Discussion
A very sensible blog about the case - http://www.melaniephillips.com/cruel-ignorant-camp... .
And a response to those Americans who claim this is down to the British 'social healthcare' system and would never happen there - http://myfox8.com/2017/06/09/baby-dies-after-judge...
And a response to those Americans who claim this is down to the British 'social healthcare' system and would never happen there - http://myfox8.com/2017/06/09/baby-dies-after-judge...
Zigster said:
But isn't IQ Normally distributed with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 115? (I think there are a few slightly different measures, but the Normal distribution holds for each of them). And a feature of the Normal distribution is that mean equals median.
So in a large enough group of people, rovermorris999 is completely correct.
I think that is how it was originally created, but IQ has been increasing for reasons that are not completely understood, the Flynn effect. So in a large enough group of people, rovermorris999 is completely correct.
The sort of nuance that is lost on the CA types.
Zigster said:
...
So in a large enough group of people, rovermorris999 is completely correct.
So in a large enough group of people, rovermorris999 is completely correct.
George Carlin does a skit on the same thing rovermorris999 notes. It's always amused me and I've found it's become useful in conversation on an increasing basis.
He did some other very amusing stuff too.
rscott said:
A very sensible blog about the case - http://www.melaniephillips.com/cruel-ignorant-camp... .
If a complete idiot like Melanie Phillips can get it right, when she normally gets everything so wrong, it just shows how dumb those who have got it wrong, must be. TwigtheWonderkid said:
rscott said:
A very sensible blog about the case - http://www.melaniephillips.com/cruel-ignorant-camp... .
If a complete idiot like Melanie Phillips can get it right, when she normally gets everything so wrong, it just shows how dumb those who have got it wrong, must be. Folks, it was just a glib joke, not to be analysed! Besides, I've met plenty with a high IQ that I wouldn't trust to change a light bulb. Perhaps they're just good at IQ tests. However looking around Facebook does give a good idea of the intellectual discussion to be found at the bottom of a pond.
Edited by rovermorris999 on Thursday 27th July 12:32
TwigtheWonderkid said:
rovermorris999 said:
The average person isn't wonderfully bright and 50% are dimmer than that.
Err...that, not how average works. In a group of 10 people, 1 could have an IQ of 110 and 9 could have an IQ of just 10. The average person would have an IQ of 20 but in that case 90% are dimmer than that.
In another group of 10 people, 9 could have an IQ of 100 and 1 could have an IQ of 10. Then the average IQ would be 91 but only 10% are dimmer than that.
I saw this on the Charlie's Army FB feed.....
"Charlie's legacy will not only save children with his disease but will open the door for more parents to fight for their children.
I pray that there is a "Charlies Law" passed in the UK that will never let something like this happen again.
So many prayers for Chris and Connie. Your little boy has touched so many hearts."
The way I understand the current law, is it's there to protect the child's rights over and above those rights of the parents.
To the extent that the child has a legal guardian appointed to look after their best interests and ensure their rights are upheld.
The current situation here, appears to be driven by what the parents want, irrespective of the effect on the child or more importantly over that of their rights.
I would say on reflection, the current law is robust and doesn't need changing in this respect.....
"Charlie's legacy will not only save children with his disease but will open the door for more parents to fight for their children.
I pray that there is a "Charlies Law" passed in the UK that will never let something like this happen again.
So many prayers for Chris and Connie. Your little boy has touched so many hearts."
The way I understand the current law, is it's there to protect the child's rights over and above those rights of the parents.
To the extent that the child has a legal guardian appointed to look after their best interests and ensure their rights are upheld.
The current situation here, appears to be driven by what the parents want, irrespective of the effect on the child or more importantly over that of their rights.
I would say on reflection, the current law is robust and doesn't need changing in this respect.....
Edited by wobert on Thursday 27th July 18:07
the news is that he'll be taken to a hospice with life support withdrawn soon after. I agree with this in terms of what's in the child's best interests but I still really do feel for the parents, knowing that I have not even an inkling how hard this is going to hit them when that switch is flipped or tube is withdrawn. This might be the wrong thing to say but I hope they get a few hours before that does happen.
ModernAndy said:
the news is that he'll be taken to a hospice with life support withdrawn soon after. I agree with this in terms of what's in the child's best interests but I still really do feel for the parents, knowing that I have not even an inkling how hard this is going to hit them when that switch is flipped or tube is withdrawn. This might be the wrong thing to say but I hope they get a few hours before that does happen.
It'll be compounded by the fact that shortly after the poor chaps passing, their army of deluded supporters (real and virtual) will vanish.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff