Item Top doctor: Ban deadly blades from our kitchens
ONE of Scotland’s leading doctors has called for a ban on “killer” kitchen knives.
Dr John Crichton, the new chairman of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland, wants the sale of pointed kitchen knives to be banned to help reduce the number of fatal stabbings.
He first suggested the move three years ago, but his proposal did not win enough support from policy-makers. Since then dozens of people, including schoolchildren, have lost their lives as a result of attacks involving bladed instruments.
Dr Crichton, who took on the role of chairman in June this year, is championing a switch to so-called “R”-bladed knives, which have rounded points and are far less effective as weapons.
He said that research shows many attacks, particularly in households where there has been a history of violence, involve kitchen knives because they are so easily accessible.
I saw elsewhere, but have been able to rediscover the source, a person using the phrase “murder knives” as in “assault weapon.” Clearly, Wusthof, the cutlery manufacturer is a terrorist organization washed in the blood of children in the same way the NRA is.
Item Gender Madness Alienates Democratic Insider
[From an email from a “political professional working with the Democratic Party”.]
The rot is even worse than you think. You have no idea how highly this has infected the low and middle levels of the Democratic Party. The mistake people make is on focusing on what the high elites in parties think, rather than what you could call the middle management. Elites are close to retirement, really, and while they do exert pull on the rest of the people, they can’t pull too much.
Middle management, however, controls _everything_.
Not long ago, when my wife was pregnant, a coworker asked if we knew what we were having. I told this friend, and we were all excited.
Another coworker immediately started lecturing me in front of everyone about how this was grossly cis-heteronormative and that rather than forcing an identity on my child because of genitals, I should cultivate an environment in which the child would be able to flourish and explore the play of gender….
Registrations for conferences now _require_ nametags with preferred pronouns. A friend of mine was ejected from a conference for accidentally misgendering someone. Seriously…Manners for introductions on conference calls require that people introduce themselves with names and pronouns.
I used to have preferred pronouns “your Majesty” and “his Majesty”. I have switched to “F— You”. Seriously.
Item In a Proudly Diverse Australia, White People Still Run Almost Everything (This is from the New York Times.)
Australia prides itself on its fairness and multiculturalism. But wander through Sydney’s corporate towers or Canberra’s halls of Parliament, and you’ll notice that Australia’s power structure is overwhelmingly white, nowhere near as diverse as the country at large.
That gap between self-image and reality is the focus of a new report released early Wednesday by the Australian Human Rights Commission, which scrutinized the backgrounds of more than 2,400 senior leaders across business, government and academia.
It found, in simple terms, that white Australians with European roots still run nearly everything.
That this state is bad is implicit. And proof that Diversity and Equality always lead to mandatory quotas. Absolutely always.
Item Parents’ ‘Sex Ed Sit Out’ Protesting Forced Gender Ideology in Schools Spreads Across Country
Parents across the nation will pull their children out of school on April 23 to protest sex education programs that have become steeped in gender ideology due to an agenda forced by pro-abortion and LGBT rights organizations.
Dubbed “Sex Ed Sit Out,” the protest has been organized by parents who want to know why their children are learning graphic details about oral and anal sex and how to masturbate:
None of those activities are sex, of course. They are all non-sex, non-procreative activities. Thus “sex education” is a euphemism for how to avoid the consequences of actual sex.
Item Suicide of the West
And that brings me to another assertion:?There is no God, at least not in this argument. I assert this not because I’m an atheist (I’m not), but because I don’t want God’s help for my case. “Because God says so” is the greatest appeal to authority, and the appeal to authority is a classic logical fallacy, effective only for those who are pre-committed to that authority. You can’t persuade an atheist that God’s on your side any more than you can persuade a Christian you’re right because Baal says so.
Goldberg—a self-style “conservative”—in his new book surrenders all by the fourth paragraph. A bizarre introduction.
Bonus Item Testimony RE: Ruth Ginsburg.
Top doctor: Ban deadly blades from our kitchens
Clear evidence that psychiatrists are loons wanting others to join in their misery.
As are many on the left who won’t be satisfied until we are all locked safely away in our rubber rooms. Oh wait! Rubber is carcinogenic. But then, your cancer can’t get me in my safe space and at least you won’t die from gun or knife violence.
We’ve had stabbings at restaurants that turned out fatal and one creative soul stabbed his father to death with a butter knife (then removed his father’s eyeball—not sure why). So yes, knives are very, very dangerous. Forks will be next. I suggest getting rid of all silverware and just using fingers on lukewarm food. Cooking food will require stirring with flexible, disposable willow stick and flipping burgers will involve “sterile” cardboard. All food will be served on paper plates, lest some fool break a plate and use it for a weapon. Paper cups replace glasses. Now we can eat in completely safety……Help!!!! Does anyone know the Heimlich maneuver?
