neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
|
Post by neilj on Nov 26, 2024 9:01:24 GMT
It’s a real shame that palliative care is not of a high countrywide standard I would have liked this debated along side the assisted dying bill.,together with more clarity as to what safety net will be in place for doctors who comply with this law for there mental well being and what legal protection is in place should they be sued by an aggrieved relative. Yes I agree. And i would like to know if there is any level of pain which cannot be relieved by the cocktail of drugs administered in a Hospice or hospital. The one I am familiar and have seen in use is morphine but i am sure there are others. If the answer to this question is none , then the desire for assisted suicide is being brought about by inadequate palliative care. Which can be fixed. If the answer is yes , and unlikely to be other than yes for the foreseeable future , then the case for state assisted suicide becomes greater in my mind. There are of course many other issues to be addressed about how that suicide is made available ; who is to be killed and why. Coin as per my recent thread the answer is yes ", even with the “highest possible standards of hospice-level palliative care”, more than 7,300 people across the UK died with unrelieved pain in the last three months of their lives" Useful report in view of the assisted dying debate Yes more and better palliative care is needed, but for some it won't stop their pain no matter how good palliative care is www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/25/about-20-terminally-ill-people-in-uk-die-in-unrelieved-pain-each-day-research-finds"About 20 terminally ill people in UK die in unrelieved pain each day, research finds... It calculated that, even with the “highest possible standards of hospice-level palliative care”, more than 7,300 people across the UK died with unrelieved pain in the last three months of their lives Prof Graham Cookson, the organisation’s chief executive, said: “Our research finds that even assuming the highest standards of care, there remains a group for whom no amount of pain relief will ease their suffering in the last few months of their life" There are moral issues involved on each side of the debate, some think all live is sacred and must be cherished. Others that the well being and comfort of each individual is the most important thing |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 26, 2024 9:02:08 GMT
"Lord Falconer of Thoroton claimed Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, was motivated “by her religious beliefs” in her opposition to assisted dying.
He said that ministers’ religion “colours their view and is not an objective stance” and that their spiritual stance should not be “imposed on everybody else”.
One cabinet minister called Falconer’s comments “outrageous” and said: “I’m really angry, she’s been unfairly targeted. This was a drive-by shooting on Shabana.” Another minister accused Falconer of “playing the person not the ball”. They said it was “noticeable that Falconer chose not to engage with the substance of Shabana’s concerns”.
"An ally of Kim Leadbeater — the Labour MP behind the bill to legalise assisted dying — added: “Kim wouldn’t question anyone’s motives for saying what they say.”"
Times
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 26, 2024 9:20:57 GMT
3. The argument that we should all 'be able to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else' fails to address the fact that a) most ethicists and people who have thought about morality seriously hold that we have moral duties to ourselves, not just others; and b) no man is an island - what we do to ourselves inevitably affects others (suicide actually being the most obvious and extreme case of this). What the fuck? Strikes me the young hold life in much higher regard than the old. Probably because the old rightly see their best days as behind them, and its all down hill from here. What moral duties do we have to stay alive? As to suicide, if its the death which bothers you, have to say thats coming anyway sooner rather than later. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Nov 26, 2024 9:31:14 GMT
I sympathise with your point pjw1961 but I wasn't seeking to ignore it - the point is that the Catholic Church, as well as individual Catholics, seek to ground their beliefs in reason - so the fact that you or I don't agree with those reasons isn't really the point. So Catholics aren't - in general - basing their beliefs on some blind faith that the Church is right mo matter what (not even the Church teaches that). In most cases they will, of course, refer to the relevant Church teaching - but this is presented not as a set of commandments that must be obeyed, but rather as a series of moral arguments that challenge the intellect to either ascent or rejects their underlying rationale. In any case, whatever the laity might make of official pronouncements, surely religious institutions - like any other group - have the right to put forward reason-based arguments? Whether their members, or anybody else, is persuaded by those arguments, is another thing entirely - but to think that Catholics base their acceptance on To clarify, I'm no Catholic, but to imagine that they base their beliefs on blind faith is just a load of old cobblers. If religions aren't going to base their views and postions on the relevant religious origins and texts (bible, Koran, etc) that gave rise to them then what is the point of religion at all. Why have a religion if those leading and involved in it simply ignore the very basis of that religion? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 26, 2024 9:31:32 GMT
Therefore those who see a moral and/or ethical case against assisted dying should also recognise a similar ethical case for massive investment in palliative care and hospices. The reality is that these are Cinderella services, heavily underfunded, under-resourced and dependent on precarious charitable giving. Except palliative care is really the end of a string of processes. Its by definition going to be between uncomfortable and awful for the victim. Its what we call the situation when all other medical choices have been exhausted. The best form of palliative care is a cure for the disease, which is also quick and painless. Palliative care is failure piled upon failure when all thats left is to drug the person sufficiently senseless they can no longer feel the pain, or at least can no longer complain about it, and wait for them to die. Happened to see one of those fly on the wall hospital documentaries yesterday, where someone had an incurable infection which didnt actually seem to be causing him too much pain, but had caused kidney failure. The guy also had starting altzheimers but seemed otherwise fit. Bit of nodding between the staff and they all said 'palliative care', even though he was chatting quite comprehendably, if a little absent minded. Wife asked how long, they agreed 24-48 hours should see him off. (didnt put it quite like that, of course). If that wasnt an example of euthanasia as currently implemented I dont know what is. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Nov 26, 2024 9:36:52 GMT
colin - absolutely true, but also why heat pumps combined with battery storage and solar are such a good combination. Specced right, it can mean a kWh cost roughly the same (even lower) than for gas, and for the electricity used by the heat pump you also get the multiplier effect where a kWh of electricity gives the same heating as 3-4kWh of gas. Yes I forgot the multiplier. For every kilowat of energy it takes a boiler to produce heat I kilowatt of heat is generated. For an ASHP every 1 kilowatt of energy in creates 3 kilowats of heat out. Tremendously efficient. |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 26, 2024 9:38:00 GMT
I sympathise with your point pjw1961 but I wasn't seeking to ignore it - the point is that the Catholic Church, as well as individual Catholics, seek to ground their beliefs in reason - so the fact that you or I don't agree with those reasons isn't really the point. So Catholics aren't - in general - basing their beliefs on some blind faith that the Church is right mo matter what (not even the Church teaches that). In most cases they will, of course, refer to the relevant Church teaching - but this is presented not as a set of commandments that must be obeyed, but rather as a series of moral arguments that challenge the intellect to either ascent or rejects their underlying rationale. In any case, whatever the laity might make of official pronouncements, surely religious institutions - like any other group - have the right to put forward reason-based arguments? Whether their members, or anybody else, is persuaded by those arguments, is another thing entirely - but to think that Catholics base their acceptance on To clarify, I'm no Catholic, but to imagine that they base their beliefs on blind faith is just a load of old cobblers. If religions aren't going to base their views and postions on the relevant religious origins and texts (bible, Koran, etc) that gave rise to them then what is the point of religion at all. Why have a religion if those leading and involved in it simply ignore the very basis of that religion? Well said Barbara. If there is a heaven and ever after, your place in that place would be judged on your actions in this world - not how often you seek redemption in a place of worship. Don't get me wrong, a lot of religious people are profoundly good people, but there are a lot of people who claim to be religious and whose actions speak for themselves. There is no need to name them. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
|
Post by neilj on Nov 26, 2024 9:38:47 GMT
lefthanging"The argument that we should all 'be able to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else' fails to address the fact that a) most ethicists and people who have thought about morality seriously hold that we have moral duties to ourselves, not just others; and b) no man is an island - what we do to ourselves inevitably affects others (suicide actually being the most obvious and extreme case of this)" Surely there are competing morals? Is it morally right to force someone to live on in pain for the greater good of the wider society for example Indeed is the wider society not harmed by forcing people to live on in pain It's certainly not a black and white issue and neither side has absolute moral authority on it's side
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 26, 2024 9:39:03 GMT
I entirely agree - and yet one of our local hospices currently has one third of its beds shut because it can't afford to staff them. That's the reality of that sector. It is on its knees, partly due to a fall in charitable fund raising as a result of inflation cutting into people's ability to give and partly due to a fall in public sector funding due to austerity reduced budgets. Local hospice in Hastings had a fire. Obviously they didnt do it on purpose, but an enquiry found their precautions wanting and fined them a considerable amount of money. Which to my mind was completely insane. Because firstly if they werent providing their albeit imperfect service, just who would be. And second because what they needed was more money both to make good the damage and the shortcomings. This however illustrates a problem, the perfect becoming the enemy of the good. I mentioned above the filmed example where a person was switched by staff to palliative care so they would die quickly and avoid a painfull end. But in that exmple the wife also asked for her hubby to be allowed home to die. The hospital refused. Obviously thy believed they could do it better, which an awful lot of people do not agree with. Or they had rules and regulations which didnt permit them to go the low tech route, even if it would be better for the patient. Beware of falling into the hands of doctors. |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 26, 2024 9:39:59 GMT
