At last, the transcript of the sentencing remarks.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/R-v-Axel-Rudakubana.pdf
On 2025-01-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
At last, the transcript of the sentencing remarks.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/R-v-Axel-Rudakubana.pdf
And yet, despite being rather late, it contains multiple errors, e.g.
"they found him standing over the body ... and still holding your knife" >which is rather jarring as it implies that the reader supplied the knife
to the murderer.
(I mean obviously this is because the murderer was not in court to hear
the sentencing so the grammar had to change, but you'd hope they would >proof-read a document of this importance before publishing it.)
At last, the transcript of the sentencing remarks.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/R-v-Axel-Rudakubana.pdf
I had assumed that reports from psychologists would always be available
to the judge in cases of this type. Yet here all we seem to have is
this, which implies that it is entirely up to the defence to put forward
any such evidence:
I have read the Intermediary Assessment Report, dated the 24th September
2024 in which its author said that he presented as having high
functioning Autism and that he does not have any associated learning >disabilities. The report found that he had some communication and
attention difficulties. None of this offered any explanation for this >offending. No further expert evidence has been provided on his behalf.
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 15:20:26 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
At last, the transcript of the sentencing remarks.And yet, despite being rather late, it contains multiple errors, e.g.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/R-v-Axel-Rudakubana.pdf >>
"they found him standing over the body ... and still holding your knife" >>which is rather jarring as it implies that the reader supplied the knife
to the murderer.
(I mean obviously this is because the murderer was not in court to hear
the sentencing so the grammar had to change, but you'd hope they would >>proof-read a document of this importance before publishing it.)
Is this a copy of a written document prepared in advance, or is it a
verbatim transcript of what the judge actually said?
If the latter, then it can't be corrected in this manner, it has to faithfully record the words which were spoken. And even when reading out a prepared statement, people often stumble over their words and misread what they originally wrote. So these may be just minor verbal slip-ups by the judge rather than an error in the remarks as such.
At last, the transcript of the sentencing remarks.Rudakubana.pdf
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/R-v-Axel-
I had assumed that reports from psychologists would always be available
to the judge in cases of this type. Yet here all we seem to have is
this, which implies that it is entirely up to the defence to put forward
any such evidence:
I have read the Intermediary Assessment Report, dated the 24th September
2024 in which its author said that he presented as having high
functioning Autism and that he does not have any associated learning disabilities. The report found that he had some communication and
attention difficulties. None of this offered any explanation for this offending. No further expert evidence has been provided on his behalf.
I suspect that no other evidence was provided for the simple reason that there was none which the defence thought would be helpful even in
mitigation. Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning" autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any aymtoms of learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else.
Mark
On 27/01/2025 16:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
I suspect that no other evidence was provided for the simple reason that
there was none which the defence thought would be helpful even in
mitigation. Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast
majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning"
autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any aymtoms of
learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else.
If, at the age of 18, you were facing detention for virtually the whole
of your life, would you choose Broadmoor or Belmarsh?
On 27/01/2025 16:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
I suspect that no other evidence was provided for the simple reason that
there was none which the defence thought would be helpful even in
mitigation. Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast
majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning"
autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any aymtoms of
learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else.
If, at the age of 18, you were facing detention for virtually the whole
of your life, would you choose Broadmoor or Belmarsh?
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:vn8ouk$16ju0$1@dont-email.me...
On 27/01/2025 16:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
I suspect that no other evidence was provided for the simple reason that >>> there was none which the defence thought would be helpful even in
mitigation. Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast >>> majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning" >>> autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any aymtoms of >>> learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else.
If, at the age of 18, you were facing detention for virtually the whole
of your life, would you choose Broadmoor or Belmarsh?
What has his age got to do with anything ?
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 14:28:28 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
At last, the transcript of the sentencing remarks.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/R-v-Axel-Rudakubana.pdf >>
I had assumed that reports from psychologists would always be available
to the judge in cases of this type. Yet here all we seem to have is
this, which implies that it is entirely up to the defence to put forward
any such evidence:
I have read the Intermediary Assessment Report, dated the 24th September
2024 in which its author said that he presented as having high
functioning Autism and that he does not have any associated learning
disabilities. The report found that he had some communication and
attention difficulties. None of this offered any explanation for this
offending. No further expert evidence has been provided on his behalf.
I suspect that no other evidence was provided for the simple reason that there was none which the defence thought would be helpful even in
mitigation. Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning" autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any aymtoms of learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else.
To be clear, I have zero sympathy for Rudakubana and I think he deserved
the longest possible sentence - but I was hoping that the sentencing
remarks would cast some light on his background and the risk factors in
his prior behaviour.
On 1/27/25 22:28, The Todal wrote:
To be clear, I have zero sympathy for Rudakubana and I think he deserved
the longest possible sentence - but I was hoping that the sentencing
remarks would cast some light on his background and the risk factors in
his prior behaviour.
The interesting thing to me is the predictive value of his background.
The risk that could have been calculated from his behaviour. The papers always shout terrorist and mental, but they don't give the context. They don't indicate how many people with similar risk warnings never do
anything. Did the Police and/or mental health doctors get it wrong, or
was this just bad luck?
Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast
majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning" >autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any aymtoms of >learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else.
On 2025-01-27, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vn8ouk$16ju0$1@dont-email.me...
On 27/01/2025 16:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
I suspect that no other evidence was provided for the simple reason that >>>> there was none which the defence thought would be helpful even in
mitigation. Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast >>>> majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning" >>>> autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any aymtoms of >>>> learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else.
If, at the age of 18, you were facing detention for virtually the whole
of your life, would you choose Broadmoor or Belmarsh?
What has his age got to do with anything ?
The younger you are, the longer you likely have to live.
On 27 Jan 2025 at 23:13:45 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/27/25 22:28, The Todal wrote:
To be clear, I have zero sympathy for Rudakubana and I think he deserved >>> the longest possible sentence - but I was hoping that the sentencing
remarks would cast some light on his background and the risk factors in
his prior behaviour.
The interesting thing to me is the predictive value of his background.
The risk that could have been calculated from his behaviour. The papers
always shout terrorist and mental, but they don't give the context. They
don't indicate how many people with similar risk warnings never do
anything. Did the Police and/or mental health doctors get it wrong, or
was this just bad luck?
You can't in this country imprison someone because you think they might commit
a crime, unless it is due to mental illness of a defined kind. Which there is no reason to think he had. However great the you believe the risk of violent crime is.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvpftic.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-27, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vn8ouk$16ju0$1@dont-email.me...
On 27/01/2025 16:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
I suspect that no other evidence was provided for the simple reason that >>>>> there was none which the defence thought would be helpful even in
mitigation. Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast >>>>> majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning" >>>>> autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any aymtoms of >>>>> learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else.
If, at the age of 18, you were facing detention for virtually the whole >>>> of your life, would you choose Broadmoor or Belmarsh?
What has his age got to do with anything ?
The younger you are, the longer you likely have to live.
But if one can be judged better than the other, by whatever criterion,
then what difference can it make to your decision whether you're going
to be spending the next six months there or the next sixty years ?
What difference does his age make to his decision ?
As it happns, errors of the kind as exemplified by your answer, can be
quite common in otherwise highly intelligent people (among others)
and are simply the result of their unwittingly relying on a faulty
heurist. ( Inferencial shortcut)
This was an insight first garnered by Daniel Kakneman when testing
recruits for the IDF, and was popularised years later in his co authored
book "Thinking Fast and Slow". Along with countless others on the
topic,.
bb
In message <p4efpjppq4v1nj2dihsqjn13tiao5q49m1@4ax.com>, at 16:51:20 on
Mon, 27 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast
majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning" >>autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any aymtoms of >>learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else.
Actually, such persons are normally much more law-abiding than average,
often painfully so.
Note also that "learning difficulties" is in danger of joining
decimation and eye-of-the-storm in having a completely different
modern meaning to most people.
Having just watched an episode of "Dragons Den", they equate it with
Downs Syndrome.
But there's a whole bunch of high-functioning autistic people, who
are regarded by society as having difficulty learning, because the
classic classroom/by_rote/written_exam system doesn't suit them.
Meanwhile, they have very high IQs and if allowed to develop in ways
they find comfortable, become some of the most gifted contributors to
science and other professional disciplines.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvpftic.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-27, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vn8ouk$16ju0$1@dont-email.me...
On 27/01/2025 16:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
I suspect that no other evidence was provided for the simple reason that >>>>> there was none which the defence thought would be helpful even inIf, at the age of 18, you were facing detention for virtually the whole >>>> of your life, would you choose Broadmoor or Belmarsh?
mitigation. Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast >>>>> majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning" >>>>> autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any
aymtoms of learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else. >>>>
What has his age got to do with anything ?
The younger you are, the longer you likely have to live.
But if one can be judged better than the other, by whatever criterion,
then what difference can it make to your decision whether you're going
to be spending the next six months there or the next sixty years ?
What difference does his age make to his decision ?
As it happns, errors of the kind as exemplified by your answer,
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Jan 2025 at 23:13:45 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/27/25 22:28, The Todal wrote:
To be clear, I have zero sympathy for Rudakubana and I think he deserved >>>> the longest possible sentence - but I was hoping that the sentencing
remarks would cast some light on his background and the risk factors in >>>> his prior behaviour.
The interesting thing to me is the predictive value of his background.
The risk that could have been calculated from his behaviour. The papers
always shout terrorist and mental, but they don't give the context. They >>> don't indicate how many people with similar risk warnings never do
anything. Did the Police and/or mental health doctors get it wrong, or
was this just bad luck?
You can't in this country imprison someone because you think they might commit
a crime, unless it is due to mental illness of a defined kind. Which there is
no reason to think he had. However great the you believe the risk of violent
crime is.
With the proposed widening of the scope, and no doubt increasing the depth, of Non-Crime Hate Incidents, there seems to be every prospect of people
being imprisoned for non-crimes as we transition further to
perception-based law enforcement.
A leaked Home Office report has recommended that police should record more non-crime hate incidents.
One might ask what the purpose of this recording is.
On 2025-01-28, billy bookcase <billy@onon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvpftic.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-27, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vn8ouk$16ju0$1@dont-email.me...
On 27/01/2025 16:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
I suspect that no other evidence was provided for the simple reason that >>>>>> there was none which the defence thought would be helpful even inIf, at the age of 18, you were facing detention for virtually the whole >>>>> of your life, would you choose Broadmoor or Belmarsh?
mitigation. Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast >>>>>> majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning" >>>>>> autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any
aymtoms of learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else. >>>>>
What has his age got to do with anything ?
The younger you are, the longer you likely have to live.
But if one can be judged better than the other, by whatever criterion,
then what difference can it make to your decision whether you're going
to be spending the next six months there or the next sixty years ?
Eh? If I was asked "you must choose now the place you will spend the
next six months" or "you must choose now the place you will spend the
next sixty years" I may very well come up with different answers to
these different questions. Obviously.
In message <p4efpjppq4v1nj2dihsqjn13tiao5q49m1@4ax.com>, at 16:51:20 on
Mon, 27 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast
majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning"
autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any aymtoms of
learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else.
Actually, such persons are normally much more law-abiding than average,
often painfully so.
Note also that "learning difficulties" is in danger of joining
decimation and eye-of-the-storm in having a completely different
modern meaning to most people.
Having just watched an episode of "Dragons Den", they equate it with
Downs Syndrome.
But there's a whole bunch of high-functioning autistic people, who
are regarded by society as having difficulty learning, because the
classic classroom/by_rote/written_exam system doesn't suit them.
Meanwhile, they have very high IQs and if allowed to develop in ways
they find comfortable, become some of the most gifted contributors to
science and other professional disciplines.
On 1/28/25 00:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Jan 2025 at 23:13:45 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/27/25 22:28, The Todal wrote:
To be clear, I have zero sympathy for Rudakubana and I think he deserved >>>> the longest possible sentence - but I was hoping that the sentencing
remarks would cast some light on his background and the risk factors in >>>> his prior behaviour.
The interesting thing to me is the predictive value of his background.
The risk that could have been calculated from his behaviour. The papers
always shout terrorist and mental, but they don't give the context. They >>> don't indicate how many people with similar risk warnings never do
anything. Did the Police and/or mental health doctors get it wrong, or
was this just bad luck?
