Nevets

I would just like to add, that I am not saying that there is anything intrinsically wrong with glancing at aggressors. Just that it is madness to think that this minute action is required to keep us safe. I mean there is nothing wrong with walking up a street taking quick glances at everything around you, and even the odd quick nod of acknowledgement: "oh look, busker, oh look, woman in high heels, oh look, cyclist coming right towards me, oh look, lunatic staring straight at me, oh look, bookshop selling a book I really really want". In fact, if you are really in a confident mood you might even feel socially skilled enough to have let out a little quick a mock gesture of jumping out of your skin when glancing at the lunatic staring straight at you before immediately diverting your attention to the bookstore. This would give the impression that you even see humour in potentially dangerous situations, which in itself is going to put the bully off attacking you. However when glancing at the bully it would be madness to think that anything much was portrayed beyond that you were walking around in neutral and taking everything in without thinking very much at-all, really. Anyway, I have found another Guru site offering tips which I would like to comment on. https://londonwingchun.co.uk/what-do-attackers-look-for-in-a-victim/ No, do not pay attention to your stride, because even walking can become very difficult when you pay to much attention to it. Instead focus on becoming less self conscious, not more self conscious, and believe in yourself that if you are truly using your brain this will show in your body language without you consciously making an effort. Also definitely do not fake walking with a gait, as this will come across as an arrogant swagger. No, don't check your body posture, as your body posture is natural for the current mood you are feeling. Instead try checking your emotions, and your posture will follow automatically. And definitely do not swing your arms like a soldier, particularly not if you are walking with a gait like John Travolta. Yes, be aware, but don't go looking for things that may seem out of place in your environment, as that is just looking for trouble. Instead understand that somethings are out of your control, and so long as those things are not affecting you, they are none of your business and no threat to you. No, don't walk with determination, unless you really do have a purpose and something which you really are determined to get to, as nobody can keep up being determined all the time, and people will notice that you are behaving in an unrealistic fashion which you are never going to be able to keep up. On the other hand, if you really are in a determined mood, then you will walk with determination anyway. So no need to force or fake it. End of the day, you are only going to walk with a swagger, like a soldier, with determination and whilst pretending to be a special trained operative in the arts of spotting danger when you remember to. But whenever you forget to do those things you are always going to slip back into your normal and natural state of being, and people are not stupid, they can see when someone is acting in a manner without knowing what exactly is inside those actions, so better to relax, and be yourself, be open to learning, and learn about life naturally, as you go. Also realise that the hundreds of people that knew you already liked and preferred the nice and friendly you that did not begin acting like a wannabe hardman just to impress one or two bullies which probably even only existed inside your own head because you were perhaps being a touch sensative and self conscious.

Would it not come under social science?

I came across on YouTube a channel called 'Fight SCIENCE'. I respect some of the YouTuber's martial art techniques, however he also makes videos based upon deescalation and how to completely avoid violence in the first place by using methods which I personally consider bordering on madness. He makes a video called "what to do if a person with bad intentions stares at you", and he explains that you should look at them in order to let them know that you are not scared by validating them, and then look away because you don't want to be drawn into an ego battle, and this lets the bully know that they are unimportant to you. Link to YT channel removed by moderator I personally have reservations with this advice, as in my opinion to look at someone for even a split second just to let them know that you are not scared of them 'is' in my opinion getting involved with the EGO battle, and the belief that this glance will let the bully know that you have validated him is simple madness. I imagine that this YouTuber believes his own theory as he has likely put this into practice many times himself and came to no harm, however I think he would also find that if in most occasions he totally ignored the bully and just carried on walking he in most occasions reach the same result. The only difference being that he would have denied himself the opportunity in his own mind to convince himself that he let the bully know that he was not scared of him. My personal experiences tell me that in actual fact bullies are mostly looking for shy people that are easily intimidated, and I believe that his theory of his actually exhibits a lot of shy tendencies, and so this method could backfire. To begin with, worrying about whether or not someone thinks you are scared is majorly associated with shy people, and looking at someone quickly and looking away is a very shy action. The YouTuber also continues in his presentation to state that once you have looked away and carried on walking you should use situational awareness and use the reflection from shop windows to keep an eye on whether the person is following you or not. This tells me that the YouTuber is himself not one hundred percent confident that his own method dealt with the situation, and the bully is in fact getting what he wanted by having a psychological effect on the YouTuber. The bully has him paranoid, and using shop windows to look for peoples reflections. Quite simply, I think simply showing the person that you are not shy is the best method. A person that is not shy is not concerned about whether someone thinks they are scared or not, and realises that fear is a natural emotion that comes and goes in seconds. Someone that is not shy would have absolutely no problem with turning to an individual that is staring at them aggresively and out of many statements in their locker, choosing on this occasion to be honest and simply say in a polite, firm, confident tone of voice, "excuse me, could you please stop staring at me as you are making me nervous". Someone that is not shy will be confident that the bully will not find this strange at-all, as the bully will also have a very good understanding of how normal it is to be scared or nervous, and will probably actually respect your bravery for being so honest. All other witnesses on the street will also probably respect your honesty and bravery, and you may even find another witness agreeing with you that the person was also making them feel uncomfy. The other thing about not being shy, is that now that the aggressive bully realises you are a talkative, intelligent and polite person that is willing to have discourse with you, he will likely now not be wanting to try and make a victim of you any longer as he will realise that he will not be able to make any words he comes out with sound so calm and confident as what is coming out of your mouth, and anything he says will sound sheepish in comparison. You can now walk away safe in the knowledge that the bully might now decide that intimidation is not the correct career for him and go away and try and learn some social skills instead. Alternatively, you may not feel like engaging with him at this moment, and may just keep walking and wait until he actually makes a move before enaging with him, or you could show you are not shy in other ways by trying to find a friendly passer-by that seems open to a nice friendly smile and 'hello'. There are a million different ways to deal with situations like this. However I have always told myself, just don't be shy, and you can just decide which method you will use as you go. However, looking at someone without being ready to speak, would be a cardinal sin to a person that is genuinely unshy. But I would be very intterested to hear from others on here about what they think of 'Fight SCIENCE'S' Science.