Coin as per my recent thread the answer is yes ", even with the “highest possible standards of hospice-level palliative care”, more than 7,300 people across the UK died with unrelieved pain in the last three months of their lives" Thanks, But i still need to understand. From memories of my father's death and that of a friend more recently I witnessed increase in doses of morphine administered by a doctor/Macmillan Nurse respectively which were fatal. So on the basis of that experience i conclude that assisted death is being carried out every day in the NHS. This is getting a bit grim now. Look-the more i think about this the more questions i have. Its a hugely complex issue and i didnt mean to start debating it really-merely to speak up for open free debate. I think Starmer is right to make this a free vote and not party political , but i dont think this short single debate will do justice to it. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 26, 2024 9:47:17 GMT
That really isnt the central issue though. Its obviously immoral to require someone to cary on living in extreme suffering. Thats torture, its illegal in international law. The real issue is where someone decides their own quality of life is no longer sufficient to continue. Its a subjective not objective argument. And this is where the divide is, between those who believe its your right to stop living, and those who do not. Its at this point some argue various reasons why a person wanting to die is wrong and should not be permitted to carry it out. This bill picks a point, 6 months away from certain death, and say at that point you are allowed to choose. Its obvious trying to stop people escaping from a tortured life one way or another (one might be suicide, but another might be revolt) has been a hard sell over the centuries. Which is why clever people invented religion and a promise of an afterlife if you only obey your 'lawful' masters now and work till your last breathe. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Nov 26, 2024 9:47:30 GMT
There are a range of reasons for having an air source heat pump. I'm having one installed in January. Cost to me (after govt grant of 7.5k and a range of incentives from Octopus) is 6.1k This includes installation, a new hot water tank and 7 new radiators. Thats very cheap compared to typical costs quoted in the media. Some people have issues about installing the equipment, but everyone has a problem with the cost. Although simply replacing the boiler is just £2k, and thats before we consider any subsidy you are getting. Ah. Your situation isnt so bad, but heat pump does make sense for people who are unable to use fossil fuels, so no mains gas, no garden for an oil tank etc. Isnt that a very generous export price by modern standards? An early offer? At your rate it might actually be cheaper to sell the electricity and buy gas?(were that an option) It seems you are already heavily invested in alternative energy sources. But surely any kind of local burning of solid fuels is very expensive compared to other heat sources? If you have your own scrub woodland then it may make sense (as I used to), but not if you are buying it in. Hmm. 21 sounds hot to me, certainly from the economy point of view and government recommend 18C. You must be a higher than average energy user. Also, while its likely cheaper per KWH of delivered heat to run heating 24 hours a day, its always more costly than only running it part time. I dont think you are a typical customer. Of course this makes a lot of difference, most people arent, and when they are they spend quite a bit of it tucked up in bed. Obviously depends what you mean by 'lower temperature', but at the same temperture, no it doesnt use more energy. Thats fundamental physics. Part of why your quote seems cheap is most people do not replace their radiators, which they needed to do to take advantage of switching to condensing boilers 20 years ago. Heat pumps work effectively at even lower temperatures than condensing boilers so the issue is worse if you go that way, of course. You have some special circumstances, but in general its never going to make back the costs for most people unless the cost of gas shoots up or cost of installation plummets. The latter is significantly limited by the chicken and egg problem of volume production, the shortage of plumbers coupled with it always being a one-off labour intensive process to install the kit.
Oh, and whatever your fuel, the best investment is insulation so the expensive heat doesn't just escape. Which is why the best decarbonisation method has always been attic insulation where that is inadequate. Then cavity wall, double glazing, even under floor and external cladding (but those last two are getting quite destructive and expensive for retrofitting). Although there is a big problem with making a house energy efficient: owners tend to do as you have done and turn up the thermostat a bit, thereby defeating the energy savings. People tend to have a fixed budget rather than fixed desired temperature.