You can't in this country imprison someone because you think they might commit
a crime, unless it is due to mental illness of a defined kind. Which there is
no reason to think he had. However great the you believe the risk of violent
crime is.
But we have introduced many crimes that only really exist because we
consider them predictive of future criminal activity, or at least that
is how they are used: carrying a knife in public, owning the Anarchist's Cookbook, conspiring to commit a crime (plotting).
I would have thought stabbing random children is as near to a pure
definition of mental illness as you can get.
In effect, I would
prioritise spotting people whose mental eccentricities predispose them
to committing crime as more important than considering how much those eccentricities excuse them from culpability.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:lvrl64Fr9p3U1@mid.individual.net...
A leaked Home Office report has recommended that police should record more >> non-crime hate incidents.
One might ask what the purpose of this recording is.
At a guess
Because it offers the authorities more notice of potential untrest: along possibly with the geographical location, as to potential hotsposts
While it seems some people might welcome an all out race war breaking
out on the streets of some UK Towns and Cities society as a whole
it seems can longer afford the Police Overtime it would involve.
Or the compo.
On 1/28/25 00:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But we have introduced many crimes that only really exist
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvphai2.4rm.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-28, billy bookcase <billy@onon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvpftic.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-27, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vn8ouk$16ju0$1@dont-email.me...
If, at the age of 18, you were facing detention for virtually the
whole of your life, would you choose Broadmoor or Belmarsh?
What has his age got to do with anything ?
The younger you are, the longer you likely have to live.
But if one can be judged better than the other, by whatever criterion,
then what difference can it make to your decision whether you're going
to be spending the next six months there or the next sixty years ?
Eh? If I was asked "you must choose now the place you will spend the
next six months" or "you must choose now the place you will spend the
next sixty years" I may very well come up with different answers to
these different questions. Obviously.
There is nothing "obvious" about it, at all,
I am not sure this has happened yet. "Learning difficulties" seems to be used >for global intellectual impairment, and "special educational needs" is used to >encompass phenomena like autism in the intellectually normal.
In fact,
"autism" is often used to also cover some of the problems in the >intellectually impaired. I really don't know if this is of value in >management, apart from comforting the parents.
On 27 Jan 2025 at 23:13:45 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/27/25 22:28, The Todal wrote:
To be clear, I have zero sympathy for Rudakubana and I think he deserved >>> the longest possible sentence - but I was hoping that the sentencing
remarks would cast some light on his background and the risk factors in
his prior behaviour.
The interesting thing to me is the predictive value of his background.
The risk that could have been calculated from his behaviour. The papers
always shout terrorist and mental, but they don't give the context. They
don't indicate how many people with similar risk warnings never do
anything. Did the Police and/or mental health doctors get it wrong, or
was this just bad luck?
You can't in this country imprison someone because you think they might commit
a crime, unless it is due to mental illness of a defined kind. Which there is no reason to think he had. However great the you believe the risk of violent crime is.
On 28 Jan 2025 11:29:09 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I am not sure this has happened yet. "Learning difficulties" seems to be used
for global intellectual impairment, and "special educational needs" is used to
encompass phenomena like autism in the intellectually normal.
"Special Educational Needs" doesn't just cover learning difficulties. It
also includes children who are perfectly competant intellectually but have other physical or mental attributes which require some form of adjustment in order for them to be able to learn effectively. That can include physical disabilities such as hearing or visual impairments as well as mental issues such as ADHD, autism and anxiety. It also includes children who have
suffered severe grief or trauma (eg, death of a close family member, being a survivor of a serious road accident, or a victim of violent crime), which don't necessarily require permanent adjustments but will often do in the short term.
(More cynically, SEN is the dumping ground for all the kids that teachers find difficult to teach. Too thick to learn? SEN. Too disruptive to learn? SEN. Can't concentrate long enough? SEN. Too shy? SEN. Talks too much? SEN. Won't talk? SEN. And so on).
In fact,
"autism" is often used to also cover some of the problems in the
intellectually impaired. I really don't know if this is of value in
management, apart from comforting the parents.
Autism is generally understood as an attribute in itself rather than being a learning disability as such. There is a correlation between learning disabilities and autism, and severe autism can be a learning disability. But they can also stand alone; not every child with learning disabilities has autism and not every child with autism has impaired intellectual function.
Mark
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 11:28:50 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/28/25 00:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But we have introduced many crimes that only really exist
All crime is madey-uppy. Something casual thinkers fail to grasp. A crime
is just what the fashion of the day says it is. What the UK considers a
crime may not be a crime in France (for example).
On 28 Jan 2025 at 12:04:33 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Autism is generally understood as an attribute in itself rather than being a >> learning disability as such. There is a correlation between learning
disabilities and autism, and severe autism can be a learning disability. But >> they can also stand alone; not every child with learning disabilities has
autism and not every child with autism has impaired intellectual function.
All true. But many children with global intellectual impairment are also >diagnosed with autism and I do wonder whether this is just fashion.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 11:28:50 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/28/25 00:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But we have introduced many crimes that only really exist
All crime is madey-uppy. Something casual thinkers fail to grasp. A crime
is just what the fashion of the day says it is. What the UK considers a
crime may not be a crime in France (for example).
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:05:41 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 27/01/2025 16:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
I suspect that no other evidence was provided for the simple reason that >>> there was none which the defence thought would be helpful even in
mitigation. Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast >>> majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning" >>> autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any aymtoms of >>> learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else.
If, at the age of 18, you were facing detention for virtually the whole
of your life, would you choose Broadmoor or Belmarsh?
If I was thinking rationally, I'd be aiming to be a good boy and get transferred to a Category B prison where life will be a little easier. But I very much doubt that Rudakubana will be thinking rationally.
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:vn8ouk$16ju0$1@dont-email.me...
On 27/01/2025 16:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
I suspect that no other evidence was provided for the simple reason that >>> there was none which the defence thought would be helpful even in
mitigation. Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast >>> majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning" >>> autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any aymtoms of >>> learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else.
If, at the age of 18, you were facing detention for virtually the whole
of your life, would you choose Broadmoor or Belmarsh?
What has his age got to do with anything ?
Whether in reality he's actually insane, the "epitome of evil", or anything in between, its fairly evident surely that Rudakubana can't be considered
as "normal" by any usual criterion.
So that regardless of whatever information may or may not be available to him, he can't be expected to make a decision a "normal" person might
be expected to make, regardless of his age.
And even if his main priority might be further killing opportunities, the authorities main priority for the foreseeable future may be to prevent his being killed by fellow prisoners.
On 2025-01-28, billy bookcase <billy@onon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-01-28, billy bookcase <billy@onon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
If, at the age of 18, you were facing detention for virtually the >>>>>>> whole of your life, would you choose Broadmoor or Belmarsh?
What has his age got to do with anything ?
The younger you are, the longer you likely have to live.
But if one can be judged better than the other, by whatever criterion, >>>> then what difference can it make to your decision whether you're going >>>> to be spending the next six months there or the next sixty years ?
Eh? If I was asked "you must choose now the place you will spend the
next six months" or "you must choose now the place you will spend the
next sixty years" I may very well come up with different answers to
these different questions. Obviously.
There is nothing "obvious" about it, at all,
I suspect it is to most people. I'm not entirely sure how it is possible
for it not to be obvious to you, but honestly at this point I don't care.
I will assume you have withdrawn your bold claim that there was something erroneous about my statement "the younger you are, the longer you likely
have to live".
On 2025-01-28, billy bookcase <billy@onon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvphai2.4rm.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-28, billy bookcase <billy@onon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvpftic.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-27, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vn8ouk$16ju0$1@dont-email.me...
If, at the age of 18, you were facing detention for virtually the >>>>>>> whole of your life, would you choose Broadmoor or Belmarsh?
What has his age got to do with anything ?
The younger you are, the longer you likely have to live.
But if one can be judged better than the other, by whatever criterion, >>>> then what difference can it make to your decision whether you're going >>>> to be spending the next six months there or the next sixty years ?
Eh? If I was asked "you must choose now the place you will spend the
next six months" or "you must choose now the place you will spend the
next sixty years" I may very well come up with different answers to
these different questions. Obviously.
There is nothing "obvious" about it, at all,
I suspect it is to most people.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvpheg9.4rm.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-28, billy bookcase <billy@onon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvphai2.4rm.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-28, billy bookcase <billy@onon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvpftic.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-27, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vn8ouk$16ju0$1@dont-email.me...
If, at the age of 18, you were facing detention for virtually the >>>>>>>> whole of your life, would you choose Broadmoor or Belmarsh?
What has his age got to do with anything ?
The younger you are, the longer you likely have to live.
But if one can be judged better than the other, by whatever criterion, >>>>> then what difference can it make to your decision whether you're going >>>>> to be spending the next six months there or the next sixty years ?
Eh? If I was asked "you must choose now the place you will spend the
next six months" or "you must choose now the place you will spend the
next sixty years" I may very well come up with different answers to
these different questions. Obviously.
There is nothing "obvious" about it, at all,
I suspect it is to most people.
Kindly explain why.
A simple assertion on your part doesn't represent an argument.
As you very well know.
An actual argument requires both evidence and reasoning.
Both of which are conspicuously absent on your part, up until now,
bb
erroneous about my statement "the younger you are, the longer you likely
have to live".
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 11:28:50 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/28/25 00:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But we have introduced many crimes that only really exist
All crime is madey-uppy. Something casual thinkers fail to grasp. A
crime is just what the fashion of the day says it is. What the UK
considers a crime may not be a crime in France (for example).
There are many crimes, such as theft and murder, which are considered a
crime in practically every nation and every culture, and have been
considered a crime from the dawn of human history.
On 1/28/25 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]The point is that some crimes are first order, they are undesirable
behaviour in and of themselves. Other crimes are more derivative, in
that they may lead to first order criminal behaviour.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 12:46:21 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/28/25 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]The point is that some crimes are first order, they are undesirable
behaviour in and of themselves. Other crimes are more derivative, in
that they may lead to first order criminal behaviour.
If you'd care to name one, I may reconsider my assertion that there is no objective thing as a "crime" which is not a human construct.
On 28 Jan 2025 at 08:09:11 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <p4efpjppq4v1nj2dihsqjn13tiao5q49m1@4ax.com>, at 16:51:20 on
Mon, 27 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast
majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning" >>> autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any aymtoms of >>> learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else.
Actually, such persons are normally much more law-abiding than average,
often painfully so.
Note also that "learning difficulties" is in danger of joining
decimation and eye-of-the-storm in having a completely different
modern meaning to most people.
Having just watched an episode of "Dragons Den", they equate it with
Downs Syndrome.
But there's a whole bunch of high-functioning autistic people, who
are regarded by society as having difficulty learning, because the
classic classroom/by_rote/written_exam system doesn't suit them.
Meanwhile, they have very high IQs and if allowed to develop in ways
they find comfortable, become some of the most gifted contributors to
science and other professional disciplines.
I am not sure this has happened yet.
"Learning difficulties" seems to be used for global intellectual
impairment,
and "special educational needs" is used to encompass phenomena like
autism in the intellectually normal.
In fact, "autism" is often used to also cover some of the problems in
the intellectually impaired. I really don't know if this is of value in >management, apart from comforting the parents.
(More cynically, SEN is the dumping ground for all the kids that teachers >find difficult to teach. Too thick to learn? SEN. Too disruptive to learn? >SEN. Can't concentrate long enough? SEN. Too shy? SEN. Talks too much? SEN. >Won't talk? SEN. And so on).
These days, there's a much greater awarenesss of autism and it's now
more common for parents to seek a formal diagnosis even when there are
no obvious learning difficulties involved.
Autism is generally understood as an attribute in itself rather than being a >> learning disability as such. There is a correlation between learning
disabilities and autism, and severe autism can be a learning disability. But >> they can also stand alone; not every child with learning disabilities has
autism and not every child with autism has impaired intellectual function.
All true. But many children with global intellectual impairment are also >diagnosed with autism and I do wonder whether this is just fashion.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 11:28:50 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/28/25 00:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But we have introduced many crimes that only really exist
All crime is madey-uppy. Something casual thinkers fail to grasp. A crime >>is just what the fashion of the day says it is. What the UK considers a >>crime may not be a crime in France (for example).