Quoting link one And According to your study, it would appear so. There is a great debate about whether or not it is right or wrong to correct someones grammar, and I am going to get around this by choosing to correct your grammar, but as I am no grammar genius myself, I also invite you to correct my grammar, and we can turn this debate into a grammar lesson at the same time as discussing your hypothesis. My reason for correcting your grammar is because I can tell that you wish to improve and better yourself, and this is why you use Cannabis, as Cannabis 'may' even be your God that you worship, and you 'may' believe that Cannabis is helping you. I would however like to enlighten you that it appears to not see any importance in helping with your writing skills. "How 'does' chronic cannabis usage influence mood and behaviour?". According to your study, it makes Cannabis users 'less conscious' and 'reduces ability', and they suffer more from 'peer pressure' and are more 'immature'. I have no idea how you came to this hypothesis by using the sources which you linked to. Whilst the wording at first glance may appear to be speaking favourably of Cannabis users being "less conscious of social norms", in fact it isn't. Being 'less conscious' is not a positive thing, and even if one thinks that they are above conforming with social norms, one should still be fully aware of social norms. Quite simply, nobody in their right mind wants to be 'less' conscious'. They want to be 'more' conscious, so driving oneself to become 'oblivious' of social norms, is certainly a 'unique' way of trying to cope with social rejection. Also, 'reduced ability' to practise reflection, is also not a great way of dealing with social rejection. The report is merely pointing to the fact that this may be a 'unique' way of dealing with social rejection, but is not a positive way. Nobody wants to 'reduce their ability'. People want to improve their ability. Your report also states that Cannabis users suffer more from 'peer pressure' and are more 'immature'. I am struggling to understand how you could think this is being kind? So, clearly, the report is not being kind on Cannabis users, and is suggesting that their unique way of coping with social rejection is purely by accident, and more based on the fact that they are not even aware that they are being socially rejected. My hypothesis is to why they might not even be fully aware that they are being socially rejected, would be because they have no concept of space and time, and they probably forgot how long they had been standing there without the ball being passed to them. Afterall, time is an illusion! You missed out the reports 'conclusion'. After reading the full report, I get the impression that merely 'heightening' the sailency of something that is wasn't broken to begin with, and 'enhancing' skills that one already had, and 'decreases' but does not elimate something which remains to a lesser degree, is not even considered in the report as to be even worthwhile considering once those small benefits have been weighed up against the cons, and in conclusion, your report concluded that this report is only really applicable to those that may have Autism. The message is, don't try and fix something that isn't broken. Also, depending upon context, 'heightening' and 'enhancing' are not necessarily good things. To much of one things is never good, and everything in moderation. Anyway, your report also says this: So you see, taking something that they believe can also impair social interaction and social sailency is simply not worth the risk for people that are not impaired already. Your report does not support the context that you are trying to support, which is suggesting that Cannabis is a good recreational drug. It is not, though it might be a medicinal for people with serious impairments.

The Big Tobacco suppression may qualify as a conspiracy. But does it qualify as a conspiracy theory? Prior to the exposure of Big Tobacco, was there a notable conspiracy theory which accused Big Tobacco of this?

Who says that intelligent designer implies a being? It could imply AI technology! Though, yes, it could also imply a being. But then which God are you referring to? Yahweh? Elohim? Allah? In the religious and non religious argument, there are more than one God involved. I feel that to use the term God would be limiting myself to a limited possibility.

