Jump to content

George Parr

Free Account+
  • Content Count

    1,695
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,523 Likes

1 Follower

About George Parr

  • Rank
    Box Office Gold

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Um, no, that isn't what he was advocating at all. Nor did he in any way, shape or form imply that "western democracy and freedom do not work". That's just a strawman on your side. And juni78ukr is also fully right in that asking people to do stuff instead of giving clear orders has never been as effective. It's one thing to give people the choice on what they like to drink or do for a living, it is something entirely different to let people decide on how to behave on a matter that impacts society as a whole. There is a reason why we have laws, it's because otherwise some morons would simply do whatever they want. We do not let people decide on whether they want to drive 30, 100 or 250 kph in a rural neighbourhood, because that is just asking for trouble. We do not grant people the right to kill whoever they want either. Instead we give explicit orders on how that works, and punish those who threaten others with their behaviour (in this case speeding). Without clear cut rules, you end up with a apathetic and anti-social mob, who runs on "Why should I adhere to that? I can handle myself" or "who cares about those people, I want to do what I want to do". What this was all about, and it's actually very clear from that post, is that two concepts aren't equally valid just because they get said. Be it climate change, medical issues or the world being round and not flat, there are things on which you cannot just randomly claim that you disagree with the facts and that your opinion is at least as valid as the facts are. Trump's regency should have shown what that kind of behaviour leads to. There comes a point where you need to tell the people that they are free to think whatever they want to, but that there is this set of laws and everyone has to abide by them, or you run into all sorts of cults who think you can cure cancer if you just give enough money to a "pastor" so he can buy himself a new jet. All those wannabe "freedom"-lovers with their pathetic disregard for everyone who isn't them is exactly the problem in this world, and a large threat to freedom as a whole, because they put their own freedom above the fate of everyone else. "Who cares what happens to others as long as I get to do what I want to do" has never ever been a good approach, nor is it in any way connected to freedom. It's nothing but a self-centered view that has enabled the most vile crimes committed by humanity. A person's right to "freedom" ends where he impacts another person's rights to the same. Somehow people tend to forget that "civil liberties" don't just apply to them but everyone else as well, and that they have no right to negatively impact others just because they have decided that they want to act like a moron.
  2. Does it though? These things aren't necessarily linked. There's also stuff that spreads fast and is extremely deadly, though in most cases they tend to be too deadly even for their high speed of spreading. Mutations that make a virus spread more easily don't need to have an impact on how dangerous it is.
  3. Sounds like theaters are allowed to show some hit movies from the past to get them going again. E.g. Disney allows them to show Empire strikes Back (in English), as well as TFA, TLJ and Rogue One. I've also seen the third Hobbit and fourth Harry Potter scheduled at Cinemaxx.
  4. Okay, so I did make a list, but much of it could change even by the next day. The first three are interchangeable, I ended up putting ANH first due to it causing everything that followed. Apart from the top 4, maybe top 5, it really just depends on what piques my interest on that specific day. I haven't seen or played some of the stuff for quite some time, which makes direct comparisons almost impossible. There's a reason why I don't really rank any of that stuff 1. A New Hope 2. Empire strikes Back 3. Return of the Jedi 4. Knights of the Old Republic 5. Rogue One 6. Revenge of the Sith 7. Knights of the Old Republic 2 8. The Last Jedi 9. TIE-Fighter 10. The Mandalorian 11. Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast 12. The Force Awakens 13. The Phantom Menace 14. Attack of the Clones 15. Solo 16. Jedi Knight 17. Jedi: Fallen Order 18. Republic Commando 19. Rise of Skywalker 20. Galactic Battlegrounds 21. Battlefront 2 (2005) 22. Jedi Academy 23. X-Wing 24. LEGO Star Wars 25. Star Wars Episode I: Racer
  5. Your comment would make sense if there were any people who state that the WHO has been perfect and that any criticism of it is not warranted, but that isn't the case at all. Why do you ask "why does everything have to be so binary?" when the position you speak of isn't held by anyone? That's simply entering strawman territory. Absolutely no one has given the WHO a pass. There have been those who ignore the good stuff the WHO has done and blow the bad stuff way out of proportion, and there are those who say "they have made mistakes, but they have also done plenty of good stuff, and many criticisms don't fit to what they actually have done". There are none who hold the opposing view to those who bash the WHO to the extreme.
  6. What is supposed to be so terrible about it? The whole idea was to make sure the healthcare-system isn't falling apart due to overload. This was never meant as the solution to the virus, more as a means to keep things from spiralling out of control. Because when that happens, you are screwed, and the dead lie around in droves, as could be seen in Italy. To act as if the whole strategy consisted of "flattening the curve" and then be done with it is just weird. Such a claim makes no sense at all, because it has never been the entire strategy.