1. Octopus is aiming to increase the usage of electricity so the cost of an ASHP is less important to them than increasing electricity usage. They were offering a good deal in the first place but as I hesitated they kept on offering additional sweeteners and discounts. 2. If you export elsewhere you only get 4p a kwh but if you buy your electricity from Octopus they pay you 15p for export 3. My wood burning stove is entirely for aesthetic and nice feeling purposes. I don't need one and I don't save any money by using one but I just LOVE the cosiness and luxury it provides. (It does save me some money because I don't run my heating in the evenings in winter but by no means it is cost neutral) 4. I didn't say I ran my heating at 21C - I don't. I simply said that Octopus guarantee 21C as a maximum 5. An ASHP is 3 times as efficient as a boiler generating 3kwh heat output for every 1kwh input (see above) 6. I said I didn't do it for cost efficiency grounds but for a complex set of reasons which I outlined in my post. I also said ASHP wont' work for everybody. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
|
Post by neilj on Nov 26, 2024 9:47:45 GMT
Coin as per my recent thread the answer is yes ", even with the “highest possible standards of hospice-level palliative care”, more than 7,300 people across the UK died with unrelieved pain in the last three months of their lives" Thanks, But i still need to understand. From memories of my father's death and that of a friend more recently I witnessed increase in doses of morphine administered by a doctor/Macmillan Nurse respectively which were fatal. So on the basis of that experience i conclude that assisted death is being carried out every day in the NHS. This is getting a bit grim now. Look-the more i think about this the more questions i have. Its a hugely complex issue and i didnt mean to start debating it really-merely to speak up for open free debate. I think Starmer is right to make this a free vote and not party political , but i dont think this short single debate will do justice to it. But this has been debated for years including in Parliament. There's even been recently a select committee enquiry on it that went on for a year In reality it's been kicked down the road, largely by those opposed to it, now's the time to take action Let's get a legal framework rather than ad-hoc practices across the country |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 26, 2024 9:53:17 GMT
I have sympathy with a person who is genuinely in pain and near life’s end and wants to hasten there own death as long as that decision is left to the person involved and or the medical profession However the problem with all acts of Parliament is over the course of time amendments are added I wonder what safeguards will be in the act if it’s passed that stops the gradual erosion of the original bill as we have seen in Canada. The truth is we have unregulated euthanasia right now. Its left to the doctors discretion and obviously they will never admit to doing it or discuss it it publicly, or even openly with relatives about what anyone would actually want, because that would be illegal. Far better to place this on a formal legal basis. (though obviously when it comes to it finally, some medic will still make the decision to squirt in that extra dose of morphine to see you off at a convenient time) |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
|
Post by neilj on Nov 26, 2024 9:55:14 GMT
Thinking more about Trump saying he would put 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico election
The Free Trade Agreement Trump completed in his first term was with Mexico and Canada, so he's going to renage on that
Countries need to be weary of him, he's not a man to honour a deal
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 26, 2024 10:00:09 GMT
How do you know that McBride presents no danger to women? He might not, but that doesn't mean that actual women would not feel a bit apprehensive about sharing a bathroom with a biological man. Women might, but odds are most men do not attack women, so they would be perfectly safe regardless of anything else. Saw a documentary on ancient rome recently, which again featured the standard Roman sit down adjacent loos, this particular one for the slaves in the imperial palace. Mary Beard was discussing whether it might have been the centre where everone picked up the latest gossip and socialised. Also unisex. So never mind everyone sharing the same facilities, no cubicles either. Presumably who had what bits would be much clearer. Worked for centuries. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 26, 2024 10:02:55 GMT
Except palliative care is really the end of a string of processes. Its by definition going to be between uncomfortable and awful for the victim. Its what we call the situation when all other medical choices have been exhausted. The best form of palliative care is a cure for the disease, which is also quick and painless. I agree with that bit although we may be dealing with different definitions of "palliative" and perhaps different types of cases. But certainly once quality of life has gone then palliative care performance is irrelevant to the debate on assisted dying. If I'm sat in bed staring up at the ceiling all day then it doesn't matter how comfortable I'm made as to my decision to want to end it all. So we're probably talking pre palliative where being comfortable and having human interactions may be sufficient to want you to hang around. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 26, 2024 10:03:38 GMT
The hospital placed him on a morphine drip but not until he'd had the opportunity for a dignified goodbye to me and Faith and his grandchildren we had a few minutes of quality time after which he fell asleep and died the next morning without waking again. I would hazard this sort of euthanasis is normal practice. Its an outrageous lie to claim we do not already have euthanasia, and all this bill does is formalise it a little. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 26, 2024 10:04:36 GMT
mercianJohn Wayne's real name was Marion. Did that make him a woman? It probably made him image conscious... |
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Nov 26, 2024 10:09:57 GMT
@ Danny, thinking about it my Halls of residence at Univerity had Unisex Toilets and bathrooms, a little inhibiting if you needed to let rip!
