Jump to content

In the News


Ramandu

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Parklife said:

There's surely no way to know that? 

I had this argument with someone about tobacco, and was surprised to find out that it is true (or was a decade ago). Money raised from tax outstripped all spend on tobacco related diseases, by an order of magnitude.

Not sure if you could do the same for alcohol, as the negative effects are a lot more diffuse.

Link to comment

1 hour ago, Parklife said:

It's almost like everything he types is founded on prejudice, rather than reality. 

You're obviously just cherrypicking specific points in my earlier comments to conform to your virtue-signalling agenda. 

My comments were non-prejudicial, objective, and reasonable, and covered a whole plethora of potential outcomes.

Did not I refer to a likelihood of a white ethnic carrying out the murder or I did I solely refer to browns only??

Maybe I've got Charles Bonnet Syndrome as well after all which is transferred to my fingers when typing. 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Ramandu said:

I had this argument with someone about tobacco, and was surprised to find out that it is true (or was a decade ago). Money raised from tax outstripped all spend on tobacco related diseases, by an order of magnitude.

Not sure if you could do the same for alcohol, as the negative effects are a lot more diffuse.

You surely can't possibly ascertain the cause of every illness and therefore the cost of treating all "tobacco related diseases". 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Matt Armstrong's Dog said:

You're obviously just cherrypicking specific points in my earlier comments to conform to your virtue-signalling agenda. 

My comments were non-prejudicial, objective, and reasonable, and covered a whole plethora of potential outcomes.

Did not I refer to a likelihood of a white ethnic carrying out the murder or I did I solely refer to browns only??

Maybe I've got Charles Bonnet Syndrome as well after all which is transferred to my fingers when typing. 

So many words. So little of substance said.

 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, The Boofon said:

It’s a reasonable assertion which seems to hold water when checked via various searches. 

How do you ascertain the cause of every single persons illness? You surely can't. 

How do you ascertain the individual cost of treating a particular patient? You surely can't.

Im sure there's been broad brush studies looking in to it, making a heap of assumptions and drawing deeply flawed conclusions though. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, CCB III said:

Where exactly? 

In your introduction of age as a factor.

The competition was not age restricted but it was gender restricted.

Your dismissal of women's (bio) views that a man (bio) won a contest for women and replaced with well if the woman who came 4th had won would it have been the same outrage.

You've made it about age when it was open to all ages but not all genders. 

Seems to me you're (as a man) telling women what they should do and how they should feel about something impacting them and them alone, and dismissing their views and concerns.

You also describe anyone who disagrees as hateful - again if a woman holds a view that men should not compete in women's sports they are hateful.

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Matt Armstrong's Dog said:

You're obviously just cherrypicking specific points in my earlier comments to conform to your virtue-signalling agenda. 

My comments were non-prejudicial, objective, and reasonable, and covered a whole plethora of potential outcomes.

Did not I refer to a likelihood of a white ethnic carrying out the murder or I did I solely refer to browns only??

Maybe I've got Charles Bonnet Syndrome as well after all which is transferred to my fingers when typing. 

Not you being a racist bigot again is it...

 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Parklife said:

How do you ascertain the cause of every single persons illness? You surely can't. 

How do you ascertain the individual cost of treating a particular patient? You surely can't.

Im sure there's been broad brush studies looking in to it, making a heap of assumptions and drawing deeply flawed conclusions though. 

No you can’t. 
 

it’s a reasonable assertion is all I’m saying. 
 

Sounds plausible. Not bothered if it’s proven wrong.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, patrick bateman said:

Not you being a racist bigot again is it...

 

???.

Again? I am not and never have been a racist or a bigot, so your use of the word is inappropriate. 

Please feel free, along with your fellow clique members, to provide evidence to back up your slur. If not, shut the fuck up, you boring cunt.

For a man/woman/transperson that has hardly posted since registering on the forum, you come across as a sock puppet account user. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, patrick bateman said:

In your introduction of age as a factor.

The competition was not age restricted but it was gender restricted.

Your dismissal of women's (bio) views that a man (bio) won a contest for women and replaced with well if the woman who came 4th had won would it have been the same outrage.

You've made it about age when it was open to all ages but not all genders. 

Seems to me you're (as a man) telling women what they should do and how they should feel about something impacting them and them alone, and dismissing their views and concerns.

You also describe anyone who disagrees as hateful - again if a woman holds a view that men should not compete in women's sports they are hateful.

Seems like you're condensing womanhood to purely biological viewpoints. 
 

Reducing women to their reproductive organs, and nothing more.

 

Thats more sexist than anything I've said 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Parklife said:

There's surely no way to know that? 

not quickly that’s for sure.


You could check the annual reports of the uk listed tobacco and alcohol companies to get an approximation the tax raised. 
 

you could then check total govt spend on the nhs. 
 

But, arsed if I’m doing it. Easier just picking out GBNs. 
 