I can go with “Screw you” as my title. It’s accurate and nonpretentious. Wait, that’s probably not allowed. Suppose I could go with “Haven’t decided yet”. Actually, “hey you” worked fine for years.
Alternate sex only avoids pregnancy. You can still get all kinds of nifty diseases, so you won’t miss out on all the fun consequences after all.
Re ban deadly blades.
Don’t forget those assault frying pans. When I lived in Florida in the 1970s a woman murdered her husband using a large heavy frying pan. Obviously we need some reasonable frying pan control laws to stop this frying pan violence.
In his attempt escape the need for, what is sometimes call alternatively a saving lie or saving device, Goldberg believes his rationality will discover the ultimate beginning — a definitive cosmology.
However, fellow travelers like Schumpeter (reference in the linked article) would have recognized that even Marx reached for a saving lie once he got a couple turtles deep”
“Now it is certainly easy to say to the single individual what Aristotle has already said: You have been begotten by your father and your mother; therefore in you the mating of two human beings – a species-act of human beings – has produced the human being. You see, therefore, that even physically man owes his existence to man. Therefore you must not only keep sight of the one aspect – the infinite progression which leads you further to inquire: Who begot my father? Who his grandfather? etc. You must also hold on to the circular movement sensuously perceptible in that progress by which man repeats himself in procreation, man thus always remaining the subject. You will reply, however: I grant you this circular movement; now grant me the progress which drives me ever further until I ask: Who begot the first man, and nature as a whole? I can only answer you: Your question is itself a product of abstraction. Ask yourself how you arrived at that question. Ask yourself whether your question is not posed from a standpoint to which I cannot reply, because it is wrongly put. Ask yourself whether that progress as such exists for a reasonable mind. When you ask about the creation of nature and man, you are abstracting, in so doing, from man and nature. You postulate them as non-existent, and yet you want me to prove them to you as existing. Now I say to you: Give up your abstraction and you will also give up your question. Or if you want to hold on to your abstraction, then be consistent, and if you think of man and nature as non-existent, ||XI| then think of yourself as non-existent, for you too are surely nature and man. Don’t think, don’t ask me, for as soon as you think and ask, your abstraction from the existence of nature and man has no meaning. Or are you such an egotist that you conceive everything as nothing, and yet want yourself to exist?
You can reply: I do not want to postulate the nothingness of nature, etc. I ask you about its genesis, just as I ask the anatomist about the formation of bones, etc.
But since for the socialist man the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the creation of man through human labour, nothing but the emergence of nature for man, so he has the visible, irrefutable proof of his birth through himself, of his genesis.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
Fact: A major concrete/aggregate company has banned workers from carrying boxcutters and other knives. Safety has improved so much that the number of injuries from cuts became non-trivial. Policy ensued, and workers now have to sign out knives from authorized management, after filling out the appropriate paperwork.
Ace —
I hope you see the difference between a self-induced injury (or accident) and an attack. My bet is the number of knife murders at the company was zero before the ban.
I am essentially a walking-talking punchline to that old joke (“I don’t need a girlfriend, but a talking frog? Now that’s cool.”) And I think the R-knife is cool (https://bit.ly/2HDs7Tr).
When I was a wide-eyed engineer fresh out of school, one of the old-timers would say “you should try that” when I presented him with my latest cool idea. Later, when the idea didn’t pan out, he would say “reality, she be a deceptive mistress”. But the important thing is that I tried it, and learned something.
Now if Scotland is willing to outlaw non-R-knives, I say they should go for it. Sure, there will be a loss of freedom, but hey, we are talking Scotland here, and I don’t live there. If Scotland is willing to run this experiment on themselves for the benefit of the rest of the world, the rest of the world should be grateful. What’s that song? Don’t cry for thee, Scotland, for she deserves the government she elected.
Did you know that in the UK, police wear a “stab vest”? I didn’t know that. Is there anything in this story that isn’t analogous?
Anyone who has studied Japanese martial arts will know that it is possible to use just about any ordinary household item as a weapon. Weapons include fans, rice flails (nun-chukkas), walking sticks etc. The Japanese sword does have a pointed end but is primarily a single sided slashing weapon or sabre. So a round ended knife with a sharp edge can be used this way quite effectively as a weapon. Although flexible, sharp edged plastic knives capable of cutting steak would be just as effective in the hands of a skilled protagonist, as an edged steel knife. Indeed in Australia we had a Cabinet Minister suggest that stabbing someone in the eye with a pencil would also be an effective way to disable them.
It is clear that we cannot stop violence by eliminating ordinary household items such as knives etc that must be used in close contact by hand. However, we can reduce violence by reducing accessibility of machine type weapons that magnify the effectiveness of the individual through the weapons internal stored energy and separates the agressor from his or her victim.
