h a l f b a k e r yTastes richer, less filling.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Note: the opportunity to register candidates in the
upcoming UK general election has now passed.
So apparently, in an election if the candidate of one of
the registered parties dies, the election in their
constituency is postponed.
This obviously opens the door to a denial of service
attack.
One
party merely needs to register candidates on death's
door (or willing to make the ultimate sacrifice) in all the
'safe' constituencies of their
electoral opponents, and these seats can be
removed from contention.
The delay seems to be about a three weeks, which
should be
just enough time for the formation of a
government and passing any bills of particular interest.
If you think that sounds unlikely, bear in mind that in the
2010 election, a candidate for the Thirsk and
Malton constituency died, and the election there was
delayed until the 27th May, while David Cameron
was confirmed as Prime Minister on the 11th of May.
Dead people who won elections
https://www.mentalf...o-still-got-elected
The lesser of two evils, sometimes... [RayfordSteele, Nov 16 2019]
[link]
|
| |
// willing to make the ultimate sacrifice // |
|
| |
What, willing to move to wales ? |
|
| |
That's a very VERY big ask ... now, if it were just dying or something, that might get volunteers ... |
|
| |
//if the candidate of one of the registered parties dies//
exactly how dead do they need to become? |
|
| |
//exactly how dead do they need to become?// |
|
| |
Looking at the footage of some currently serving as
MPs, I'd go for 'all the way dead and then some'. |
|
| |
//exactly how dead do they need to become?// |
|
| |
Deader than Audley End Disco Centre on a weeknight. |
|
| |
That's pretty darned dead. It also gives you away as:
(a) a disco person who doesn't work weekdays
(c) a near-neighbour of the Buchanan estate. |
|
| |
You're slumming it at Audley End house, Max? |
|
| |
I've been through Audley End once. Didn't stay. |
|
| |
There's a house there? We only saw the grounds and a
groundsman's cottage. |
|
| |
The real downside of this idea is that no actual politicians die. If it were possible to kill off the opponent's candidate, not only would the election be postponed, but they'd have to find a new one. |
|
| |
But there might then be a "sympathy vote" - thus it makes most sense to kill a candidate who has no chance of winning anyway. |
|
| |
Just keep doing it? they've got to run out of candidates &
party members eventually.. additional upside, you might end
up culling enough of the herd to counter immigration,
increase wage
levels (by decreasing the supply of employees) & reduce our
impact on the environment . bring the nation together again?
by getting rid of those who disagree with the others .. that
was where you were headed right? ;p |
|
| |
..THE.ROMANS.DID.NOT.BVILD.A. MIGHTY.EMPIRE.BY.IVST .CALLING.MEETINGS ..THEY.DID.IT.BY. RVTHLESSLY.SLAUGHTERING .ALL.WHO. DARED.OPPOSE.THEM.. |
|
| |
Yes, but have you BEEN to Rome? Bloody Ities as far as the
eye can see, and the price of a pizza is frankly ludicrous. |
|
| |
Also the Romans, for all their might, failed to invent the U.
This is why they had to make all their roads straight, and also
explains why they never created the vacvvm cleaner. |
|
| |
Fragging was slang in the Vietnam War for assasinating one of your own officers during a firefight when the action could be concealed. Don't forget that Jo Cox MP was murdered. Sorry to dampen the enthusiasm here for untimely deaths etc. |
|
| |
//THE.ROMANS.DID.NOT.BVILD.A. MIGHTY.EMPIRE.BY.IVST
.CALLING.MEETINGS// |
|
| |
You sure? it's a lot easier to 'ruthlessly slaughter all who
dare oppose you' if you can get them all in one place first. |
|
| |
It feels like the coin toss it's an entirely underutilized tie
breaker mechanism in these electoral spots we find
ourselves in. |
|
| |
//Fragging was slang in the Vietnam War for assasinating one of your own officers
during
a firefight when the
action could be concealed. Don't forget that Jo Cox MP was murdered. Sorry to
dampen
the enthusiasm here
for untimely deaths etc// |
|
| |
1) Yes. Fragging is arranging for the death of a member of 'your side' in action. Isn't
it a
remarkable
coincidence that I'd have chosen such an apposite name for the idea? |
|
| |
2) The idea itself is obviously about /timely/ deaths. There is only one person here
slathering after some
murdering. And that's kind of his thing.
Well, maybe we humour him a bit too much. But at least you can say he's not
bigoted - he
just hates
everybody. |
|
| |
First 8th decried the cat-lovers.
I thought it an affectation.
Then he scoffed at the Students.
It's not an unusual sentiment.
Then he decried the intelligentsia
I raised an eyebrow.
When he repudiated the politicians
I evaluated only the level of vitriol.
By the time he spurned the trade unionists
I had it confirmed as a pattern. |
|
| |
When he rebuffed the French
I waited, and
Yes, the Germans too.
And the Italians, Spanish, and Greeks etc.
And the Welsh in particular for some reason.
When he put me on his list
I thought it long enough to make little difference
And there was no-one left for him to assimilate. |
|
| |
Yes, but you can see his point about the Welsh. |
|
| |
//There is only one person here slathering after
some murdering.// Actually you are the person
who has posted an idea about murdering a
politician [Loris], because to frag someone means
to kill them. As I have pointed out, a politician has
already been murdered in the UK, so your 'idea' is
in poor taste. Could you not concentrate instead
on making something useful, like a new piece of
equipment for a flea circus? |
|
| |
//poor taste.// Well, that clearly rules it out as an HB idea
then. |
|
| |
Read the idea xenzag you idiot. |
|
| |
//so your 'idea' is in poor taste// -- the pot was just covered
in carbon nanotubes |
|
| |
[Loris] Please control your tendency to personal insults. Read your own title. If you don't want me to think it's in poor taste after an MP was actually murdered, then post something that's more inventive, and less controversial. If you really don't care what I think, then don't respond to my comments. |
|
| |
[xen], the idea makes it clear that this is not about murdering
MPs. |
|
| |
//[Loris] Please control your tendency to personal
insults.// |
|
| |
/You/ just accused me of inciting murder. Also of being
uninventive. |
|
| |
What does it say? Oh yeah, "Frag the election".
Does it say to kill people? No it doesn't, because an
election is not a person. |
|
| |
Now you should read the idea and learn what it's about. |
|
| |
//If you don't want me to think it's in poor taste after an
MP was actually murdered, then post something that's
more
inventive, and less controversial.// |
|
| |
a) this /is/ inventive.
b) Jo Cox was murdered in 2016 - over 3 years ago. It's
hardly current. More MPs were murdered before that.
c) This idea isn't about killing people. You really ought to
read it. The closest this comes to murder is suicide
(which I believe
should be a legitimate option for people to take) but the intent is clearly
that people who are about to die anyway would be
registered for MP candidacy. With
their permission, obviously.
d) It's not controversial (at least, not for the reason you're
offended) - you're just very easily offended.
e) I could easily go through your ideas and complain about
each one in the same manner. Here are two examples
chosen by
nothing-up-my-sleeve metrics:
The top one in the list on your user page is currently "-- --
- .-. ... . / ...- .- .--. .. -. --." (morse vaping). Don't you
know that
people have recently died from vaping-related causes?
Your most recent idea is "Tartan Brush Roller". Tartan is part of the cultural heritage of the
Scots. Their
traditions are not your wallpaint. End this cultural
appropriation! |
|
| |
//If you really don't care what I think, then don't respond
to my comments.// |
|
| |
I do care that you're wrong on the internet.
|
|
| |
[xen] the idea is one thing (& clearly about selecting a
candidate with a soon to peak terminal condition (or a client
of a certain Swiss 'resort' happy to time things appropriately),
no murder involved),
the (somewhat) humorous commentary of the annos is
another,
you've confused the two & charged at the wrong person on
your high horse, simples, you should apologize to [Loris], your
complaints (of him, here) are unfounded. |
|
| |
//Also of being uninventive// |
|
| |
That was what really got your goat wasn't it ;) |
|
| |
//which I believe should be a legitimate option// |
|
| |
I don't (but that's just me), I worry (that if legal) it would
make the (under
the table) 'murder' of some vulnerable people potentially too
easy. |
|
| |
//your complaints (of him) are unfounded// I only ever made comments about the quality of the actual idea and not about the person [Loris] posting it, yet personal insults were directed towards me. In consequence I have nothing to apologise for, and won't be making any. |
|
| |
Well, I've already said my piece on that spat. |
|
| |
To be honest I quite like the idea that when a person has "already" died in some
manner you can never talk about any related subject ever again.