Even if it’s higher it’s kind of a moot point as if you compare non alcohol and tobacco companies who make similar profits then the tax revenue will be similar without the concurrent nhs cost. 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Parklife said:

You surely can't possibly ascertain the cause of every illness and therefore the cost of treating all "tobacco related diseases". 

Yep, again that's what I said. But tobacco tax revenue is more than the amount we spend on diseases linked to tobacco, whether or not they were caused by tobacco.

Bit dated, but in 2015 UK tax revenue from tobacco was £12b. In the same year the total cost of smoking to NHS England was £2.6b. Add the rest of the UK and even the non medical costs, and it's still not even close.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-smoking-to-the-nhs-in-england-2015/cost-of-smoking-to-the-nhs-in-england-2015

The guy I was arguing went further, saying that we should take into account that smokers die younger, saving the government money on pensions and other healthcare. ?

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, CCB III said:

Seems like you're condensing womanhood to purely biological viewpoints. 
 

Reducing women to their reproductive organs, and nothing more.

 

Thats more sexist than anything I've said 

No 

Nothing sexist in acknowledging biology.

As I have stated previously I have no problem with trans people or them being treated as equal to all other people.

But this should not come at the expense of women and their rights.

I'm listening to what women say and giving primacy to their voices in these matters.

You're the one who, as I say made this about age not sex and dismissed women's opinion and concerns.

I don't think you realise what you are saying half the time.

Your starting position was Brian (who may well be transphobic) posted it ergo the story by it's nature must be dismissed as such.

 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, elephantstone78 said:

not quickly that’s for sure.


You could check the annual reports of the uk listed tobacco and alcohol companies to get an approximation the tax raised. 
 

you could then check total govt spend on the nhs. 
 

But, arsed if I’m doing it. Easier just picking out GBNs. 
 

Even if it’s higher it’s kind of a moot point as if you compare non alcohol and tobacco companies who make similar profits then the tax revenue will be similar without the concurrent nhs cost. 

 

There are other factors to bear in mind like the opportunity cost to non tobacco users impacted by the patient without a tobacco related illness.

Health economics is unbelievably complicated.

Good luck to them.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, patrick bateman said:

No 

Nothing sexist in acknowledging biology.

As I have stated previously I have no problem with trans people or them being treated as equal to all other people.

But this should not come at the expense of women and their rights.

I'm listening to what women say and giving primacy to their voices in these matters.

You're the one who, as I say made this about age not sex and dismissed women's opinion and concerns.

I don't think you realise what you are saying half the time.

Your starting position was Brian (who may well be transphobic) posted it ergo the story by it's nature must be dismissed as such.

 

 No eh have lots of trans friends

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, patrick bateman said:

No 

Nothing sexist in acknowledging biology.

As I have stated previously I have no problem with trans people or them being treated as equal to all other people.

But this should not come at the expense of women and their rights.

I'm listening to what women say and giving primacy to their voices in these matters.

You're the one who, as I say made this about age not sex and dismissed women's opinion and concerns.

I don't think you realise what you are saying half the time.

Your starting position was Brian (who may well be transphobic) posted it ergo the story by it's nature must be dismissed as such.

 

It's not coming at the expense of women and their rights tho? 
 

It's not like they excluded women from competing in that competition, they had a right to compete. So did trans women. Everyone's rights are in check there

 

The issue is whether someone born a man and gone through puberty should compete with women. That's something I'm unsure of, and certainly against in a lot of sports. 
 

The issue is surely about fairness in that instance, as opposed to rights. 

But what's interesting is, the people obsessed with defining womanhood as purely genitals based, have contributed to the shitshow in America just now. 
 

If a woman's sole thing that makes her (for sure) a woman is her reproductive organs, then that just feeds into the narrative over there that they are to be silly little breeding machines. 
 

A woman is someone with a vagina. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, CCB III said:

It's not coming at the expense of women and their rights tho? 
 

It's not like they excluded women from competing in that competition, they had a right to compete. So did trans women. Everyone's rights are in check there

 

The issue is whether someone born a man and gone through puberty should compete with women. That's something I'm unsure of, and certainly against in a lot of sports. 
 

The issue is surely about fairness in that instance, as opposed to rights. 

But what's interesting is, the people obsessed with defining womanhood as purely genitals based, have contributed to the shitshow in America just now. 
 

If a woman's sole thing that makes her (for sure) a woman is her reproductive organs, then that just feeds into the narrative over there that they are to be silly little breeding machines. 
 

A woman is someone with a vagina. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Did you even bother your arse to read Ten Catts post last night?  Clearly not if you're continuing with this pish 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, NEM said:

Did you even bother your arse to read Ten Catts post last night?  Clearly not if you're continuing with this pish 

Hey, he's never wrong.  How dare you question his credibility.  He's an always right kinda prick and a prick he is make no mistake.

Awaits a condescendin' age, weight or follicle based retort. He canna' help himsel'.  Prick.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...