There are many crimes, such as theft and murder, which are considered a
crime in practically every nation and every culture, and have been
considered a crime from the dawn of human history.
In message <6710322118.20f5e90f@uninhabited.net>, at 12:25:03 on Tue, 28
Jan 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Autism is generally understood as an attribute in itself rather than
being a learning disability as such. There is a correlation between
learning disabilities and autism, and severe autism can be a learning
disability. But they can also stand alone; not every child with
learning disabilities has autism and not every child with autism has
impaired intellectual function.
All true. But many children with global intellectual impairment are also >>diagnosed with autism and I do wonder whether this is just fashion.
Autism is a diagnosable condition, and affects a far smaller group of children than general intellectual impairment. While a bit flippant, one
must remember half of all children are of below average intelligence!
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 12:46:21 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/28/25 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]The point is that some crimes are first order, they are undesirable
behaviour in and of themselves. Other crimes are more derivative, in
that they may lead to first order criminal behaviour.
If you'd care to name one, I may reconsider my assertion that there is no objective thing as a "crime" which is not a human construct.
In message <q5khpjtl8hp991ischtli8gbs4lb5a0a6s@4ax.com>, at 13:08:47 on
Tue, 28 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
These days, there's a much greater awarenesss of autism and it's now
more common for parents to seek a formal diagnosis even when there are
no obvious learning difficulties involved.
I'm afraid you are misusing the expression "learning difficulties" in
exactly the way I'm complaining about.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 12:32:57 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 11:28:50 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/28/25 00:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But we have introduced many crimes that only really exist
All crime is madey-uppy. Something casual thinkers fail to grasp. A
crime is just what the fashion of the day says it is. What the UK >>>considers a crime may not be a crime in France (for example).
There are many crimes, such as theft and murder, which are considered a
crime in practically every nation and every culture, and have been
considered a crime from the dawn of human history.
Which still doesn't affect a single word of what I wrote.
In fact given there are also madey-uppy exceptions to those crimes, I
believe my point still stands. Crime is a human construct without any >objective basis in nature.
On 28 Jan 2025 at 14:00:49 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvpheg9.4rm.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-28, billy bookcase <billy@onon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvphai2.4rm.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-28, billy bookcase <billy@onon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvpftic.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-27, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vn8ouk$16ju0$1@dont-email.me...
If, at the age of 18, you were facing detention for virtually the >>>>>>>>> whole of your life, would you choose Broadmoor or Belmarsh?
What has his age got to do with anything ?
The younger you are, the longer you likely have to live.
But if one can be judged better than the other, by whatever criterion, >>>>>> then what difference can it make to your decision whether you're going >>>>>> to be spending the next six months there or the next sixty years ?
Eh? If I was asked "you must choose now the place you will spend the >>>>> next six months" or "you must choose now the place you will spend the >>>>> next sixty years" I may very well come up with different answers to
these different questions. Obviously.
There is nothing "obvious" about it, at all,
I suspect it is to most people.
Kindly explain why.
A simple assertion on your part doesn't represent an argument.
As you very well know.
An actual argument requires both evidence and reasoning.
Both of which are conspicuously absent on your part, up until now,
bb
I vote for it being obvious, self-evident and indisputable.
On 27/01/2025 08:53 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vn8ouk$16ju0$1@dont-email.me...
On 27/01/2025 16:51, Mark Goodge wrote:
I suspect that no other evidence was provided for the simple reason that >>>> there was none which the defence thought would be helpful even in
mitigation. Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast >>>> majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning" >>>> autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any aymtoms of >>>> learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else.
If, at the age of 18, you were facing detention for virtually the whole
of your life, would you choose Broadmoor or Belmarsh?
What has his age got to do with anything ?
Whether in reality he's actually insane, the "epitome of evil", or anything >> in between, its fairly evident surely that Rudakubana can't be considered
as "normal" by any usual criterion.
So that regardless of whatever information may or may not be available to
him, he can't be expected to make a decision a "normal" person might
be expected to make, regardless of his age.
And even if his main priority might be further killing opportunities, the
authorities main priority for the foreseeable future may be to prevent his >> being killed by fellow prisoners.
The "authorities" are such interfering busybodies, eh?
Wanting to interdict the long-standing social customs of inmates, I mean.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:09:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <p4efpjppq4v1nj2dihsqjn13tiao5q49m1@4ax.com>, at 16:51:20 on >>Mon, 27 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast
majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning" >>>autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any aymtoms of >>>learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else.
Actually, such persons are normally much more law-abiding than average, >>often painfully so.
That's not true either, although it's a claim often made by people with >autism. In reality, it's not borne out by statistics.
There is, actually (and despite my own previous statement) a small but >statistically significant positive correlation between autism and criminal >behaviour.
Note also that "learning difficulties" is in danger of joining
decimation and eye-of-the-storm in having a completely different
modern meaning to most people.
Having just watched an episode of "Dragons Den", they equate it with
Downs Syndrome.
That's just stupid, but fortunately I haven't encountered anyone within the >education sector who has that bad a misunderstanding.
But there's a whole bunch of high-functioning autistic people, who
are regarded by society as having difficulty learning, because the
classic classroom/by_rote/written_exam system doesn't suit them.
On the other hand, many people with autism actually like exams, because they >like being able to prepare and perform in silence with no distractions.
But the fact that exams work better for some people than others is also >well-known in educational science. It's not an issue restricted to
people with autism.
Meanwhile, they have very high IQs and if allowed to develop in ways
they find comfortable, become some of the most gifted contributors to >>science and other professional disciplines.
That's true of a lot of people who struggle with educational norms. It's not >restricted to autism.
The belief that your opinion has any relevance to anyone other
than yourself is a purely human construct.
On 1/29/25 10:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
The belief that your opinion has any relevance to anyone other
than yourself is a purely human construct.
No, others people's opinions can affect their behaviour, which can affect me. Hence,
they are relevant.
That is factual/scientific.
What difference does his age make to his decision ?
The younger you are, the longer you likely have to live.
As it happns, errors of the kind as exemplified by your answer,
What are you talking about? What error?
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message news:nhjhpj58ufnob4t42pmu4ef9v05mauglv1@4ax.com...
[quoted text muted]
With the obvious exception of war, human society as a whole simply
couldn't have survived as it did, had there not been a strong
prohibition against murder and violence generally. Which itself merely reflects each individual's primary desire, for self-preservation.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message news:vncv78$2avn5$1@dont-email.me...
On 1/29/25 10:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
The belief that your opinion has any relevance to anyone other
than yourself is a purely human construct.
No, others people's opinions can affect their behaviour, which can affect me. Hence,
they are relevant.
That is factual/scientific.
Science itself is a human construct; totally unknown for instance, to
our nearest relatives the chimpanzees.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 15:52:56 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nhjhpj58ufnob4t42pmu4ef9v05mauglv1@4ax.com...
[quoted text muted]
With the obvious exception of war, human society as a whole simply
couldn't have survived as it did, had there not been a strong
prohibition against murder and violence generally. Which itself merely
reflects each individual's primary desire, for self-preservation.
*Everything* in nature is predicated upon the passing of the genes to the next generation. If that process fails for whatever reason, then for that species there is no tomorrow.
With humans, and their intelligence, nature has a cornucopia of tactics
to deploy in pursuit of that universal strategy. But generally acting as
a cohesive mass seems to be the best way so far.
As far as nature is concerned wars are merely a means to reduce the population. Which is inevitably needed from time to time as resources
become scarce.
I will assume you have withdrawn your bold claim that there was something erroneous about my statement "the younger you are, the longer you likely
have to live".
On 28/01/2025 14:43, Andy Walker wrote:
On 28/01/2025 11:05, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[to BB:]> I will assume you have withdrawn your bold claim that there
was something
erroneous about my statement "the younger you are, the longer you
likely have to live".
While that is BRD true for relevant current circumstances, it
has not historically been universally true:
-- in the days of unhealthy childhoods, very young children had much
lower life expectancy than those who survived their first few
years.
-- in similar vein and for somewhat similar reasons, women
immediately
past child-bearing age had longer expectancy than those
slightly younger.
-- some diseases [AIUI, but ICBW, "Spanish" flu for eg]
preferentially
killed younger people.
-- in times of war, and especially in times of conscription, young
men
are especially prone to being killed at 20-odd rather than
living to 70+ [traffic accidents do the same, but have never
been sufficiently numerous to make that much difference].
None of this is relevant to Rudakubana's case or BB's response to it,
but there is a tie-in to more general questions about lifetimes, such
as the expected number of paper driving licences still valid. People
don't move,
or get arrested, or start businesses, or ..., at random, so simplistic
use of statistics can give wrong results. Examples on request [or not,
as the case may be].
"While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he
becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example, never foretell
what any one man will do, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to. Individuals vary, but percentages remain
constant. So says the statistician." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Sign
of the Four.
On 1/29/25 10:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in messageNo science is based upon the idea of objective experiments, cause and
news:vncv78$2avn5$1@dont-email.me...
On 1/29/25 10:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
The belief that your opinion has any relevance to anyone otherNo, others people's opinions can affect their behaviour, which can
than yourself is a purely human construct.
affect me. Hence,
they are relevant.
That is factual/scientific.
Science itself is a human construct; totally unknown for instance, to
our nearest relatives the chimpanzees.
effect. Many animals do experiments, observe the results, and act accordingly.
The Wisdom of Crowds springs to mind.*
On 1/29/25 10:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message
news:vncv78$2avn5$1@dont-email.me...
On 1/29/25 10:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
The belief that your opinion has any relevance to anyone other
than yourself is a purely human construct.
No, others people's opinions can affect their behaviour, which can affect me. Hence,
they are relevant.
That is factual/scientific.
Science itself is a human construct; totally unknown for instance, to
our nearest relatives the chimpanzees.
No science is based upon the idea of objective experiments, cause and effect. Many
animals do experiments, observe the results, and act accordingly.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message news:vnd73g$2ce20$1@dont-email.me...
On 1/29/25 10:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message
news:vncv78$2avn5$1@dont-email.me...
On 1/29/25 10:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
The belief that your opinion has any relevance to anyone other
than yourself is a purely human construct.
No, others people's opinions can affect their behaviour, which can affect me. Hence,
they are relevant.
That is factual/scientific.
Science itself is a human construct; totally unknown for instance, to
our nearest relatives the chimpanzees.
No science is based upon the idea of objective experiments, cause and effect. Many
animals do experiments, observe the results, and act accordingly.
Cause and effect are purely human constructs derived from observing that
one event the effect, is seen to invariably follow from another, the cause. But animals, infants, children and human technology for thousands of years are
and were quite happy to just settle for the regular events and exploit that regularity, without necessarily assigning any causality to them
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message >news:vndblc$1sc4r$11@dont-email.me...
The Wisdom of Crowds springs to mind.*
Until the 23rd of June 2016, that is,
But animals, infants, children and human technology for thousands of
years are and were quite happy to just settle for the regular events and exploit that regularity, without necessarily assigning any causality to
them
In message <cg8hpj98v5n1o6vrqdli552kus99afcful@4ax.com>, at 09:48:33 on
Tue, 28 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:09:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <p4efpjppq4v1nj2dihsqjn13tiao5q49m1@4ax.com>, at 16:51:20 on >>>Mon, 27 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>remarked:
Autism alone is neither a defence nor a mitigation; the vast
majority of people with what is commonly described as "high functioning" >>>>autism (that is, displaying symptoms of autism but without any aymtoms of >>>>learning disabilities) are as law-abiding as everyone else.
Actually, such persons are normally much more law-abiding than average, >>>often painfully so.
That's not true either, although it's a claim often made by people with >>autism. In reality, it's not borne out by statistics.
You need to produce these statistics, and we will examine the
methodology. Because what I said is absolutely true for ***HIGH >FUNCTIONING*** individuals.
But there's a whole bunch of high-functioning autistic people, who
are regarded by society as having difficulty learning, because the >>>classic classroom/by_rote/written_exam system doesn't suit them.
On the other hand, many people with autism actually like exams, because they >>like being able to prepare and perform in silence with no distractions.
I'd like to see your stats on that.