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 26, 2024 10:11:40 GMT
Im still waiting for anyone to explain how a technology which produces electrcity 24 hours a day at the same cost as turning it off (ie turning it off saves essentially no cost), is sitable to replace gas as our fuel source. It guarantees we will not transition to renewables, because once a nuclear plant has been built at great cost, there is no benefit in turning it off however bright the sun is or windy to drive turbines. To be fair to nuclear, it would deliver a base load level of power which would support industry etc. Well it might do if industry customarily works 24 hours a day, but it doesnt. The big change caused by renewables is that the concept of base load disappears. Before we switched on or off power stations to meet load. Had some which which were always on, some only part time. Pretty pedictable. Renewables power comes when it does, and fails to come if its calm or cloudy. A very different problem how to provide for a hugely changing shortfall at unpredictable times of day.
And as yet no one has decided how to bridge this gap.
|
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Nov 26, 2024 10:15:01 GMT
From memories of my father's death and that of a friend more recently I witnessed increase in doses of morphine administered by a doctor/Macmillan Nurse respectively which were fatal. So on the basis of that experience i conclude that assisted death is being carried out every day in the NHS. I am not writing from a basis of medical knowledge but from experience of a relative's passing through lung cancer at a hospice. Morphine is a poison in sufficient dosage, the efficacy of morphine reduces as the level of pain increases so that there is a need for the dose to increase to combat this. My assumption, from observation, was that there must come a point when the dosage has reached the poisonous level but is no longer efficacious against the pain. The question I asked myself (but didn't dare ask the clinicians) was whether it was more important to maintain pain relief or not. I believe I avoided asking the question or coming to a conclusion as either outcome was too awful to contemplate, all I know is at the end my relative slipped into unconsciousness and then passed and appeared free of pain. I have never found it difficult to come to an opinion on any subject of political debate, but this question of assisted dying has me completely flummoxed and vacillating in either direction. The only thing I am certain of is that palliative care needs to be improved immensely so that all providers can be brought up to the standards of the best. Separately, on single debates, I could not agree more but not just on this topic but on all legislation, the quality of debate is crucial. Our Parliamentary system, curiously, provides that debate best in the Lords, rather than the performative, legislation as form of campaigning as it appears to be in the Commons presently and for the last thirty odd years. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 26, 2024 10:17:03 GMT
The village idiot elect vows punitive tariffs on Canada , Mexico and China, he still hasn't grasped that it's Americans who pay these tariffs Industry takes a long time to relocate based upon changes. So in the short term you may be right americans will have to pay more. But in the longer term US companies will notice its now cheaper to make the stuff inside the US and so they will do that, creating more and better paid jobs inside the US. This is the reason why the Uk car industry revived after we joined the EU. Foriegn companies appreciated their cars would be more competitive if made inside the EU tariff wall than outside, so they picked a location and at that time we had cheap labour available. EU tariff walls worked to boost EU industry. I heard someone suggest that if the US imposes tariffs on China, it may lead to them dumping goods on Europe. Which should be interesting. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,716
|
Post by steve on Nov 26, 2024 10:18:34 GMT
The dictatorship coming along nicely.
"Donald Trump’s transition team is planning for all cabinet picks to receive sweeping security clearances from the president-elect and only face FBI background checks after the incoming administration takes over the bureau and its own officials are installed in key positions, according to people familiar with the matter."