It's like a full spectrum Godwin's Law. |
|
| |
Let us call it the xenzag gambit. |
|
| |
More seriously, on the legality of suicide:
//I don't (but that's just me), I worry (that if legal) it would make the (under the
table) 'murder' of some vulnerable people potentially too easy.// |
|
| |
That's certainly a common concern, but with the right legal framework and oversight
I think this risk can be reduced to practically nothing.
The other worry people have is that more people would just kill themselves on a
whim - and I should be clear that's not what I'm talking about. There would be a
process, and this would involve registering intent ahead of time.
The cost of not having suicide as a straightforward option (without risk of
consequences for other people involved) is pretty significant in terms of suffering. |
|
| |
I might perhaps agree in principle (but only for those with a
terminal condition occasioning considerable pain, certainly
not for any psychological conditions, even more so for mere
depression) .. but I find it hard to imagine any practical
controls that would make it truly 'safe' from potential abuse,
how can you avoid intentional conditioning (or even bullying)
over time
of
those
who wouldn't choose this for themselves into accepting it? |
|
| |
//mere depression// How about a "mere brain tumour" or a
"mere paraplegia"? |
|
| |
My answer to that is covered I think by //only for those
with a
terminal condition occasioning considerable pain//. |
|
| |
To flesh that out to (fully) represent my views I should
maybe
add "untreatable" (before
"terminal") & "unmanageable physical" (before "pain"). |
|
| |
A brain Tumor isn't necessarily terminal & Paraplegia isn't,
neither necessarily occasion any pain so my answer for
those two is clearly (depending on treatability, type &
complications) for a Tumor "it depends, you'd have to look
at it case by case", & for
Paraplegia "no". |
|
| |
// but I find it hard to imagine any practical controls that would make it truly 'safe' from
potential abuse,// |
|
| |
Nothing is ever going to be 100%, but I think it could be close. I don't think I can document right
here and now a full process, but other countries have managed it. |
|
| |
//...certainly not for any psychological conditions, even more so for mere depression// |
|
| |
While I think depression would certainly need care, I wouldn't want to rule it out.
Non-physical pain is still pain.
Above all I think it should be the person's actual choice which should be respected. |
|
| |
The thing which I most fear is dementia. It's coming for me. Why should someone else get to say
that I can't end when I want to? It's most unreasonable. |
|
| |
//only for those with a terminal condition occasioning
considerable pain// |
|
| |
There are somatic conditions that occasion considerable
pain but cannot be treated and are not fatal. They will
torture the victim indefinitely. Some people can take that,
some can't. The same goes for some mental conditions. |
|
| |
I'm not entirely sure how we got from elections to assisted
suicide but, since we're here, I'll sit down and rest my feet
for a bit. It seems blindingly obvious that if someone wants
to end their own life; and maintains that desire for a
reasonable period of time; and is not being coerced; and is
not operating under false information; and is old and aware
enough to understand what they are doing; then clearly
they should be allowed to do so. To say that they actually
have to fill certain tick-boxes before they're "allowed" to
strikes me as inappropriate and, in many cases, simply
barbaric. |
|
| |
We allow suicide. To not allow anyone to help a suicide is
ridiculous - it's saying "you can do it yourself, but nobody
can help make it easier for you; if you want to but can't kill
yourself because you're paralysed, tough shit". If society
has a hypothetical problem with "slippery slopes", then
society needs to discuss that with the (thankfully small)
numbers of people whom it prefers to leave under
indefinite
torture. |
|
| |
We should extend the same compassion to humans as we do
to cats and dogs, with the bonus that the human can
actually state their preference. |
|
| |
//There are somatic conditions that occasion considerable
pain but cannot be treated and are not fatal// |
|
| |
//They will torture
the victim indefinitely. Some people can take that, some
can't// |
|
| |
Noted, true, that may be the only difficult area for
me
where
it's perhaps a little murky & I feel some conflict or have any
difficulty in providing a definitive
yes or no personal opinion on this subject .. if it's a
condition that really prevents the
individual doing the job themself if they want to. |
|
| |
But if anyone can do it themself I've no qualms at all
maintaining
the position that assistance should always be illegal in their
case. |
|
| |
This may be a bit semantic (but words 'are' important), no,
we don't, not really, we (quite rightly) 'decriminalised'
