John Cuthber

We have not prevented you defining a concept you wish to use. We have asked you not to use a word that has a different, but related meaning- since that would cause confusion

Choose a less precise word- I suggest "bung". Define that as you will (as long as you are not getting too far from the colloquial meaning of "some sort of dodgy payment). Than frame the argument round that.

In which of those 3 cases would it not be pork barrelling if the fossil fuel industry got breaks that other industries don't?

Define "earn" But it hardly matters. Any subsidy or preferential tax break to the fossil fuel industry is pork barrelling.

(sorry this is off topic but...) Does anyone else get the same effect? Anyway, the point I was making is that governments often (and reasonably) subsidise new technology- because companies are often a bit risk averse and won't invest in it., However neither nuclear power, nor the use of fossil fuels are "new" The subsidies to the fossil fuel industry are straightforward pork barrelling. The subsidies to the nuclear industry are a bit more complicated.

Is the quote system on the blink? I quoted you. The bit where you said " "When new sources of energy are being proposed there is often an impetus to subsidize them." But I underlined the word "new" When new sources of energy are being proposed there is often an impetus to subsidize them.

If we feed them then they will not stave in the end. That's the whole point. And if we throw some education into the mix (especially about contraception) and we also undertake to act as their welfare state rather then their current plan of relying on the goodwill of lots of kids, then we might make some progress. In the mean time, here is some music.

NortonH resurrected it to tell us that he has no better proposal than to let people die. ... which seems disappointing.

I'd bet against that.

So, you plan to let them starve.

What do you propose instead? An obvious alternative would be mass emigration. Do you think that's a good option?

It doesn't.

Nice attempt at a strawman. Now show everyone where you think I claimed that you did say that. (Spoiler alert- I didn't). No. It clearly shows that you are prepared to make stuff up in order top undermine my perspective. If you have to do that, what does it say for your viewpoint? The point remains If you have often shot many birds then there's nothing to stop you shooting many people.

And, just to clarify things, they will usually be acting legally if they do so. You are probably right. Not least because, in a thread about mass shooting in schools, your first reaction to being told that your kids' access to guns is (or will be) a lot less restricted than you think, your focus was on how your little darlings are at risk from other things rather than the fact that other people are at risk (albeit a small risk) from your kids because of your decisions. It seems you did

(1) It always astounds me that otherwise sensible adults can't distinguish guns from bath-taps in terms of risk assessment and management. When someone takes a tap to their school and kills 17 other people with it you will have a valid point. (2) Odd as it may seem, safe-crackers seldom have the opportunity to regularly watch someone open the safe, so they don't ordinarily get a chance to make a note of the combination or where the keys are kept. Otherwise, again, it's a fine point to make. If about 30% of students live in a home with a gun in it then about 30% of male students live in a home with a gun (not 15%). This " 30% of students live in a home with a gun" implies that about 30% of homes (where students live) have a gun. All students live in homes. The issue is not identifying those students who live in such a home (that's pointless for the reasons given above). The problem is that a third of high school kids have more or less ready access to a gun.* That's just not good news. * it will be more than that- some of them will know where their friend's dad keeps his gun.

Fair's fair. Please feel free to cite dumb suggestions about stopping gun violence in schools made by Democrats. I'm sure we will all be happy to make fun of them, just as re do with Republican dumbness.

I'm still waiting for a reply to this...

I understand that the White House is a gun-free zone. Surely what's good enough for the president should be good enough for school kids.

Look up what peer means (also look up how to spell their). Home- schooling seriously limits that.

Got any evidence for that? It seems to me that learning to share + debate with your peers in school is a vital part of learning. It also provides an understanding of other people and, at least to a degree, other cultures.

If you want to buy more than 8 grams of the stuff at a time you do need to convince a trained pharmacist that you have a legitimate need for it. I think that's a control we have had in place longer than the US's ban on it. An important distinction is that it's very hard to kill someone else with paracetamol, and a "killing spree" is pretty much impossible.

A 4 year old child is already learning a new word every 40 minutes or so, how to ride a scooter, how to tell the difference between a postman and a policeman, that there are many languages in the world, and, in some cases they are learning a second language. Anyone who underestimates the ability of a child to learn unexpected things just isn't paying attention. However, I take our point. It's unlikely that a 4 year old would manage what you described Butone thing's for sure. She will acquire the ability to get the gun before she has the full understanding of the consequences of what it does. So, do you plan to get rid of the guns by the time she's 5, or 8, or 10 or when?

So, on balance, there isn't evidence in that paper which shows a causal relationship between acetaminophen and autism. We don't (yet) know what causes autism, but something does- there is some "causation event". Anything that happens after that event can not tell us anything about the event itself. So, a study of a change in painkillers* after the condition is noticed can't tell us what the causation event was. A study of children who don't have the condition also can't tell us much about it. To me, it seems that whole paper is nonsense based on a pointless study. It gives a clear outcome- fewer kids with ASD got acetaminophen- and yet they report this as "acetaminophen causes autism"- which is clearly nonsense. The resources they used would probably have been better employed elsewhere. * It's also important to recognise that the change of painkiller is an action by the parents, not the patient; so it's not directly related to any effect of the drug on the child.

Read the date of the post you are replying to.