But the fact that exams work better for some people than others is also >>well-known in educational science. It's not an issue restricted to
people with autism.
Irrelevant how people who don't have autism get on with exams.
Meanwhile, they have very high IQs and if allowed to develop in ways
they find comfortable, become some of the most gifted contributors to >>>science and other professional disciplines.
That's true of a lot of people who struggle with educational norms. It's not >>restricted to autism.
Again irrelevant if there are persons without autism who exhibit this >characteristic. What I'm saying is that those *with* HIGH FUNCTIONING
autism exhibit this far above average.
On 29 Jan 2025 at 12:09:48 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 15:52:56 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nhjhpj58ufnob4t42pmu4ef9v05mauglv1@4ax.com...
[quoted text muted]
With the obvious exception of war, human society as a whole simply
couldn't have survived as it did, had there not been a strong
prohibition against murder and violence generally. Which itself merely
reflects each individual's primary desire, for self-preservation.
*Everything* in nature is predicated upon the passing of the genes to
the next generation. If that process fails for whatever reason, then
for that species there is no tomorrow.
With humans, and their intelligence, nature has a cornucopia of tactics
to deploy in pursuit of that universal strategy. But generally acting
as a cohesive mass seems to be the best way so far.
As far as nature is concerned wars are merely a means to reduce the
population. Which is inevitably needed from time to time as resources
become scarce.
To go from the truism of survival of the fittest to "this human
behaviour promotes gene survival so it must be genetically determined"
does not logically follow.
That is apart from being a probable
over-simplification in most cases. Apart from (apocryphal) lemmings,
most animal populations are adequately controlled by predation, disease
or starvation. The same would apply to humans over evolutionary
timescales.
On 1/28/25 14:25, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 12:46:21 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/28/25 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The point is that some crimes are first order, they are undesirable
behaviour in and of themselves. Other crimes are more derivative, in
that they may lead to first order criminal behaviour.
If you'd care to name one, I may reconsider my assertion that there is no
objective thing as a "crime" which is not a human construct.
The law is a social construct, obviously. I don't know why you would
even make that point?
Money is a social construct, but you pay me £100 pounds feels objective.
Thou shalt not commit adultery seems quite objective. Thou shall not
covet thy neighbour's wife seems more subjective.
On 28 Jan 2025 at 14:00:49 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvpheg9.4rm.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-28, billy bookcase <billy@onon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvphai2.4rm.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-28, billy bookcase <billy@onon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvpftic.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-27, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:vn8ouk$16ju0$1@dont-email.me...
If, at the age of 18, you were facing detention for virtually the >>>>>>>>> whole of your life, would you choose Broadmoor or Belmarsh?
What has his age got to do with anything ?
The younger you are, the longer you likely have to live.
But if one can be judged better than the other, by whatever criterion, >>>>>> then what difference can it make to your decision whether you're going >>>>>> to be spending the next six months there or the next sixty years ?
Eh? If I was asked "you must choose now the place you will spend the >>>>> next six months" or "you must choose now the place you will spend the >>>>> next sixty years" I may very well come up with different answers to
these different questions. Obviously.
There is nothing "obvious" about it, at all,
I suspect it is to most people.
Kindly explain why.
A simple assertion on your part doesn't represent an argument.
As you very well know.
An actual argument requires both evidence and reasoning.
Both of which are conspicuously absent on your part, up until now,
bb
I vote for it being obvious, self-evident and indisputable.
[...] People don't move,"While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate
or get arrested, or start businesses, or ..., at random, so simplistic use >> of statistics can give wrong results. Examples on request [or not, as the >> case may be].
he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example, never
foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with precision
what an average number will be up to. Individuals vary, but
percentages remain constant. So says the statistician." - Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle, The Sign of the Four.
On 28/01/2025 11:21 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 1/28/25 14:25, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 12:46:21 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/28/25 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The point is that some crimes are first order, they are undesirable
behaviour in and of themselves. Other crimes are more derivative, in
that they may lead to first order criminal behaviour.
If you'd care to name one, I may reconsider my assertion that there is no >>> objective thing as a "crime" which is not a human construct.
The law is a social construct, obviously. I don't know why you would
even make that point?
Money is a social construct, but you pay me £100 pounds feels objective.
Thou shalt not commit adultery seems quite objective. Thou shall not
covet thy neighbour's wife seems more subjective.
I'm pretty sure I've heard that "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and
"Thou shalt not cover they neighbour's wife" are widely reputed to have originated from a non-human source.
There are others from the same source, including "Thou shalt not steal"
and Thou shalt not kill".
On 1/29/25 14:15, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message
news:vnd73g$2ce20$1@dont-email.me...
On 1/29/25 10:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message
news:vncv78$2avn5$1@dont-email.me...
On 1/29/25 10:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
The belief that your opinion has any relevance to anyone other
than yourself is a purely human construct.
No, others people's opinions can affect their behaviour, which can affect me.
Hence,
they are relevant.
That is factual/scientific.
Science itself is a human construct; totally unknown for instance, to
our nearest relatives the chimpanzees.
No science is based upon the idea of objective experiments, cause and effect. Many
animals do experiments, observe the results, and act accordingly.
Cause and effect are purely human constructs derived from observing that
one event the effect, is seen to invariably follow from another, the cause. >> But animals, infants, children and human technology for thousands of years are
and were quite happy to just settle for the regular events and exploit that >> regularity, without necessarily assigning any causality to them
There is no "invariably follow" we work on correlation. We might have seen that it
always has followed, but we can't guarantee it always will.
That is why science is based upon the idea of falsification. We can't show a 100%
correlation, but we can show it is not 100%
But in any case, all science, all experiment etc. depends on
systems of measurement.
Without being able to measure the string Pythagoras wouldn't have
been able to discover the mathematical basis of harmony
Without Kepler's measurements Newton would have had nothing on which
to base his calculations.
However all such systems of measurement are purely human constructs.
They don't exist in the real world. Which is merely a continuum of
phenomena,
I'm pretty sure I've heard that "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou shalt not
cover they neighbour's wife" are widely reputed to have originated from a non-human
source.
There are others from the same source, including "Thou shalt not steal" and Thou shalt
not kill".
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 14:31:09 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message >>news:vndblc$1sc4r$11@dont-email.me...
The Wisdom of Crowds springs to mind.*
Until the 23rd of June 2016, that is,
Elections and referendums don't meet the criteria for the Wisdom of Crowds.
More specifically, an election or referendum fails the criteria because external actors (eg, campaigners) are actively seeking to influence the decision-makers' decisions. It therefore fails the "Independence" test,
which requires all decision-makers to be making their own decision uninfluenced by the decisions or opinions of others.
A lot of people wrongly dismiss the Wisdom of Crowds principle as snake oil, because there are many observable circumstances in which crowds make objectively wrong decisions. But that's because they've typically only heard the phrase, and assume that it applies to all crowds. In reality, a crowd
has to have both a set of positive criteria and an absence of negative criteria for it to work.
If you've never read the book, I would strongly recommend it. As well as explaining how the Wisdom of Crowds principle works (and why it works), it also goes into considerable detail about how and why it can fail.
https://amzn.to/4hCzW9x
On 29/01/2025 12:27, Simon Parker wrote:
[I wrote:]
[...] People don't move,"While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate
or get arrested, or start businesses, or ..., at random, so simplistic use >>> of statistics can give wrong results. Examples on request [or not, as the >>> case may be].
he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example, never
foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with precision
what an average number will be up to. Individuals vary, but
percentages remain constant. So says the statistician." - Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle, The Sign of the Four.
Sir Arthur may have written very fine books, but he was not a statistician, and not really even a scientist [too easily hoodwinked
by "psychics" and similar]. It would be tedious to deconstruct that
quote too far, but as it happens there was a characteristic example of
what I meant in this very thread this morning:
[RogerH:]
[...] While a bit flippant, one[Jethro:]
must remember half of all children are of below average intelligence!
As are half of all adults.[Claim of flippancy noted, but ....]
Leaving aside any confusion between "average" and "median", and
indeed the other common meaning of "average" [== "typical"], this sort
of statement always has a context, and what you can deduce about it
depends on that context. "Intelligence" is not a well-defined concept;
we can recognise very clever people and stupid people, but it is more commonly used to mean "IQ", as measured either by an IQ test or by some
proxy for it [which introduces another level of complexity]. But IQ is almost meaningless in contexts such as entry into HE, or in education
more generally, or such as ability to function in society. There are
two principal reasons for this:
-- Many skills are [by design] not measured by IQ tests, which are
supposed to be independent of culture. For example, whether we
are good at foreign languages, playing the piano, remembering
the dates of battles, cooking, sport, navigation, surviving in
the desert, ..., however useful these may be in our lives and
careers, are not part of our IQ.
-- We naturally gravitate towards things we like and/or are good at,
and away from things we dislike and/or are bad at. So most of us
function much better than our IQ would suggest.
So, for example, the common argument that "if more than 50% of school
leavers go to university, then some of them will be of below average intelligence" is irrelevant. Nevertheless, they should be above [and
often well above] "average intelligence" in the context of the course
they are on and in their resulting careers, which is what matters to provision of HE.
IOW, the RogerH/Jethro claim may, or may not, be technically
correct, but it is of virtually no relevance to education.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 12:25:18 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Jan 2025 at 12:09:48 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 15:52:56 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nhjhpj58ufnob4t42pmu4ef9v05mauglv1@4ax.com...
[quoted text muted]
With the obvious exception of war, human society as a whole simply
couldn't have survived as it did, had there not been a strong
prohibition against murder and violence generally. Which itself merely >>>> reflects each individual's primary desire, for self-preservation.
*Everything* in nature is predicated upon the passing of the genes to
the next generation. If that process fails for whatever reason, then
for that species there is no tomorrow.
With humans, and their intelligence, nature has a cornucopia of tactics
to deploy in pursuit of that universal strategy. But generally acting
as a cohesive mass seems to be the best way so far.
As far as nature is concerned wars are merely a means to reduce the
population. Which is inevitably needed from time to time as resources
become scarce.
To go from the truism of survival of the fittest to "this human
behaviour promotes gene survival so it must be genetically determined"
does not logically follow.
True. Luckily I never said that :)
That is apart from being a probable
over-simplification in most cases. Apart from (apocryphal) lemmings,
most animal populations are adequately controlled by predation, disease
or starvation. The same would apply to humans over evolutionary
timescales.
But with humans you can add that complex layer of social interaction - completely without parallel anywhere else in terrestrial nature. How that impinges on the overall evolutionary drive is still largely unknown.
On 1/29/25 20:42, billy bookcase wrote:
But in any case, all science, all experiment etc. depends on
systems of measurement.
Without being able to measure the string Pythagoras wouldn't have
been able to discover the mathematical basis of harmony
Without Kepler's measurements Newton would have had nothing on which
to base his calculations.
However all such systems of measurement are purely human constructs.
No they aren't. There are the fundamental physical constants.
They don't exist in the real world. Which is merely a continuum of
phenomena,
Well, that depends on what you mean by continuum, many people hypothesise that reality
is discrete and finite.
[...][RogerH:]
[...] While a bit flippant, one
must remember half of all children are of below average intelligence!
IOW, the RogerH/Jethro claim may, or may not, be technicallyNot my claim. My only claim was that "autism" is being used as a fairly meaningless euphemistic diagnosis in people with gross intellectual deficits.
correct, but it is of virtually no relevance to education.
[...] "Below average" is a colloquial rather than a mathematical estimate, usually!
On 29/01/2025 20:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
[I wrote:]
[...][RogerH:]
[...] While a bit flippant, one
must remember half of all children are of below average intelligence!
IOW, the RogerH/Jethro claim may, or may not, be technicallyNot my claim. My only claim was that "autism" is being used as a fairly
correct, but it is of virtually no relevance to education.
meaningless euphemistic diagnosis in people with gross intellectual deficits.
??? I quoted your actual words in my previous article, still there
above. I was concerned only with /that/ claim, which has nothing to do with autism. I have no relevant opinion on autism.
[...] "Below average" is a colloquial rather than a mathematical estimate, >> usually!
"Half of all children" seems as close to mathematics as we're going
to get in this thread! But your claim [still] leaves undefined what you, or your readers, mean [whether colloquially or more precisely] by "all children" [drawn from what population?] and by "intelligence" [IQ test results or some more general observation of capabilities]. I pick on your words not because I disagree with you but because that lack of definition is what enables us [in general, not merely thee and me] to draw different conclusions from the same statistics.