attempted suicide on the very sensible grounds that
punishing
someone for self-harm is a ludicrous thing to do, that
means
it's not a crime, that doesn't mean it's legal. |
|
| |
Or that we
'allow' it, not in any sense of the word that suggests any
degree
of tacit approval or encouragement. |
|
| |
[Crosses fingers & hopes he got the terminology right, hasn't
misremembered anything & is right] |
|
| |
[Waits to be slapped down with
links 'proving' he's wrong] |
|
| |
Now I'm reading 'Frag the Erection' which is quite
funny. |
|
| |
//no, we don't, not really// Well, semantics aside, 10/10
people will tell you "it's allowed". What is surprising is that it
was ever illegal. I suppose the question comes down to who
has ultimate authority over your body. I'd suggest that it's
you. |
|
| |
btw Loris, don't bail out early for fear of dementia. Even if
it's familial, chances are we can fix up your genes in 15-20
years from now. |
|
| |
//I'd suggest that it's you// |
|
| |
I wouldn't disagree, but that you wrote that (in this
conversation) suggests you've not understood my objections
to legalising it at all. |
|
| |
That is precisely where my concern lies, my authority over
my body, I'd rather risk not being able to do it if I want to
(though I can't see any situation were I would) than accept
any (potential) risk (at all) of someone else doing it for me
against my
will.. |
|
| |
Then getting away with that murder by saying "but it's what
he
wanted" |
|
| |
//I see as an inherent danger in any legislation legalising
'assisted' suicide// Then that's a problem of legislation, not
a problem that should leave people in endless agony. What
is required is that assisted suicide is performed only by
certain people, and that there is unambiguous and unforced
consent from the patient. |
|
| |
If a person can think, they can communicate, even if only
with an eye-blink. If they can't think, then I would argue
that they cannot want (at that time) to end their life. |
|
| |
In the case of dementia, a person might want - while they
are still healthy - to be euthenised if they degenerate past a
certain point; but if they can't express that wish when they
have reached that point, then I don't think they *have* that
wish, and so the issue doesn't arise. Thinking "I wouldn't
want to live like that" is not the same as thinking "I don't
want to live like this". |
|
| |
You are putting hypothetical risks ahead of the welfare of a
small handful of people who want their suffering to end,
but who must wake up every day knowing that it won't.
That is like watching a man burn to death because he hasn't
signed a form to say he wants the fire put out. |
|
| |
//that may be the only difficult area for me where it's
perhaps a little murky// |
|
| |
Now we're just getting circular [Max], because I can just point
you back up to that previous anno for my full response to what
you just said :) |
|
| |
//Then getting away with that murder by saying "but it's what he wanted"// |
|
| |
It seems straightforward to record a declaration of intent either way. If it's
not for you, rule it out. |
|
| |
//btw Loris, don't bail out early for fear of dementia. Even if it's familial,
chances are we can fix up your genes in 15-20 years from now.// |
|
| |
But it's not my genes that need fixing, it's my brain.
To be clear, I only have fears, not certainties. And a notoriously awful
memory. |
|
| |
//You are putting hypothetical risks ahead of the welfare of a small handful
of people ...// |
|
| |
The thing is, I don't think it's that small a handful. |
|
| |
// it's not my genes that need fixing, it's my brain// No, if
anything needs fixing, it's your genes (nothing personal).
Gene variants determine whether or not you'll get dementia,
and certain variants are highly protective. Those are the ones
you want. Don't let anyone offer to give you a cheap CRISPR
upgrade at a knock-down price, as it'll probably kill you. Wait
a few years for the next generation of editing technology. |
|
| |
// it's not my genes that need fixing, it's my brain// |
|
| |
//No, if anything needs fixing, it's your genes// |
|
| |
Would loose or tight fit help.. |
|
| |
Though I think we do have some stem cell therapies that
show promise when it comes to repairing (rather than
preventing) the damage as well? |
|
| |
Dementia starts with DNA, which is simple. The downstream
biology is fantastically messy. |
|
| |
So, from an electoral ruse, we've covered potential threats to
politicians; the Romans; the Vietnam war; Audley End;
assisted suicide; mice; the relative merits of genetic versus
phenotypic interventions for Alzheimer's; discos; morse
vaping; cultural appropriation and pizza. That is a result,
although I'm not sure what kind of result it is. |
|
| |
You forgot the relative merits of loose or tight fit jeans. |
|
| |
No! Wait! When I said "Carry on", I didn't mean ... |
|
| |
Wouldn’t work in the states. We have a habit of
voting for dead people. Link... |
|
| |