  7. From experience here (granted, Germany is not a good example because the internet is often third world level here) remote locations do not necessarily suffer from a bad connection. In quite a few cases, people and lcoal councils got too tired of waiting until those in charge bothered to do something and put down the money to lay state-of-the-art cables themselves. The colleagues in my office live in some tiny villages but have an amazing internet-connection, much better than at work, which happens to be in one of the largest cities in the country. That's what happens when all political parties have little knowledge of the technology, while the main companies are more interested in enriching themselves than in investing to develop a proper network. It's truly appaling when you can visit basically every other EU-nation and not only get a better internet, but at a cheaper price as well.
  8. They didn't really give wrong advice in any way. Instead it's yet again another case of people leaping onto one line of a whole text, taking it completely out of context, and then proceeding to spread it everywhere, claiming that "the WHO said X" when they did no such thing. This is the text they released: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19 It makes it abundantly clear that this is a comment about the current state of affairs, not a final verdict. In fact, there is this line which specifically explains what they mean: "As of 24 April 2020, no study has evaluated whether the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confers immunity to subsequent infection by this virus in humans." Now, maybe the one comment earlier on in the text ("There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.") could have been worded a bit clearer, but none of what they actually released was wrong. Anyone who actually bothered to read what they stated would recognize what they actually said, it's only those who can't be bothered to read the whole thing who could possible come to the wrong conclusion here. Granted, you can obviously blame the WHO for not realizing that a ton of people are prone to do just that. It's not their first official statement ever, it's something they should have been aware of. As a whole, the statement was released because some nations wanted to hand out "immunity passports" to those who already had the illness. So the WHO released this to say that it is a bad idea because it can't be proven that there is an immunity yet. Which means their advice was indeed correct, as there is no proof yet.
  9. I think one issue with the recent novels has been that they aren't really much more than support material. They tend to give some depth to characters from movies or the tv-shows, but unlike in the past there isn't really any independent story being told away from that. Back in the days the future of the story was handled almost entirely by the books, because it didn't look like any more movies would happen. With this part now being filled by movies and tv-shows as well, books didn't really have much of a place beyond enhancing the story here and there. Not that this says a lot about the quality that gets delivered, but it obviously keeps the books away from telling grand stories. I guess they have recognized that as well, seeing how Project Luminous is set in its own timeftrame telling a brand new story that is disconnected from everything else.
  10. Ugh, I'm torn between not doing this because I generally don't rank Star Wars stuff (interest shifts way too much depending on the mood I'm in, and what I write down might already be outdated a short time later) and doing it anyway just for the heck of it
  11. What would that have to do with immunity? If such a thing were required to defeat an illness, then there would never be any need to get more than one vaccination for a specific illness, yet there are quite a few out there that require more than one shot. Not every illness requires antibodies to that specific illness either. The immune-system doesn't rely on just one method to combat illnesses, it would be rather lacklustre if it did. Not to mention that you can be exposed to a virus to a different degree, Some might get a full load and end up with a higher risk of a severe infection, some might just catch a very small amount that doesn't end up causing much of an issue. That would obviously have an effect on what means the body has developed to deal with the illness.
  12. No, it wasn't. There were statements from experts from various nations about how you would ultimately end up with some sort of herd immunity in the longrun, because that's where you almost automatically end up at unless a virus is so deadly that it can't really spread all that far, or if there is no immunity at all. That doesn't somehow make it the actual strategy of all the nations in question. Those two things were simply not connected with each other. The majority of the nations did not follow what now gets referred to as "herd immunity strategy", because that was all about simply letting the virus run its course. A general idea of containment isn't the same as that at all, and neither is the approach taken by most states before they opted for shutting things down.
  13. To be fair, the "children don't seem to be contagious" stuff is coming from research. There's quite a bit of stuff available which reports on the lack of children who get the virus, and their seemingly very low rate of spreading it further. Now, this has only been considered a possibility so far, more research needs to be done, and quite a few experts are obviously against opening schools again, but it is not like they are just randomly throwing some claims out there so they can send children back to school.
  14. Well, joggers have quite the heavy breathing and they tend to sweat quite a bit as well, which, in combination with their speed, leads to quite the spread around them. You'd be more likely to get "hit" by something from them then if someone merely walked past you normally. That being said, the odds of this causing anything should be rather slim. And somebody jogging a trail on his own shouldn't impact many others, especially when compared to crowded public transports or workplaces.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.