* All scientific "Laws" and theories are crucially dependant on the sensitivity of the measuring equipment available at the time of their formulation. And can be modified or refined subsequently in parallel
with improvements in the same
On 29 Jan 2025 at 13:52:16 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Species don't generally evolve,
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:26:51 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Jan 2025 at 13:52:16 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Species don't generally evolve,
That is a bold claim.
What does evolve then ?
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 22:08:03 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
* All scientific "Laws" and theories are crucially dependant on the
sensitivity of the measuring equipment available at the time of their
formulation. And can be modified or refined subsequently in parallel
with improvements in the same
Unlike woo, science doesn't stop.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 22:08:03 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
* All scientific "Laws" and theories are crucially dependant on the
sensitivity of the measuring equipment available at the time of their
formulation. And can be modified or refined subsequently in parallel
with improvements in the same
Unlike woo, science doesn't stop.
On 29 Jan 2025 at 17:33:50 GMT, "Andy Walker" <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
IOW, the RogerH/Jethro claim may, or may not, be technically
correct, but it is of virtually no relevance to education.
Not my claim. My only claim was that "autism" is being used as a fairly >meaningless euphemistic diagnosis in people with gross intellectual deficits.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:26:51 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Jan 2025 at 13:52:16 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Species don't generally evolve,
That is a bold claim.
What does evolve then ?
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:17:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <q5khpjtl8hp991ischtli8gbs4lb5a0a6s@4ax.com>, at 13:08:47 on >>Tue, 28 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
These days, there's a much greater awarenesss of autism and it's now
more common for parents to seek a formal diagnosis even when there are
no obvious learning difficulties involved.
I'm afraid you are misusing the expression "learning difficulties" in >>exactly the way I'm complaining about.
I'm not sure why you think that is, given that I agreed with your statement >in Message-ID: <HJFamwtnCJmnFA2I@perry.uk> about those who misunderstand it. >I'm using the term in the same sense that is commonly employed in the >educational sector - that is, pupils who have specific, identifiable >difficulties in learning. It doesn't just mean "kids who are thick", and nor >does it mean "kids with social or behavioural issues", unless those issues >directly impinge on their ability to process and retain information.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message news:vne8ho$2ij03$1@dont-email.me...
On 1/29/25 20:42, billy bookcase wrote:
But in any case, all science, all experiment etc. depends on
systems of measurement.
Without being able to measure the string Pythagoras wouldn't have
been able to discover the mathematical basis of harmony
Without Kepler's measurements Newton would have had nothing on which
to base his calculations.
However all such systems of measurement are purely human constructs.
No they aren't. There are the fundamental physical constants.
The very phrase "fundamental physical constants" is merely an artefact
of human languge
Which have only been established in the first place using measuring
equipment and measurements invented by humans.
And haven't you already admitted to the problem of induction ?necessarily> always repeat itself ?
That we can't actually always be certain that nature will
The the very idea of the "uniformity of nature", is merely a convenience
of our part ?
In which case if we can't be "guarenteed" (your term) to know the
future. then how can we be guarenteed to know about the past ?
And that these constants then applied, before there were any
humans around to measure them ?
They don't exist in the real world. Which is merely a continuum of
phenomena,
Well, that depends on what you mean by continuum, many people hypothesise that reality
is discrete and finite.
Human experience and perception is that of a continuum (except while
they're asleep or in a coma etc ) Which is all that any self respecting empiricist should be concerned with.
Actually, such persons are normally much more law-abiding than average, >>>>often painfully so.
That's not true either, although it's a claim often made by people with >>>autism. In reality, it's not borne out by statistics.
You need to produce these statistics, and we will examine the
methodology. Because what I said is absolutely true for ***HIGH >>FUNCTIONING*** individuals.
What's your source for that assertion?
So, for example, the common argument that "if more than 50% of school
leavers go to university, then some of them will be of below average intelligence" is irrelevant. Nevertheless, they should be above [and
often well above] "average intelligence" in the context of the course
they are on and in their resulting careers, which is what matters to provision of HE.
I can only agree. Sorry for repeating what I *did* say, I should probably have
stuck to saying what I *didn't* say. The "half are below average" quote is annoying for all the reasons you mention, plus the fact that people tend to hear "below average" as "very stupid" and therefore are misled.
However were they all brought back together again it would be as if
"they'd never been away",
On 30 Jan 2025 at 09:05:47 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:26:51 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Jan 2025 at 13:52:16 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Species don't generally evolve,
That is a bold claim.
What does evolve then ?
New species. Generally.
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:49:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
However were they all brought back together again it would be as if
"they'd never been away",
Right up until it isn't.
Speciation is one of those things that - despite untold forests of publications - we "just don't know". We know a lot around it. But that's
not the same.
On 30/01/2025 09:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Jan 2025 at 09:05:47 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:26:51 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Jan 2025 at 13:52:16 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> >>>> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Species don't generally evolve,
That is a bold claim.
What does evolve then ?
New species. Generally.
So, what do you call the intervening process while they're, for example, replacing feathers with hair, getting webbed feet, or whatever?
It's not an instantaneous transition.
On 1/30/25 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:49:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
However were they all brought back together again it would be as if
"they'd never been away",
Right up until it isn't.
Speciation is one of those things that - despite untold forests of
publications - we "just don't know". We know a lot around it. But
that's not the same.
I thought a lot of it was about definitions. It seems to me different
human races have evolved different skin pigmentation.
However, people
seem more interested in making political points, rather than discussing
the mechanisms of evolutionary change. To this end, specific scientific definitions are introduced to exclude us from acknowledging difference,
and exclude the possibility that change has occurred in the timespan of
human civilisation. Most of all, we must exclude the possibility that
human civilisation has driven evolution.
On 30/01/2025 12:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/01/2025 09:53, Roger Hayter wrote:But it isn't necessarily a gradual transition - it could be a sudden step-change.
On 30 Jan 2025 at 09:05:47 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:26:51 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Jan 2025 at 13:52:16 GMT, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Species don't generally evolve,
That is a bold claim.
What does evolve then ?
New species. Generally.
So, what do you call the intervening process while they're, for
example,
replacing feathers with hair, getting webbed feet, or whatever?
It's not an instantaneous transition.
The flightless animals might be attacked by predators which are growing
in numbers, and then the mutated animals which have the power to fly or
to defend themselves with beaks and claws survive and the others
gradually die out.
The mutations (if that's the correct word) aren't due to a benevolent
creator but more likely to viruses or other means by which the DNA is altered.
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:49:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
However were they all brought back together again it would be as if
"they'd never been away",
Right up until it isn't.
Speciation is one of those things that - despite untold forests of publications - we "just don't know". We know a lot around it. But that's
not the same.
On 30/01/2025 09:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Jan 2025 at 09:05:47 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:26:51 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Jan 2025 at 13:52:16 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> >>>> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Species don't generally evolve,
That is a bold claim.
What does evolve then ?
New species. Generally.
So, what do you call the intervening process while they're, for example, replacing
feathers with hair, getting webbed feet, or whatever?
It's not an instantaneous transition.
On 30/01/2025 12:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/01/2025 09:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Jan 2025 at 09:05:47 GMT, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:26:51 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Jan 2025 at 13:52:16 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> >>>>> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Species don't generally evolve,
That is a bold claim.
What does evolve then ?
New species. Generally.
So, what do you call the intervening process while they're, for
example, replacing feathers with hair, getting webbed feet, or whatever?
It's not an instantaneous transition.
But it isn't necessarily a gradual transition - it could be a sudden step-change.
The flightless animals might be attacked by predators which are growing
in numbers, and then the mutated animals which have the power to fly or
to defend themselves with beaks and claws survive and the others
gradually die out.
In message <tcnkpj1i77dtv04n1qmdl3l3ccga6037ge@4ax.com>, at 17:09:04 on
Wed, 29 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Actually, such persons are normally much more law-abiding than average, >>>>>often painfully so.
That's not true either, although it's a claim often made by people with >>>>autism. In reality, it's not borne out by statistics.
You need to produce these statistics, and we will examine the >>>methodology. Because what I said is absolutely true for ***HIGH >>>FUNCTIONING*** individuals.
What's your source for that assertion?
Personal experience with numerous patients (or whatever the relevant
noun is).
But as you appear to be implacably opposed to the truth, I'm
discontinuing this debate.
On 1/30/25 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:49:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
However were they all brought back together again it would be as if
"they'd never been away",
Right up until it isn't.
Speciation is one of those things that - despite untold forests of
publications - we "just don't know". We know a lot around it. But that's
not the same.
I thought a lot of it was about definitions. It seems to me different human races have
evolved different skin pigmentation.
seem more interested in making political points, rather than discussing the mechanisms
of evolutionary change. To this end, specific scientific definitions are introduced to
exclude us from acknowledging difference, and exclude the possibility that change has
occurred in the timespan of human civilisation. Most of all, we must exclude the
possibility that human civilisation has driven evolution.
In message <cmujpj5irce2fa5ukoa7d8acak1ufpigp9@4ax.com>, at 09:59:53 on
Wed, 29 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:17:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <q5khpjtl8hp991ischtli8gbs4lb5a0a6s@4ax.com>, at 13:08:47 on >>>Tue, 28 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>remarked:
These days, there's a much greater awarenesss of autism and it's now >>>>more common for parents to seek a formal diagnosis even when there are >>>>no obvious learning difficulties involved.
I'm afraid you are misusing the expression "learning difficulties" in >>>exactly the way I'm complaining about.
I'm not sure why you think that is, given that I agreed with your statement >>in Message-ID: <HJFamwtnCJmnFA2I@perry.uk> about those who misunderstand it. >>I'm using the term in the same sense that is commonly employed in the >>educational sector - that is, pupils who have specific, identifiable >>difficulties in learning. It doesn't just mean "kids who are thick", and nor >>does it mean "kids with social or behavioural issues", unless those issues >>directly impinge on their ability to process and retain information.
Because the main trigger for parents to get such a diagnosis is because
their children need support, not because "they are thick", but the >educational system writes off those who don't get on with their teaching >methodology.
On 29 Jan 2025 at 14:07:00 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/01/2025 11:21 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 1/28/25 14:25, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 12:46:21 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/28/25 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The point is that some crimes are first order, they are undesirable
behaviour in and of themselves. Other crimes are more derivative, in >>>>> that they may lead to first order criminal behaviour.
If you'd care to name one, I may reconsider my assertion that there is no >>>> objective thing as a "crime" which is not a human construct.
The law is a social construct, obviously. I don't know why you would
even make that point?
Money is a social construct, but you pay me £100 pounds feels objective. >>>
Thou shalt not commit adultery seems quite objective. Thou shall not
covet thy neighbour's wife seems more subjective.
I'm pretty sure I've heard that "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and
"Thou shalt not cover they neighbour's wife" are widely reputed to have
originated from a non-human source.
There are others from the same source, including "Thou shalt not steal"
and Thou shalt not kill".
But no one sensible has believed that for quite a few centuries.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 22:08:03 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
* All scientific "Laws" and theories are crucially dependant on the
sensitivity of the measuring equipment available at the time of their
formulation. And can be modified or refined subsequently in parallel
with improvements in the same
Unlike woo, science doesn't stop.
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:vnfq3s$1sc4r$20@dont-email.me...
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:49:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
However were they all brought back together again it would be as if
"they'd never been away",
Right up until it isn't.
Except I was specifically referring to sub *species* of tiger and zebras
Who by definition will still be able to interbreed, which was my point.
Speciation is one of those things that - despite untold forests of
publications - we "just don't know". We know a lot around it. But
that's not the same.
Except that with both tigers and zebras, which I speciafically chose as
my examples, the fact that they're both covered in very distinctive
stripes, black white and orange in the case of tigers, just black and
white in the case of zebras might give some sort of a clue,
don't you think ?
bb
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:m018vdFobbgU1@mid.individual.net...
[quoted text muted]
We simply weren't around when it happened.
Just as we simply aren't sure of the process whereby homo-sapiens
finally emerged having found sketelal fragements of what we term homo erectus, homo habilis, neandertal man etc.etc
On 30/01/2025 12:28, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Only by global catastrophe, as with dinosaur extinction, which means
it's not evolution at all.
