John Cuthber

So that's what "Small government" means...

All good points. There's something else we might want to do in addition to giving people a way back. We might want to avoid driving them down that route in the first place. ISIS thinks the West is "Evil" and massively biassed against people who are not white + Christian. One of our senior politicians just flouted international law in order to stop a British citizen returning home (presumably to trial) and this led- fairly predictably- to the death of a newborn baby. Perhaps we should stop writing ISIS' propaganda for them.

This seems to be a reasonable summary of what happened. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/09/we-dont-get-to-un-british-those-we-dont-like-mr-javid?CMP=fb_cif&fbclid=IwAR2bmsTj410uDN-glqAuGK5Sp6sXj1zC4Wg6pvRbj59xTr4ibb8Jg7GC-fk

You could try connecting many piles in parallel.

Every now and them, science does look for proof- often for proof that something does not work. The Michelson Morley experiment is a good example. If the ether was real then that experiment would have shown it. The experiment didn't; so the ether (as it had been described) doesn't exist.

The point of metaphors is that they, in some way, represent reality. So, did anyone say anything like "get out of jail free"? I think strawmanning might have the same outcome.

What alternatives do you propose? Also, better to know where they are.

Well, yes, someone said that. Did they say "get out of jail free" ? The point that she was young should be enough to convince people that she deserves some sympathy. That's not the same as "get out of jail free" is it? Did it occur to you that there may be a reason for that?

I know, that's why I said "They said stuff like " rather than "I said stuff like ". The point remains, she and her baby should have been (relatively) safe here in the UK (probably in jail), not endangered in a refugee camp.

Nobody used any such words, did they? They said stuff like

Nobody has said she should ""get out of jail free" have they? Interestingly, she also thought that the law was wrong. Bad things happen when you decide it's time "to require the law to flex ". That's why we should follow the law- particularly in difficult cases.

Two issues. 1 kids do dumb things, but we don't hold it against them forever. 2 the position in which she finds herself (and which led to the death of the child) is due to the Home Secretary not following the law.

For a start, she did what she did, knowing that the law would prevent her becoming stateless. The child was entitled to care under the NHS. She tried to make that happen. If someone has children, and those children subsequently get killed by a drunk driver is it the parents' fault or the fault of the law breaker? Should nobody in any war zone ever have children? Should nobody ever have children because they may end up in a refugee camp?

And the study is proof (as far as it can be) that MMR doesn't cause autism.

At least part of the responsibility lies with the home secretary who acted illegally. The existence of things like consulates shows that states really are responsible for their citizens and, legally, the baby was a UK citizen with the right to access care under the NHS. It wasn't Shamima who blocked that. But the really silly idea is that her action several years before the child was born counts as endangering the child.

ClF3 works vigorously in most cases.

Most folk here don't need a moderator's help. Often they need answers to questions. Sometimes they just like to ask about something (in the field of science) they found interesting.

Provided that religion keeps out of areas that are properly dealt with by science. So religion has no valid place in cosmology, biology, ethics, geology, politics, education and so on.

That depends on your frame of reference. In most of the Western world, the Clintons and Obama would be considered Right wing.

I read somewhere that "in ancient China" you paid your doctor when you were well, and stopped paying if you became ill.

We can't change the press- if nothing else, free speech means we are stuck with it. We can change education. We can teach kids to recognise dross when they see it.

Sadly,, I don't think another study will make much difference The ones who think "it's a conspiracy" will still think that. Logic didn't convince them before; why would it now?

Is that a real thing? If you can't show that it is real, it isn't a suitable topic for a science web page.

Why would you want to be a moderator?

Please define soul.