other Western countries. It led to abuses such as the sterilisation of people with mental illness or learning difficulties in the USA during the 1920s. The movement reached its awful peak in Nazi Germany during the late 1930s with the euthanising of disabled people and those who had learning disabilities.

The underlying philosophy was of racial and genetic superiority and anyone who did not fit this model, or that was considered to be less than perfect, had “a life not worthy to be lived”. This dangerous philosophy ultimately resulted in the slaughter of six million Jews and five million other people in the horrors of the Holocaust.

Following the war, eugenics was discredited because of these atrocities. However, in recent years, a new eugenics movement has begun to appear with the opportunity provided by scientific advancement to alter the genetic make-up of human beings and to “breed out” disability and genetic conditions. The re-emergence of the idea that some lives are not worth living is being applied to vulnerable people who are deemed to have become a burden on society. 

Worryingly this view has been given oxygen by former BBC Today presenter John Humphys, writing in the Daily Mail: “I know I’m among the vulnerable group for coronavirus, but just don’t believe all lives are equal.”

Similarly, Max Hastings, speaking on BBC World at One, stated that the elderly are “becoming a dead weight on the NHS”. Such thinking and sentiments are troubling.

Already stories are beginning to emerge of GPs contacting their patients with existing health conditions to ask whether they would want a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order to be included in their notes.

 

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

That's clearly not what he said. Or have you forgotten that he was telling a woman, much younger than himself, that her life was worth less than others just because she was already sick? 

 

 

Did you see the whole programme 

[Spockydog]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Did you see the whole programme 

No. Did you?

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Spockydog said:

No. Did you?

Not yet. That’s why I’m not passing judgement till I have.

What has Eugenics to do with the context of their conversation I wonder?

[Spockydog]

35 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Not yet. That’s why I’m not passing judgement till I have.

What has Eugenics to do with the context of their conversation I wonder?

Mate, he clarifies his position in the clip.  

'I didn't say your life was not valuable, I said it was less valuable.'

That is eugenics.

[ants]

On 1/16/2021 at 3:35 AM, Spockydog said:

Was listening to some mealy mouthed crap from some kind of Insurance Association spokesman. Apologising to all the business owners they tried to fuck over. They really are the worst.

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.  

[ants]

4 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Mate, he clarifies his position in the clip.  

'I didn't say your life was not valuable, I said it was less valuable.'

That is eugenics.

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? 

[Spockydog]

32 minutes ago, ants said:

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.  

Come on. Insurance companies enjoy a well deserved reputation for weaselling out of their commitments at every opportunity. 

In this instance, many business owners who thought they had Business Interruption cover found out that they didn't after their insurers' lawyers won a semantics argument in court.

 

[Spockydog]

15 minutes ago, ants said:

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? 

But that's not what he was saying. Clearly.

 

[ants]

Just now, Spockydog said:

Come on. Insurance companies enjoy a well deserved reputation for weaselling out of their commitments at every opportunity. 

In this instance, many business owners who thought they had Business Interruption cover found out that they didn't after their insurers' lawyers won a semantics argument in court.

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?  

[Spockydog]

2 minutes ago, ants said:

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?  

Remind me, how much did AIG receive from taxpayers in 2008?

I don't recall any legal obligation to bail them out, yet...

And look, if there was no harm, why was Insurance Association spokesman matey eating shit on the radio the other day?

[ants]

2 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

But that's not what he was saying. Clearly.

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.  

[ants]

6 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Remind me, how much did AIG receive from taxpayers in 2008?

I don't recall any legal obligation to bail them out, yet...

And look, if there was no harm, why was Insurance Association spokesman matey eating shit on the radio the other day?

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.