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 13:29:52 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:vnfq3s$1sc4r$20@dont-email.me...
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:49:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
However were they all brought back together again it would be as if
"they'd never been away",
Right up until it isn't.
Except I was specifically referring to sub *species* of tiger and zebras
Who by definition will still be able to interbreed, which was my point.
Speciation is one of those things that - despite untold forests of
publications - we "just don't know". We know a lot around it. But
that's not the same.
Except that with both tigers and zebras, which I speciafically chose as
my examples, the fact that they're both covered in very distinctive
stripes, black white and orange in the case of tigers, just black and
white in the case of zebras might give some sort of a clue,
don't you think ?
bb
Er, can't zebras only produce fertile offspring with other zebras ?
On 1/29/25 23:23, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message
news:vne8ho$2ij03$1@dont-email.me...
On 1/29/25 20:42, billy bookcase wrote:
But in any case, all science, all experiment etc. depends on
systems of measurement.
Without being able to measure the string Pythagoras wouldn't have
been able to discover the mathematical basis of harmony
Without Kepler's measurements Newton would have had nothing on which
to base his calculations.
However all such systems of measurement are purely human constructs.
No they aren't. There are the fundamental physical constants.
The very phrase "fundamental physical constants" is merely an artefact
of human languge
No, they are observable values. Just as mathematical constants like e has meaning
beyond human conventions.
Which have only been established in the first place using measuring
equipment and measurements invented by humans.
You have that the wrong way around. We can use fundamental values to measure other
stuff, or indeed to precisely specify the arbitrary units we have invented.
And haven't you already admitted to the problem of induction ?necessarily> always repeat itself ?
That we can't actually always be certain that nature will
I didn't characterise lack of certainty as a problem.
The the very idea of the "uniformity of nature", is merely a convenience
of our part ?
No, it is what we observe.
In which case if we can't be "guarenteed" (your term) to know the
future. then how can we be guarenteed to know about the past ?
And that these constants then applied, before there were any
humans around to measure them ?
We would reasonably expect non-human intelligence to observe the same values. Hence,
they are not human constructs.
I don't know where you are going with the certainty tangent? The real world is about
best guesses, not certainty. Almost sure is good enough for practical purposes.
They don't exist in the real world. Which is merely a continuum of
phenomena,
Well, that depends on what you mean by continuum, many people hypothesise that
reality
is discrete and finite.
Human experience and perception is that of a continuum (except while
they're asleep or in a coma etc ) Which is all that any self respecting
empiricist should be concerned with.
If by continuum you mean discrete changes that are too small for human perception,
fine, but that doesn't mean that is the way it is. Reality may be discrete and natural
integral values 1,2,3,4,.., are observable, not human artefacts.
You appear to be trying to muddy the waters. To distract from the fact that much of
science is about observable quantities, hydrogen has one proton, helium two, not
arbitrary human constructs.
Science is different from legal systems etc which are built upon arbitrary human constructs.
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:vng7lo$1sc4r$25@dont-email.me...
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 13:29:52 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:vnfq3s$1sc4r$20@dont-email.me...
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:49:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
However were they all brought back together again it would be as if
"they'd never been away",
Right up until it isn't.
Except I was specifically referring to sub *species* of tiger and
zebras
Who by definition will still be able to interbreed, which was my
point.
Speciation is one of those things that - despite untold forests of
publications - we "just don't know". We know a lot around it. But
that's not the same.
Except that with both tigers and zebras, which I speciafically chose
as my examples, the fact that they're both covered in very distinctive
stripes, black white and orange in the case of tigers, just black and
white in the case of zebras might give some sort of a clue,
don't you think ?
bb
Er, can't zebras only produce fertile offspring with other zebras ?
I stand corrected.
I'll just stick with the tigers then
bb
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 17:05:17 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:vng7lo$1sc4r$25@dont-email.me...
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 13:29:52 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:vnfq3s$1sc4r$20@dont-email.me...
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:49:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
However were they all brought back together again it would be as if >>>>>> "they'd never been away",
Right up until it isn't.
Except I was specifically referring to sub *species* of tiger and
zebras
Who by definition will still be able to interbreed, which was my
point.
Speciation is one of those things that - despite untold forests of
publications - we "just don't know". We know a lot around it. But
that's not the same.
Except that with both tigers and zebras, which I speciafically chose
as my examples, the fact that they're both covered in very distinctive >>>> stripes, black white and orange in the case of tigers, just black and
white in the case of zebras might give some sort of a clue,
don't you think ?
bb
Er, can't zebras only produce fertile offspring with other zebras ?
I stand corrected.
I'll just stick with the tigers then
bb
er, can't tigers only produce fertile offspring with other tigers ?
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 12:24:29 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/30/25 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:49:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
However were they all brought back together again it would be as if
"they'd never been away",
Right up until it isn't.
Speciation is one of those things that - despite untold forests of
publications - we "just don't know". We know a lot around it. But
that's not the same.
I thought a lot of it was about definitions. It seems to me different
human races have evolved different skin pigmentation.
"Evolved" ?
I stand with Professor Dawkins view that "race" has no scientific basis.
However, people
seem more interested in making political points, rather than discussing
the mechanisms of evolutionary change. To this end, specific scientific
definitions are introduced to exclude us from acknowledging difference,
and exclude the possibility that change has occurred in the timespan of
human civilisation. Most of all, we must exclude the possibility that
human civilisation has driven evolution.
Humans are unfortunate in that the genes that create such huge visible differences across some populations, such as skin colour are the least important in the genome.
No, they are observable values. Just as mathematical constants like e has meaning
beyond human conventions.
E has meaning to whom exactly ? Aliens ?
All mathematics only has, and only ever had, meaning to humans.
Unless that is, there is something you've not mentioned up until
this point.
Which have only been established in the first place using measuring
equipment and measurements invented by humans.
You have that the wrong way around. We can use fundamental values to measure other
stuff, or indeed to precisely specify the arbitrary units we have invented.
The point I was making is that "fundamental physical constants" which is the
actual phrase you used before are the result of actual measurement
and are thus limited by the sensitivity of the equipment being used.
On 1/30/25 13:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 12:24:29 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/30/25 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:49:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
However were they all brought back together again it would be as if
"they'd never been away",
Right up until it isn't.
Speciation is one of those things that - despite untold forests of
publications - we "just don't know". We know a lot around it. But
that's not the same.
I thought a lot of it was about definitions. It seems to me different
human races have evolved different skin pigmentation.
"Evolved" ?
Genetically heritable, physically observable characteristics developed through biological selective processes in separated human
subpopulations. What more do you want?
On 1/29/25 23:23, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message
news:vne8ho$2ij03$1@dont-email.me...
On 1/29/25 20:42, billy bookcase wrote:
But in any case, all science, all experiment etc. depends on
systems of measurement.
Without being able to measure the string Pythagoras wouldn't have
been able to discover the mathematical basis of harmony
Without Kepler's measurements Newton would have had nothing on
which to base his calculations.
However all such systems of measurement are purely human
constructs.
No they aren't. There are the fundamental physical constants.
The very phrase "fundamental physical constants" is merely an
artefact of human languge
No, they are observable values. Just as mathematical constants like e
has meaning beyond human conventions.
Which have only been established in the first place using measuring
equipment and measurements invented by humans.
You have that the wrong way around. We can use fundamental values to
measure other stuff, or indeed to precisely specify the arbitrary
units we have invented.
[TRIMMED]
Quite true. The speed of light also comes to mind, as it's a speed which
is independent of the observer. It does not rely on human measurement,
nor on any specific numerical value given to it - as claimed above.
On 1/30/25 16:58, billy bookcase wrote:
No, mathematics is a human language used to describe relationships. In particular,
physically observable relationships. These relationships exist outside the scope of
human intelligence, they are discovered, not invented.
On 1/31/25 17:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Jan 2025 at 13:03:07 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/30/25 13:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 12:24:29 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/30/25 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:49:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
However were they all brought back together again it would be as if >>>>>>> "they'd never been away",
Right up until it isn't.
Speciation is one of those things that - despite untold forests of >>>>>> publications - we "just don't know". We know a lot around it. But
that's not the same.
I thought a lot of it was about definitions. It seems to me different >>>>> human races have evolved different skin pigmentation.
"Evolved" ?
Genetically heritable, physically observable characteristics developed
through biological selective processes in separated human
subpopulations. What more do you want?
If any had occurred to such an extent that any such populations had unique >> genes not found in other subpopulations and could not interbreed in a such a >> way as to readily revert to average human characteristics then I suppose such
subpopulations would be well on the way to developing genetically distinct >> races. But it has never happened, and seems increasingly unlikely to do so >> with modern travel and migration patterns. Homo sapiens has hardly been around
long enough, anyway.
I don't know where you think you are going with that argument. Evolution
is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations
over successive generations. We observe such changes in geographically separated human populations.
Trying to argue that the changes we see are not "real evolution" and
that because "real evolution" does not exist, the observable changes do
not exist, is nonsense. We all observe the differences, they do exist.
On 31 Jan 2025 at 13:03:07 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/30/25 13:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 12:24:29 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/30/25 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:49:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
However were they all brought back together again it would be as if >>>>>> "they'd never been away",
Right up until it isn't.
Speciation is one of those things that - despite untold forests of
publications - we "just don't know". We know a lot around it. But
that's not the same.
I thought a lot of it was about definitions. It seems to me different
human races have evolved different skin pigmentation.
"Evolved" ?
Genetically heritable, physically observable characteristics developed
through biological selective processes in separated human
subpopulations. What more do you want?
If any had occurred to such an extent that any such populations had unique genes not found in other subpopulations and could not interbreed in a such a way as to readily revert to average human characteristics then I suppose such subpopulations would be well on the way to developing genetically distinct races. But it has never happened, and seems increasingly unlikely to do so with modern travel and migration patterns. Homo sapiens has hardly been around
long enough, anyway.
On 1 Feb 2025 at 10:18:17 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/31/25 17:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Jan 2025 at 13:03:07 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote: >>>
On 1/30/25 13:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 12:24:29 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/30/25 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:49:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
However were they all brought back together again it would be as if >>>>>>>> "they'd never been away",
Right up until it isn't.
Speciation is one of those things that - despite untold forests of >>>>>>> publications - we "just don't know". We know a lot around it. But >>>>>>> that's not the same.
I thought a lot of it was about definitions. It seems to me different >>>>>> human races have evolved different skin pigmentation.
"Evolved" ?
Genetically heritable, physically observable characteristics developed >>>> through biological selective processes in separated human
subpopulations. What more do you want?
If any had occurred to such an extent that any such populations had unique >>> genes not found in other subpopulations and could not interbreed in a such a
way as to readily revert to average human characteristics then I suppose such
subpopulations would be well on the way to developing genetically distinct >>> races. But it has never happened, and seems increasingly unlikely to do so >>> with modern travel and migration patterns. Homo sapiens has hardly been around
long enough, anyway.
I don't know where you think you are going with that argument. Evolution
is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations
over successive generations. We observe such changes in geographically
separated human populations.
Trying to argue that the changes we see are not "real evolution" and
that because "real evolution" does not exist, the observable changes do
not exist, is nonsense. We all observe the differences, they do exist.
I didn't say they weren't 'real' or weren't 'evolution'. I said they had not progressed to the extent of being actual separate races. No more than one family having blond hair and another dark hair. They have the status of temporary changes in common local characteristics that are not stable and not distinct enough to be permanent.
On 30/01/2025 12:28, The Todal wrote:
On 30/01/2025 12:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/01/2025 09:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Jan 2025 at 09:05:47 GMT, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:26:51 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Jan 2025 at 13:52:16 GMT, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Species don't generally evolve,
That is a bold claim.
What does evolve then ?
New species. Generally.
So, what do you call the intervening process while they're, for
example, replacing feathers with hair, getting webbed feet, or whatever? >>>
It's not an instantaneous transition.
But it isn't necessarily a gradual transition - it could be a sudden
step-change.
Only by global catastrophe, as with dinosaur extinction, which means
it's not evolution at all.
The flightless animals might be attacked by predators which are
growing in numbers, and then the mutated animals which have the power
to fly or to defend themselves with beaks and claws survive and the
others gradually die out.