Well said Tony C,
Nobody needs a gun designed for war to hunt or defend life and property. This is the difference between a citizen who trust the rule of law and respects it. i.e. the civilised and the uncivilised. Who never recognise that they are rebels without a cause run, usually by a malcontent.
When a country has private ownership of weapons powerful enough for an army. That’s what they’ll get. Civil war. Just as happened in Northern Ireland multiplied by about 300 given the population. All contained in highly populated areas, too.
Joy —
“Nobody needs a gun designed for war to hunt or defend life and property. This is the difference between a citizen who trust the rule of law and respects it. i.e. the civilised and the uncivilised. Who never recognise that they are rebels without a cause run, usually by a malcontent.”
I bet the Zulus wished they had something more than hunting tools to defend themselves against the ravishing Brits and their rule of law and respect. And I bet the Boers wished they had been able to keep their weapons after gold-hungry Brits slaughtered them, sent them to concentration camps, and became an occupying force for years.
Also, citizens do not “need” other rights either (speech, religion, trial by jury, etc.) if they trust the rule of law, etc.
Ignoring your usual ignorance about history and lying thrown in.
See previous discussions.
Also, citizens do not “need” other rights either (speech, religion, trial by jury, etc.) if they trust the rule of law, etc.”
Of course, why do you think I said otherwise?
I think had you spent more time reading comments you would find me arguing this over and over. You are fixated about the Brits. Sour grapes, probably.
“We will know them by their fruit’.
Jim, like your fellow bloodthirsty semi automatic Bruce willis wannabe’s, you can’t defend those weapons whilst saying you are pro life. It is just disingenuous.
It’s also completely irrational of you to argue the way you do about the Zulus. If a country invades another country the army defends against it. This is not what happened in Africa years ago. See the old arguments. See also changing times and attitudes throughout history. You are trying to redo history with he insight again. It doesn’t work.
Just as some really bad ideas being pushed by religious groups, including religious fundamentalists, those ideas die. When they are not based on truth. Time is the ultimate filter.
To be angry at the person who tells it how it is really is irrational.
Common with reactionaries.
Joy —
You appealed to history first, Ireland. I bet the Irish wished they had possessed sufficient weaponry to repel the ravenous Brits. That would have save them from centuries of oppression and starvation.
Joy —
By the way, how much longer will your so-called progressive government allow you to post your comments on the internet? Or own cutlery, for that matter? But, not to worry, your faith in law and respect will rule the day.
You don’t want a proper look at the arguments or the history because it’s uncomfortable for you, I suppose.
You shot from the hip, again. Just as with your creepy remarks about capital letters, then you creepier insinuation at me, because I quoted what people over the years have said about marriage, how they felt and thought about it. In all but two of those cases quoted they were Christians, too.
What you want to be true, what you assume and what is true are not always the same thing. In fact most of the time they are not. If a clever manipulator catches hold of your tendency to this kind of faulty thinking they can convince you of anything. Potentially have you waling on hot coals for them.
Furthermore if you even started to read a book about scientology, then you really do own that problem yourself. It’s not my problem. Religious cults are dangerous. Be carful. Link farms are dangerous too.
As for what my government ‘lets me do’ silliness, we’ll have to see what ‘comes out in the wash’.
To Jim,
It is the reality of war that the side with the greatest resources is most likely to be the victor. The Zulus were in fact well organised and although they did not have modern weapons fought extremely well against Britain and were not easily defeated primarily because they were able to marshal huge armies against much smaller British forces (up to 35000 Zulus armed with spears versus British armies of less than 1/2 those numbers). Because of their organisation they were able to withstand the British for nearly a year who were able to bring modern weapons and organisation to the fight. Here is a reference to the history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zulu_War
The same applied to the Boers who were armed and were able to sustain two wars – the first from 1880 to 1884 and the second from 1899 to 1903. In both wars the Boers eventually succombed to the superior resources that the British were able to apply against them. Indeed it is arguable that had the Boers not been armed, they may not have suffered as much as they did during the Boer Wars. Of course had they not been armed, they probably would not have survived the attacks of the Bantu peoples who were moving south into what is now South Africa when they were moving north from the Cape of Good Hope to the interior. Here is a reference to the history of the Boer Wars. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/boer_wars_01.shtml
On a personal level, being armed only makes you safer if your rivals are not armed or are weakly armed compared to you. However, even then if you cannot skillfully handle your arms compared to your rivals, then your arms will not protect you.
Tony —
Thanks for the cut/paste history lesson. Are both Wikipedia and BBC readily available to all (sarcasm)?
Your final comment is sophistry. And you know that it is.
The guns in my locker are not there to ever be used except to make little holes in pieces of paper 100 yards out. The ability to have a 30 cartridge magazine makes making those holes just a little more fun. Such weapons are not meant for war. Until they are.
