Posts by Lucy Telfar Barnard
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Slaughter and incineration are accepted responses to encountering a zombie.
Mathematical modelling shows that "a zombie outbreak is likely to lead to the collapse of civilisation, unless it is dealt with quickly. While aggressive quarantine may contain the epidemic, or a cure may lead to coexistence of humans and zombies, the most effective way to contain the rise of the undead is to hit hard and hit often.... it is imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly, or else we are all in a great deal of trouble." So not so much difference there.
-
'Scuse my (genuine) ignorance, but is `trannie' a slur? I don't think I've ever used the word, but at the same time I think I've also assumed it was a neutral, even affectionate, abbreviation of transvestite. If this is not the case, I'd like to know, just so's I know, you know?
-
I recall taking some quiz at the last election (might have been the pundit one, can't be sure now - is there anything similar this time round?) which suggested NZ First's policies best matched my political and social views. So I read their manifesto, and I could see why the quiz turned out the way it did. The problem was that Winston's comments about immigrants and refugees were so poisonous that I was never going to vote for a party that was happy to have him in it, let alone leading it. Not ever. So sure, I appreciate the fact my Mum gets to use a Gold Card, but I don't think that even comes close to making up for all his racism-enabling.
As for the Libertarianz, snore. I wish I could find them funny, but they're just irritating, like a five-day old mosquito bite that you can't be bothered scratching any more, but you know is still there, though you only notice it being itchy when you're bored.
Where's McGillicuddy Serious when you need them, eh? (And no, the Bill and Ben Party doesn't come even close).
-
I have a question, and nowhere else I can think of to ask it: I would like to see the voting system change from MMP to STV. So my vote to "keep MMP?" should be "no" and "if not MMP, what instead?" should be "STV". However, I'm concerned that all the "No" votes will effectively be votes in favour of whatever's first past the post in the second question. If that's going to be FPP, I have a serious problem, as if I can't have STV, I would certainly prefer to retain MMP than switch to FPP. Basically, I want an STV vote on what voting system I want, but that's not what I've been offered, and it worries me. Am I missing something, or do I need to (strategically) vote to keep MMP rather than risk a no vote counting as a vote for FPP?
ETA: I read on the referendum website that parliament would vote on whether to hold a second referendum between MMP and the most popular alternative - but does that mean that they could decide to change it straight away without holding a second referendum? I am out of NZ at the moment, which makes it hard to have these conversations in day to day life, or hear general coverage/discussion of the whole thing.
-
I checked my Google Ads Preferences. It thinks I'm a male aged 45-54. That's very depressing.
-
Further...
Noone bothers measuring the upside
Upside? Seriously? But anyway, yes, they do. See page 14.
People don't just take pleasure in smoking, they gain a real pharmacological benefit
No, they don't. A pharmacological benefit is one where the risks of the treatment are less than the benefits. So with chemotherapy, even though it makes you feel very ill, it is the treatment most likely to allow you to live longer, therefore it's a benefit. HRT is now seldom prescribed because even though it has a temporary benefit in relieving the side-effects of menopause, research found it seriously increased the risk of heart attack. Ergo, not a pharmacological benefit. No ethical psychiatrist would prescribe a medication for anxiety and/or depression that had the side effects of tobacco.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to tussock,
Any references for any of that tussock? ‘Cos otherwise…
depression rises in nations as smoking falls
Despite having very good access to every possible respectable medical journal, I can't find a single reference supporting this statement. Not even ones planted by tobacco companies.
There is evidence that being depressed can contribute to people taking up smoking. There are a whole bunch of other ways of dealing with depression that don't involve becoming addicted to something that will severely shorten your lifespan. I don’t see an upside in depressed people being more susceptible to tobacco marketing and peer pressure.
obesity rises as smoking falls
[smoking is] anti-anxiety
is a stimulant
True, but so what? There are plenty of other pleasurable things that won't kill you or other people.
-
I don't complain about the cost to me of smoking. I complain about the cost to society of smoking. The cost to society is not measured only by the public accounts.
-
OnPoint: Sock-Puppeting Big Tobacco to…, in reply to Keir Leslie,
For a good discussion of 'benefits' and transfers of smoking costs, see page 45 in this report. The important line is "It is perhaps unnecessary to add that our society should not and does not count as a 'benefit' any shortening of the life-span, and the evidence for this, if evidence be required, is the ongoing provision of healthcare and pensions to retired people."
In other words: We don't stop providing healthcare to people aged over 65 because their superannuation bill will be less if they die earlier, and in the same way, we don't count it as a benefit if smokers die early and therefore incur a lower superannuation bill.
The report is also relevant to most of the rest of the discussion here as well.
For something more succint, if perhaps written in more emotive language, see also ASH's response to the argument that we'd have to spend more on pensions if smokers didn't smoke (even ex-smokers have somewhat reduced life expectancy), as well as to a whole bunch of other tobacco-apologist arguments raised in this thread, here.
-
Oh, and one more thing:
It is a stretch for you to suggest that smokers have generally agreed to most of your positions here.
Quite the opposite. New Zealand research has found tobacco control measures to be generally supported by smokers (see here.)