I can use the term intelligent designer without believing in either an intelligent designer or disbelieving. Just like I can use the term Satan, without believing or disbelieving in this entity. We can use words available to us in the English dictionary without having any type of belief regarding them. I personally view abiogenesis and intelligent design to be equally impossible. But they are the only two options we have. Therefore I neither believe nor disbelieve, as what I believe is not important anyway.

I prefer intelligent designer because it emcompasses a larger surround. Nothing more to it than that.

You might actually be wrong about this. Merriam Webster Dictionary It would appear more likely that the terms Agnostic Atheist, or, Agnostic Theist, are the pseudo terms.

I personally am an ex christian turned agnostic. I became an agnostic after studying and researching the history of The Speculative Society. I came to understand that it does not matter what we believe, and it is not something we need to argue about. In fact, what we believe does not even need to be spoken about. It can be our own little 33rd degree secret if we wish. Of course, it also does not need to be a taboo subject, and of course, it can be discussed if we so wish. However, for me, agnosticism is ultimately about admitting that I do not know either way whether there is a God or not, so therefore I am not involved in the argument between believers and atheists, as I am neither a believer nor non believer, and for the most part, it is not a subject I pay much attention to, beyond occasionally perhaps posting a thread such as this one. However, I would go so far as to say that I am not the only person on this website that is agnostic. In fact, I would go as far as to say that almost everyone in the world is agnostic if they are being perfectly honest with themselves and others, as nobody really knows for sure whether or not there is a God, or no God. I personally also only use the word God because that is the favoured expression. I actually prefer to use intelligent designer. Feel free to disagree with this if you so wish.

Providing evidence is a slow process which I can only do one at a time, as I also have a business to run and a Mother suffering from Pneumonia and COPD, so I can't dedicate my entire time to providing evidence which I was hoping was common knowledge. But I will begin with PJ Audits, aka Peter Allsop. Case 1 The above refers to this case here: Case number 2603443/2019 Gov.uk I will provide other cases. Case 2 This is Auditing Lancashire. The above refers to this Child Abuse case in link below. Lancashire Telegraph Case 3. Coincidentally this involves the Auditor in my YouTube video in the OP. The above video is regarding this case below where it is alleged that Berke Ersoy got found guilty of 18 drug dealing offences and is currently serving seven years. I personally can only find evidence of one drug offence. The Reading Chronicle

In the U.S. they are known as First Amendment Audits. Here is the definition from Wikipedia. First Amendment Audits Below is what Police Scotland have to say. PoliceScotland To provide an example I will link to a random YouTube video that you can watch. I will use an example from Fettes Police Station in Scotland for no other reason than I am from Edinburgh, so this video is of most interest to me. Also, considering the UK only has a handful of Auditors, many of those Auditors appear to have criminal records ranging from Child Abuse, Stalking and Harassment, to Drug Dealing. Therefore as this is a Science forum, perhaps we may also have theories regarding the Science behind the reasons that so many Police Auditors have a criminal record. Do you consider Police Auditors to be ethical or unethical?

I already provided this. The quote is below the YouTube video. The problem is that I have not worked out how to use the quote facility properly. "It has been revealed that Sadiq Khan's deputy Mayor for the Environment, Shirley Rodrigues sought to interfere with scientists hired by the Mayor's office. Sadiq Khan relies upon their research as evidence to back up his unpopular Londonwide ULEZ expansion" "At the London Assembly's Plenary, Peter Fortune AM seconded a motion condemning the Mayor and his team's behaviour, and calling for ULEZ to be cancelled as a result". the LondThe Independenton Ok, I think I am getting the hang of the quote function now! OkPlenary, Peter Fortune AM seconded a motion condemning the Mayor and his team's behaviour, and calling for ULEZ to be cancelled as a result.

Well, there appears to be widespread belief across the internet that Sadiq Khan misrepresented his Scientific report. This appears to have gone unchallenged. There also appears to be no notable challenge from anyone regarding Peter Fortune's allegations. This would make me suspect that disbelieving Peter Fortune's allegations could fall into the category of conspiracy theory. Also, as the accusations against Sadiq Khan are so widespread across the internet, I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to provide any further documentation whatsoever. It is your responsibility to do your own due-diligence, and the accusation is well reported enough and notable enough that you can easily find copious amounts of results yourself by simply consulting any of many internet platforms, including Google.

That is fine. You can accuse Peter Fortune, the Deputy leader of the Conservative Party and London Assembly Member for Bexley and Bromley of telling lies at the London Assembly and Talk TV all you like. But why if he is lying about Imperial College's stance on ULEZ, has no other politicians accused of him of this? Do you have anything to support your conspiracy theory that the Deputy leader of the Conservative Party is telling lies?