Which is gradual evolution. The clue is in the word 'gradually'.
On 30/01/2025 12:54, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/01/2025 12:28, The Todal wrote:
On 30/01/2025 12:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/01/2025 09:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Jan 2025 at 09:05:47 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:26:51 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Jan 2025 at 13:52:16 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Species don't generally evolve,
That is a bold claim.
What does evolve then ?
New species. Generally.
So, what do you call the intervening process while they're, for example, replacing
feathers with hair, getting webbed feet, or whatever?
It's not an instantaneous transition.
But it isn't necessarily a gradual transition - it could be a sudden step-change.
Only by global catastrophe, as with dinosaur extinction, which means it's not
evolution at all.
The flightless animals might be attacked by predators which are growing in numbers,
and then the mutated animals which have the power to fly or to defend themselves with
beaks and claws survive and the others gradually die out.
Which is gradual evolution. The clue is in the word 'gradually'.
No, it need not be "gradual" at all, though your definition of gradual might be very
different from mine.
When new predators, eg rats, are introduced to an island many of the existing animals
might be rendered extinct, and variations of those animals might quickly learn how to
survive. This need not take decades or even years.
On 1 Feb 2025 at 10:49:20 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Feb 2025 at 10:18:17 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/31/25 17:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Jan 2025 at 13:03:07 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote: >>>>
On 1/30/25 13:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 12:24:29 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/30/25 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:49:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
However were they all brought back together again it would be as if >>>>>>>>> "they'd never been away",
Right up until it isn't.
Speciation is one of those things that - despite untold forests of >>>>>>>> publications - we "just don't know". We know a lot around it. But >>>>>>>> that's not the same.
I thought a lot of it was about definitions. It seems to me different >>>>>>> human races have evolved different skin pigmentation.
"Evolved" ?
Genetically heritable, physically observable characteristics developed >>>>> through biological selective processes in separated human
subpopulations. What more do you want?
If any had occurred to such an extent that any such populations had unique >>>> genes not found in other subpopulations and could not interbreed in a such a
way as to readily revert to average human characteristics then I suppose such
subpopulations would be well on the way to developing genetically distinct >>>> races. But it has never happened, and seems increasingly unlikely to do so >>>> with modern travel and migration patterns. Homo sapiens has hardly been around
long enough, anyway.
I don't know where you think you are going with that argument. Evolution >>> is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations >>> over successive generations. We observe such changes in geographically
separated human populations.
Trying to argue that the changes we see are not "real evolution" and
that because "real evolution" does not exist, the observable changes do
not exist, is nonsense. We all observe the differences, they do exist.
I didn't say they weren't 'real' or weren't 'evolution'. I said they had not >> progressed to the extent of being actual separate races. No more than one
family having blond hair and another dark hair. They have the status of
temporary changes in common local characteristics that are not stable and not
distinct enough to be permanent.
In fact, our American (for broad values of 'our' and 'American') have done a fascinating experiment for us on the nature of human "races". Broadly, in the Spanish colonies people have widely intermarried between white, native-American and African populations producing a fairly uniform (less so perhaps in some places like Brazil) mixture of these "racial" characteristics.
Whereas, in the more Northern European colonies the whites have seen "racial purity" as important and until within living memory marriages between white and black have been a crime. Native Americans in the USA have been subject for
centuries to intensive war and deliberate genocide, so little intermarriage with whites has occurred. So now the mixture of various European "races" that make up the white USAians regard the mixed people of Hispanic countries (who are the antithesis of a race, more a demonstration of the non-existence of human races subject to interbreeding) as a new, political race called "Hispanic".
This, to me at least, starkly demonstrates that human races are largely a social construct. Not least because the mixture of Italians, Scandinavians, British and Germans in the white US populations is regarded politically a race
in itself, despite the obvious differences between these nationalities in everything but skin colour
In message <17ghpjlgtnh4veq0usuurqjt25vp8i1cfd@4ax.com>, at 12:04:33 on
Tue, 28 Jan 2025, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
(More cynically, SEN is the dumping ground for all the kids that teachers
find difficult to teach. Too thick to learn? SEN. Too disruptive to learn? >> SEN. Can't concentrate long enough? SEN. Too shy? SEN. Talks too much? SEN. >> Won't talk? SEN. And so on).
It's so difficult to get an SEN place, I doubt one or two teachers'
personal opinions would cut much ice with the admissions people.
On 30/01/2025 12:54, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/01/2025 12:28, The Todal wrote:
On 30/01/2025 12:17, Norman Wells wrote:
On 30/01/2025 09:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Jan 2025 at 09:05:47 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 20:26:51 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Jan 2025 at 13:52:16 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Species don't generally evolve,
That is a bold claim.
What does evolve then ?
New species. Generally.
So, what do you call the intervening process while they're, for example, replacing
feathers with hair, getting webbed feet, or whatever?
It's not an instantaneous transition.
But it isn't necessarily a gradual transition - it could be a sudden step-change.
Only by global catastrophe, as with dinosaur extinction, which means it's not
evolution at all.
The flightless animals might be attacked by predators which are growing in numbers,
and then the mutated animals which have the power to fly or to defend themselves with
beaks and claws survive and the others gradually die out.
Which is gradual evolution. The clue is in the word 'gradually'.
No, it need not be "gradual" at all, though your definition of gradual might be very
different from mine.
When new predators, eg rats, are introduced to an island many of the existing animals
might be rendered extinct, and variations of those animals might quickly learn how to
survive. This need not take decades or even years.
On 1 Feb 2025 at 10:49:20 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Feb 2025 at 10:18:17 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 1/31/25 17:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Jan 2025 at 13:03:07 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote: >>>>
On 1/30/25 13:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 12:24:29 +0000, Pancho wrote:
On 1/30/25 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:49:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
However were they all brought back together again it would be as if >>>>>>>>> "they'd never been away",
Right up until it isn't.
Speciation is one of those things that - despite untold forests of >>>>>>>> publications - we "just don't know". We know a lot around it. But >>>>>>>> that's not the same.
I thought a lot of it was about definitions. It seems to me different >>>>>>> human races have evolved different skin pigmentation.
"Evolved" ?
Genetically heritable, physically observable characteristics developed >>>>> through biological selective processes in separated human
subpopulations. What more do you want?
If any had occurred to such an extent that any such populations had unique >>>> genes not found in other subpopulations and could not interbreed in a such a
way as to readily revert to average human characteristics then I suppose such
subpopulations would be well on the way to developing genetically distinct >>>> races. But it has never happened, and seems increasingly unlikely to do so >>>> with modern travel and migration patterns. Homo sapiens has hardly been around
long enough, anyway.
I don't know where you think you are going with that argument. Evolution >>> is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations >>> over successive generations. We observe such changes in geographically
separated human populations.
Trying to argue that the changes we see are not "real evolution" and
that because "real evolution" does not exist, the observable changes do
not exist, is nonsense. We all observe the differences, they do exist.
I didn't say they weren't 'real' or weren't 'evolution'. I said they had not >> progressed to the extent of being actual separate races. No more than one
family having blond hair and another dark hair. They have the status of
temporary changes in common local characteristics that are not stable and not
distinct enough to be permanent.
In fact, our American (for broad values of 'our' and 'American') have done a fascinating experiment for us on the nature of human "races". Broadly, in the Spanish colonies people have widely intermarried between white, native-American and African populations producing a fairly uniform (less so perhaps in some places like Brazil) mixture of these "racial" characteristics.
Whereas, in the more Northern European colonies the whites have seen "racial purity" as important and until within living memory marriages between white and black have been a crime. Native Americans in the USA have been subject for
centuries to intensive war and deliberate genocide, so little intermarriage with whites has occurred. So now the mixture of various European "races" that make up the white USAians regard the mixed people of Hispanic countries (who are the antithesis of a race, more a demonstration of the non-existence of human races subject to interbreeding) as a new, political race called "Hispanic".
This, to me at least, starkly demonstrates that human races are largely a social construct. Not least because the mixture of Italians, Scandinavians, British and Germans in the white US populations is regarded politically a race
in itself, despite the obvious differences between these nationalities in everything but skin colour.
Pamela said:
On 10:53 30 Jan 2025, Pancho said:
You have that the wrong way around. We can use fundamental values to
measure other stuff, or indeed to precisely specify the arbitrary
units we have invented.
[TRIMMED]
Quite true. The speed of light also comes to mind, as it's a speed
which is independent of the observer. It does not rely on human
measurement, nor on any specific numerical value given to it - as
claimed above.
quote: Ole Rmer first demonstrated in 1676 that light does not travel instantaneously by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's moon Io. *Progressively more accurate measurements of its speed came over the following centuries.* In a paper published in 1865, James Clerk
Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave and,
therefore, travelled at speed c.[5 :unquote
until 1983 when (Einstein actually, but 1983 will do)
quote: It is exact because, by a 1983 international agreement, a metre
is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299792458 second. unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
They decided to call it a day. As obviously people buying or selling
stuff by the metre in sufficient quantities could be arguing the toss
about how much they should get every time they measured it again.
To say nothing of Standards, ruler and tape measure manufacturers
bb
On 18:11 31 Jan 2025, billy bookcase said: On 12:52 31 Jan 2025,
Pamela said:
On 10:53 30 Jan 2025, Pancho said:
You have that the wrong way around. We can use fundamental values to
measure other stuff, or indeed to precisely specify the arbitrary
units we have invented.
[TRIMMED]
Quite true. The speed of light also comes to mind, as it's a speed
which is independent of the observer. It does not rely on human
measurement, nor on any specific numerical value given to it - as
claimed above.
quote: Ole Rmer first demonstrated in 1676 that light does not travel
instantaneously by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's moon Io.
*Progressively more accurate measurements of its speed came over the
following centuries.* In a paper published in 1865, James Clerk
Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave and,
therefore, travelled at speed c.[5 :unquote
until 1983 when (Einstein actually, but 1983 will do)
quote: It is exact because, by a 1983 international agreement, a metre
is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299792458 second. unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
They decided to call it a day. As obviously people buying or selling
stuff by the metre in sufficient quantities could be arguing the toss
about how much they should get every time they measured it again.
To say nothing of Standards, ruler and tape measure manufacturers
bb
Your reply seems rather muddled. I wonder if you fully understand what
you're quoting.
You ended with a quotation to do with the length of a standard metre,
perhaps using as an example of a "fundamental physical constant".
You earlier claimed that "'fundamental physical constant' is merely an artefact of human languge". That is untrue as shown by the example of
the speed of light, which is independent of the observer.
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsB27BE45FAE541F3QA2@135.181.20.170...
On 18:11 31 Jan 2025, billy bookcase said: On 12:52 31 Jan 2025,
Pamela said:
On 10:53 30 Jan 2025, Pancho said:
You have that the wrong way around. We can use fundamental values
to measure other stuff, or indeed to precisely specify the
arbitrary units we have invented.
[TRIMMED]
Quite true. The speed of light also comes to mind, as it's a speed
which is independent of the observer. It does not rely on human
measurement, nor on any specific numerical value given to it - as
claimed above.
quote: Ole Rmer first demonstrated in 1676 that light does not
travel instantaneously by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's
moon Io. *Progressively more accurate measurements of its speed came
over the following centuries.* In a paper published in 1865, James
Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave and,
therefore, travelled at speed c.[5 :unquote
until 1983 when (Einstein actually, but 1983 will do)
quote: It is exact because, by a 1983 international agreement, a
metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in
vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 second. unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
They decided to call it a day. As obviously people buying or selling
stuff by the metre in sufficient quantities could be arguing the
toss about how much they should get every time they measured it
again.
To say nothing of Standards, ruler and tape measure manufacturers
bb
Your reply seems rather muddled. I wonder if you fully understand
what you're quoting.
You ended with a quotation to do with the length of a standard metre,
perhaps using as an example of a "fundamental physical constant".
Er yes. As used by Einstein in his theory, the speed of light was a
constant, originally based on Maxwells figure, But that was Einsteins
theory. Nobody else was bound by it. Until it was used as benchmark
for the metre when it was again fixed for Standards purposes
You earlier claimed that "'fundamental physical constant' is merely
an artefact of human languge". That is untrue as shown by the example
of the speed of light, which is independent of the observer.