One part of this discussion is laughing at the hoops that the other side is going through to make things SAFE. I keep seeing Mr. Myagi brandishing a handkerchief. The lesson of Miyagi was not to be unarmed. It is that there is always armament around you. The people who should most oppose these gun bans are females and those who are weaker. The people who should most support the gun bans are people like me who can hurt those around them without moving a muscle. We stand still and people all over with broken ankles (It is easy to avoid getting hurt around us, DO NOT RUN INTO US).
“Always be polite, always have a plan to kill everyone in the room!”
“Always carry a knife. It is useful to cut cheesecake. It also comes in handy for cutting people’s throats.”
Those are not the words of a warmonger. Those are the words of a man who wants peace. The price of peace is eternal vigilance and willingness tell those who would destroy it that they are wrong.
Always shake a Marine awake by the foot.
Brad I know a couple of Royal marines (ex) but once a marine always one.
They don’t carry knives. Whether they are gun owners is a different matter.
When I needed their physical protection they were there to defend me and holding them back from the offer of all sorts of violent talk said with a smile was necessary. My brother felt with the problem with a word in his shell like.
Happy St George’s Day.
Joy —
You are quite the hypocrite.
On one hand you state, “Nobody needs a gun designed for war to hunt or defend life and property. This is the difference between a citizen who trust the rule of law and respects it. i.e. the civilised and the uncivilised.”
On the other, you appeal to hooligans for your defense — armed ones at that.
So you are the uncivilized …. hoist own petard.
One thing is certain, when you are not contradicting yourself, you are simply reciting the introduction to Dianetics.
Jim,
I wouldn’t boast if I were you that you’d read the book! The entire concept and it’s appearance, forgetting it’s menace, is pure cheese. You don’t seem to see this.
Neither do you see or understand the points made. You have your own story and your’e sticking to it.
Appeal to hooligans is just your dark imagination.
Law, Power, your’e still confused. I’m not surprised.
Joy —
So how do you channel Dianetics with such efficiency?
You should think before you write — think about the point your are actually making. You wrote:
“I know a couple of Royal marines (ex) but once a marine always one.
They don’t carry knives. Whether they are gun owners is a different matter.
When I needed their physical protection they were there to defend me and holding them back from the offer of all sorts of violent talk said with a smile was necessary.”
I’ll let others decide if that directly contradicted your previous statement, “Nobody needs a gun designed for war to hunt or defend life and property. This is the difference between a citizen who trust the rule of law and respects it. i.e. the civilised and the uncivilised.”
Jim,
I don’t care what you or ‘others’ think.
Especially if they can’t think straight.
You are the scientologist, evidently..
It doesn’t wash in the real world.
As to Royal Marines defending me? They did so without my asking. Just knowing the truth was enough. You are ignorant and are choosing to read your favourite prejudice into your reaction. Always from the hip and almost always spectacularly wrong when you aim at me. It would be easier for you just to ignore the comment or ask a question before you assume.
You want/need a certain theme to be true. Yet referring to one of the dumbest religious cults into which you’ve apparently delved is somehow proof for you of something? Do you call that an argument?
I say again, Jim, be careful who influences you. Appearance can be deceptive. Especially when it comes with a religious guise.
I don’t need or require to refer to you for permission or approval of anything or anybody. Same goes in reverse.
You have, though, managed to knit and weave until the original points are lost. I call this kicking over the traces. Obfuscation. Talking in riddles, and not for fun.
I did have two marines come to my defence at separate times and not with my asking as you implied by… I “appealed to hooligans’. You see you lie.
I also asked one, who is now a fireman as it happens and cut my friend out of her car on his first night on duty, not to any such thing. He was a sweetheart. He was ex iron man. He was not my boyfriend. You want your version of the truth.
He has never broken the law and is still both a fitness instructor and a fireman. He is married with a family. Anything else?
The problem is that there are many who think that friends are just virtual entities. Kept at safe distances.
Back to your justification of war machinery in the hands of civilians in your country? It’s not my problem. I just find it beyond bizarre. How this view finds itself on the opposite side of the pro life debate is a lesson, or will be in the future.
Of course Jim, it also apparently needs Saying that I don’t hold YOU responsible for what your country does? Otherwise I’d be praising you for Trump’s progress! So it’s really weird when a silly person from cyberspace thinks I’m to blame for ‘what my country lets me do’!
Very perverse.
Joy —
Maybe someone else can make sense of your ramblings. However, I do not have time to find (assuming it exists), the point you are trying to make. I’ll let readers judge for themselves.
and I’ve just this second learned of Alfie, who carried on breathing. God bless him. The man of whom I spoke’s first born was also called Alfie! coincidence or what! Ah.