I hope the research that you cite is not from The Imperial College, because it is alleged that Sadiq Khan lied about what The Imperial College believed. In actual fact The Imperial College believe that ULEZ will have less than a 3% improvement on air quality in London. I would like to see Science which counters that of The Imperial College. College London published a report that said the impact of ULEZ would be less than 3% on air quality in the capital. College London published a report that said the impact of ULEZ would be less than 3% on air quality in the capital.

Yes, the claim about the child that had air pollution as the reason for death on the death certificate is in fact true, I believe. Perhaps someone with Scientific knowledge could confirm just how a coroner could possibally know for a fact that a child's death was directly caused by air pollution. If nobody can, then I may consider this diagnosis to also be unscientific. I will be honest, my concern is that Low Emission Zones are just cash cows.

As I am not a Scientist I can't conduct my own studies, and I am reliant upon reading Scientific literature to form my opinions. Are you aware of any proven Scientific research which supports the requirement for Low Emission Zones that we are seeing pop up all over Europe, and not just in London?

Ok, please give me some time to make an argument for debate, and I will Edit my post

According to City Hall Conservatives Sadiq Khan's organisation tried to bribe a Scientific institution into lying about their research because the conclusion reached by the Scientific institution did not support the requirement for a ULEZ expansion. The claim is made at a London Assembly in the video below. Please watch the clip and give your Scientific opinions on whether or not Science supports Sadiq Khan or not. Claim made by Sadiq Khan's Scientific research team - Despite these improvements in air quality there was no evidence of a reduction in the proportion of children with small lungs or Asthma symptoms over this period. (This is referring to the ULEZ that was implemented in Central London). Claim made that Sadiq Khan's deputy Mayor sent an email to the Scientific institution saying - Hi Chris, Shirley has reviewed your study and has asked if you could reword your letter as it reads like Low Emission Zones have no impact at-all Summary The claim is that according to Sadiq Khan's very own Science institution whom he paid nearly one million pound to research the effects of car pollution on people's health, his very own Scentific institution said "there was no evidence of a reduction in the proportion of children with small lungs or Asthma symptoms over this period", and therefor Low Emission Zones have no impact at-all, and are simply a cash cow. So, what is the opinion of the Scientific community regarding the effects of Low Emission Zones?

Hello Scientists. I am a "non" Scientist that has found myself in a frustrating situation. I am currently debating against vaccine denialists on a debate platform. It is a good little platform in that it is fun to debate things. The evil thing about this however, is that the debaters become conflicted in their interests. They begin arguing just about anything, in order to try and gain points from the voters. A good example of this is another person like myself that debates anti-vaxxers, mistakenly found herself debating against me, when she mistook me for an anti-vaxxer. So she unwittingly found herself debating "against" the importance of sanitation, and she dishonestly continued with this debate, instead of admitting her mistake. "Horrifically" she has managed to convince a few "anti-vaxxers" that her debate is honest, and she is being awarded points. The debate i am referring to, is here. https://www.debateart.com/debates/1847/over-reliance-on-vaccinations-may-lead-to-profiteering-and-poor-sanitation Now i may not be doing a very good job of arguing my point, i dont know. But both the users that voted in favour of this woman, are "anti-vaxxers". You can find their votes by clicking on votes, and you can see the names of the users that voted. Now one of those users that voted, is currently debating against me, on this thread here. https://www.debateart.com/debates/1848/pediatric-study-shows-dtap-does-not-cause-autism-in-under-6-year-olds Now i am worried, that this user is now attempting to obfuscate the subject behind all types of wordplay objections, that barely have any relevance whatsoever, that his objections might actually be taken seriously by the voters, and yet again, an anti-vaxxer might be seen to win a debate against a person debating against vaccinations causing autism, etc. Just like a vaxxer found herself mistakenly arguing against washing ones hands, for no other reason, than to win points, because she was not honest enough to admit to the voters she had made a mistake. She even attempted to try and invent beliefs in me that i do not hold, to try and give herself something to argue against. She conned the voters, as a neutral person looking at it from a neutral point of view, should hopefully be able to establish. This subject might not seem important to some. But it is important to me. I am hoping to receive some assistance from the science community. That have the scienctific knowledge to know that having criticisms about "over reliance" on vaccines is nowhere near the same thing as being against vaccines. At the beginning of round 1, i wrote "Now the debate i am having here, in no way contradicts my belief in the good, and importance, of vaccines." My debate was that "to concentrate to much on vaccines and forget sanitation" is not good. Sanitation is important. Whether i made that "clear" i dont know. So i am looking for someone with scientific knowledge, that also agrees that sanitation is important, and that an over reliance on vaccines could lead to forgetting about sanitation. And i am also looking for someone with scientific knowledge about Tdap and Dtap vaccinations not causing autism. I am ultimately looking for people with scientific background, that are willing to forgive my lack of clarity, and believe this is an important subject, to help me out and make sure that the results of the debates i am having are reflective of the pro scientific contemporary understandings i am debating for