It is. As are all fundamental physical "constants". As they represnt unchanging values which form the basis of theories. However before
scientists started devising theories, nobody had any need of physical "constants"
So that in Einstein's theory of relativity E = Mc 2, where c
represents the speed of light
Energy = Mass times the speed of light squared.
So that in this theory and equations derived from it, Mass is the
"variable"
And so to test the theory physicists would need to measure the mass
of the object which might be of any size. But Einstein didn't also
expect them to work out the speed of light, again every time. This is
a "constant"
a) Because they wouldn't want to bother
b) This would get them wondering how Einstein had arrived at his
theory in the first place; if the speed of light kept changing and
c) Einstein maintained it never changed regardless of the speed of the
light source or observer and
d) Someone, Naxwell had already had a good stab at it.
So that once Einstein decided to use it in his theory but not before
it became a "fundamental physical constant."
bb
On 14:07 4 Feb 2025, billy bookcase said:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsB27BE45FAE541F3QA2@135.181.20.170...
On 18:11 31 Jan 2025, billy bookcase said: On 12:52 31 Jan 2025,
Pamela said:
On 10:53 30 Jan 2025, Pancho said:
You have that the wrong way around. We can use fundamental values
to measure other stuff, or indeed to precisely specify the
arbitrary units we have invented.
[TRIMMED]
Quite true. The speed of light also comes to mind, as it's a speed
which is independent of the observer. It does not rely on human
measurement, nor on any specific numerical value given to it - as
claimed above.
quote: Ole Rmer first demonstrated in 1676 that light does not
travel instantaneously by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's
moon Io. *Progressively more accurate measurements of its speed came
over the following centuries.* In a paper published in 1865, James
Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave and,
therefore, travelled at speed c.[5 :unquote
until 1983 when (Einstein actually, but 1983 will do)
quote: It is exact because, by a 1983 international agreement, a
metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in
vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 second. unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
They decided to call it a day. As obviously people buying or selling
stuff by the metre in sufficient quantities could be arguing the
toss about how much they should get every time they measured it
again.
To say nothing of Standards, ruler and tape measure manufacturers
bb
Your reply seems rather muddled. I wonder if you fully understand
what you're quoting.
You ended with a quotation to do with the length of a standard metre,
perhaps using as an example of a "fundamental physical constant".
Er yes. As used by Einstein in his theory, the speed of light was a
constant, originally based on Maxwells figure, But that was Einsteins
theory. Nobody else was bound by it. Until it was used as benchmark
for the metre when it was again fixed for Standards purposes
You earlier claimed that "'fundamental physical constant' is merely
an artefact of human languge". That is untrue as shown by the example
of the speed of light, which is independent of the observer.
It is. As are all fundamental physical "constants". As they represnt
unchanging values which form the basis of theories. However before
scientists started devising theories, nobody had any need of physical
"constants"
So that in Einstein's theory of relativity E = Mc 2, where c
represents the speed of light
Energy = Mass times the speed of light squared.
So that in this theory and equations derived from it, Mass is the
"variable"
And so to test the theory physicists would need to measure the mass
of the object which might be of any size. But Einstein didn't also
expect them to work out the speed of light, again every time. This is
a "constant"
a) Because they wouldn't want to bother
b) This would get them wondering how Einstein had arrived at his
theory in the first place; if the speed of light kept changing and
c) Einstein maintained it never changed regardless of the speed of the
light source or observer and
d) Someone, Naxwell had already had a good stab at it.
So that once Einstein decided to use it in his theory but not before
it became a "fundamental physical constant."
bb
Are you now writing for me or for onlookers reading this discussion?
You know and I know that the speed of light is a constant. No matter
what method you use to measure it, the speed of light is always the
same.
This constant speed of light disproves your claim that:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsB27D922E16F301F3QA2@135.181.20.170...
On 14:07 4 Feb 2025, billy bookcase said:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsB27BE45FAE541F3QA2@135.181.20.170...
On 18:11 31 Jan 2025, billy bookcase said: On 12:52 31 Jan 2025,
Pamela said:
On 10:53 30 Jan 2025, Pancho said:
You have that the wrong way around. We can use fundamental
values to measure other stuff, or indeed to precisely specify
the arbitrary units we have invented.
[TRIMMED]
Quite true. The speed of light also comes to mind, as it's a
speed which is independent of the observer. It does not rely on
human measurement, nor on any specific numerical value given to
it - as claimed above.
quote: Ole Rmer first demonstrated in 1676 that light does not
travel instantaneously by studying the apparent motion of
Jupiter's moon Io. *Progressively more accurate measurements of
its speed came over the following centuries.* In a paper published
in 1865, James Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an
electromagnetic wave and, therefore, travelled at speed c.[5
:unquote
until 1983 when (Einstein actually, but 1983 will do)
quote: It is exact because, by a 1983 international agreement, a
metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in
vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 second. unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
They decided to call it a day. As obviously people buying or
selling stuff by the metre in sufficient quantities could be
arguing the toss about how much they should get every time they
measured it again.
To say nothing of Standards, ruler and tape measure manufacturers
bb
Your reply seems rather muddled. I wonder if you fully understand
what you're quoting.
You ended with a quotation to do with the length of a standard
metre, perhaps using as an example of a "fundamental physical
constant".
Er yes. As used by Einstein in his theory, the speed of light was a
constant, originally based on Maxwells figure, But that was
Einsteins theory. Nobody else was bound by it. Until it was used as
benchmark for the metre when it was again fixed for Standards
purposes
You earlier claimed that "'fundamental physical constant' is merely
an artefact of human languge". That is untrue as shown by the
example of the speed of light, which is independent of the
observer.
It is. As are all fundamental physical "constants". As they represnt
unchanging values which form the basis of theories. However before
scientists started devising theories, nobody had any need of
physical "constants"
So that in Einstein's theory of relativity E = Mc 2, where c
represents the speed of light
Energy = Mass times the speed of light squared.
So that in this theory and equations derived from it, Mass is the
"variable"
And so to test the theory physicists would need to measure the mass
of the object which might be of any size. But Einstein didn't also
expect them to work out the speed of light, again every time. This
is a "constant"
a) Because they wouldn't want to bother
b) This would get them wondering how Einstein had arrived at his
theory in the first place; if the speed of light kept changing and
c) Einstein maintained it never changed regardless of the speed of
the light source or observer and
d) Someone, Naxwell had already had a good stab at it.
So that once Einstein decided to use it in his theory but not before
it became a "fundamental physical constant."
bb
Are you now writing for me or for onlookers reading this discussion?
You know and I know that the speed of light is a constant. No matter
what method you use to measure it, the speed of light is always the
same.
For reasons that were already been explained to you, above.
Dear me, you really are making heavy work of this, aren't you ?
quote:
by a 1983 international agreement, a metre is defined as the length
of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 second. { as derived from the caesium frequency }
:unquote
Having read that, and hopefully understood it, how could anyone not
conclude that the speed of light is always the same ?
hint:
if a metre is defined as the length travelled by light in 1/299792458
second then the speed of light must always be, er
299792458 metres per second !
This constant speed of light disproves your claim that:
The very phrase "fundamental physical constants" is merely an
artefact of human language Which have only been established in the
first place using measuring equipment and measurements invented by
humans.
Precisely the opposite. The term "metre" itself is an artefact of
language. And the very fact that since 1983 it's been defined in terms
of the speed of light, means that the speed of light in turn when
expressed in metres, is now true by definition.
Whereas Einstein's c, rather than being true by definition was based
on Maxwell's equations; themselves having been subject to experimental
proof.
bb
by a 1983 international agreement, a metre is defined as the length
of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 second. { as derived from the caesium frequency }
:unquote
Having read that, and hopefully understood it, how could anyone
not conclude that the speed of light is always the same ?
hint:
if a metre is defined as the length travelled by light in
1/299792458 second then the speed of light must always be, er
299792458 metres per second !
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsB27D922E16F301F3QA2@135.181.20.170...
On 14:07 4 Feb 2025, billy bookcase said:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsB27BE45FAE541F3QA2@135.181.20.170...
On 18:11 31 Jan 2025, billy bookcase said: On 12:52 31 Jan 2025,
Pamela said:
On 10:53 30 Jan 2025, Pancho said:
You have that the wrong way around. We can use fundamental values >>>>>>> to measure other stuff, or indeed to precisely specify the
arbitrary units we have invented.
[TRIMMED]
Quite true. The speed of light also comes to mind, as it's a speed >>>>>> which is independent of the observer. It does not rely on human
measurement, nor on any specific numerical value given to it - as
claimed above.
quote: Ole Rømer first demonstrated in 1676 that light does not
travel instantaneously by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's
moon Io. *Progressively more accurate measurements of its speed came >>>>> over the following centuries.* In a paper published in 1865, James
Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave and,
therefore, travelled at speed c.[5 :unquote
until 1983 when (Einstein actually, but 1983 will do)
quote: It is exact because, by a 1983 international agreement, a
metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in
vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 second. unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
They decided to call it a day. As obviously people buying or selling >>>>> stuff by the metre in sufficient quantities could be arguing the
toss about how much they should get every time they measured it
again.
To say nothing of Standards, ruler and tape measure manufacturers
bb
Your reply seems rather muddled. I wonder if you fully understand
what you're quoting.
You ended with a quotation to do with the length of a standard metre,
perhaps using as an example of a "fundamental physical constant".
Er yes. As used by Einstein in his theory, the speed of light was a
constant, originally based on Maxwells figure, But that was Einsteins
theory. Nobody else was bound by it. Until it was used as benchmark
for the metre when it was again fixed for Standards purposes
You earlier claimed that "'fundamental physical constant' is merely
an artefact of human languge". That is untrue as shown by the example
of the speed of light, which is independent of the observer.
It is. As are all fundamental physical "constants". As they represnt
unchanging values which form the basis of theories. However before
scientists started devising theories, nobody had any need of physical
"constants"
So that in Einstein's theory of relativity E = Mc 2, where c
represents the speed of light
Energy = Mass times the speed of light squared.
So that in this theory and equations derived from it, Mass is the
"variable"
And so to test the theory physicists would need to measure the mass
of the object which might be of any size. But Einstein didn't also
expect them to work out the speed of light, again every time. This is
a "constant"
a) Because they wouldn't want to bother
b) This would get them wondering how Einstein had arrived at his
theory in the first place; if the speed of light kept changing and
c) Einstein maintained it never changed regardless of the speed of the
light source or observer and
d) Someone, Naxwell had already had a good stab at it.
So that once Einstein decided to use it in his theory but not before
it became a "fundamental physical constant."
bb
Are you now writing for me or for onlookers reading this discussion?
You know and I know that the speed of light is a constant. No matter
what method you use to measure it, the speed of light is always the
same.
For reasons that were already been explained to you, above.
Dear me, you really are making heavy work of this, aren't you ?
quote:
by a 1983 international agreement, a metre is defined as the length
of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 second. { as derived from the caesium frequency }
:unquote
Having read that, and hopefully understood it, how could anyone
not conclude that the speed of light is always the same ?
hint:
if a metre is defined as the length travelled by light in
1/299792458 second then the speed of light must always be, er
299792458 metres per second !
This constant speed of light disproves your claim that:
The very phrase "fundamental physical constants" is merely an
artefact of human language Which have only been established in the
first place using measuring equipment and measurements invented by
humans.
Precisely the opposite. The term "metre" itself is an artefact of
language. And the very fact that since 1983 it's been defined in terms
of the speed of light, means that the speed of light in turn when
expressed in metres, is now true by definition.
Whereas Einstein's c, rather than being true by definition was based
on Maxwell's equations; themselves having been subject to experimental
proof.
bb
On 5 Feb 2025 at 17:28:49 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@onon.com> wrote:
Precisely the opposite. The term "metre" itself is an artefact of
language. And the very fact that since 1983 it's been defined in terms
of the speed of light, means that the speed of light in turn when
expressed in metres, is now true by definition.
But the speed of light is constant regardless of how many m/s it is. It is only the definition of the metre that makes the speed of light equal so many m/s. The metre is the *derived* unit.
Whereas Einstein's c, rather than being true by definition was based
on Maxwell's equations; themselves having been subject to experimental
proof.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 71:54:29 |
| Calls: | 9,819 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,755 |
| Messages: | 6,189,678 |