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 26, 2024 10:20:43 GMT
steveAgree Some thought it was the usual Trump nonsense during the election campaign that he would introduce such punitive tariff, I'm not so sure he won't. What I am certain of is in a trade war everyone loses www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/25/trump-mexico-canada-tariffs-borderDonald Trump said on Monday he would sign an executive order imposing a 25% tariff on all products coming in to the United States from Mexico and Canada, and additional tariffs on China. Europe has benefitted from having external tariffs. There is a theory that a world where there is free trade is more efficient at providing goods to everyone, but there are certain difficulties with the theory. One is the need for total freedom of movement. Another is necessary equality of wealth. Another would be complete harmonisation of rules in all countries everywhere. Everyone would end up with the same average wealth, which while it means the poor countries shooting up, it also means the rich ones going down. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Nov 26, 2024 10:21:52 GMT
@ Danny, thinking about it my Halls of residence at Univerity had Unisex Toilets and bathrooms, a little inhibiting if you needed to let rip! Do only men do that?  |
|
|
|
Post by lefthanging on Nov 26, 2024 10:22:59 GMT
So Catholics aren't - in general - basing their beliefs on some blind faith that the Church is right mo matter what (not even the Church teaches that). In most cases they will, of course, refer to the relevant Church teaching - but this is presented not as a set of commandments that must be obeyed, but rather as a series of moral arguments that challenge the intellect to either ascent or rejects their underlying rationale. If religions aren't going to base their views and postions on the relevant religious origins and texts (bible, Koran, etc) that gave rise to them then what is the point of religion at all. Why have a religion if those leading and involved in it simply ignore the very basis of that religion? Well, the basis and origin of all religions is philosophical reflection - I'm afraid that, if one studies the history of religion, one will find the core of religion has very little to do with religious texts and founder figures and the like. Of course those are important distinguishing features, but they are hardly the essence of religion (plenty of religions have no scripture to speak of after all). For example, religion notes that something complex requires a cause external to itself to explain why its various parts hang together as they do. Something contingent (i.e. something that does not contain the reason for its own existence) requires an external cause which explains why it exists. Something merely possible (not necessary) needs an external cause to explain why it has passed from mere possibility to reality. Something finite (i.e. limited) requires an external explanation for why it is limited this way rather than that way. Something which undergoes changes requires an external explanation for why it so changes. Something whose essence is distinct from its existence requires an external explanation for why existence has conjoined to its essence so as to be a real feature of reality. So basically composite, finite stuff requires a cause external to itself. If you try to explain finite stuff by appealing to yet more finite stuff, you have a problem, because that stuff also requires a cause external to itself, which in turn requires a cause external to itself, ad finitum. But such an infinite regress is impossible (to think otherwise would be a bit like arguing that a paint brush could paint a wall itself without a person holding it - so long as the handle was infinitely long!) Anyway, the ultimate conclusion is that something absolutely simple (i.e. pure being without any distinct properties whatsoever) must be the basis of all finite reality, for this is the only kind of reality which would contain the reason for its own existence and thus avoid an impossible infinite regress of finite causes. Why? Well, such a reality would have no component parts (including the metaphysical 'parts' of the distinction between its existence and its essence, or the movement from potency to actuality which we call 'change', etc.) and thus would not require the kind of external causes finite things do. Its existence would be grounded in itself. Such a reality is what most religious people mean by the word 'God'. That isn't a full argument of course - religious thought is far deeper and more complex than what I've said - but hopefully that gives a flavour of the philosophical intuition underlying most religious belief. Of course this is all by the by because most religious ethics doesn't even depend on the supposed existence of God anyway. Sure, they might use examples from the Bible, but that's not their ultimate intellectual basis. Catholicism in particular owes its ethics to the Aristotelian tradition which, as already stated, doesn't appeal to God at all - and instead grounds ethics on the intrinsic nature of finite things rather than some law-giving God. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
|
Post by neilj on Nov 26, 2024 10:29:03 GMT
The dictatorship coming along nicely. "Donald Trump’s transition team is planning for all cabinet picks to receive sweeping security clearances from the president-elect and only face FBI background checks after the incoming administration takes over the bureau and its own officials are installed in key positions, according to people familiar with the matter." So let me get this straight. If you volunteer for a School, you have to undergo a background check. But, if you apply to be Director of National Intelligence, you don't? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 26, 2024 10:33:40 GMT
If religions aren't going to base their views and postions on the relevant religious origins and texts (bible, Koran, etc) that gave rise to them then what is the point of religion at all. Why have a religion if those leading and involved in it simply ignore the very basis of that religion? However religious texts were written exclusively by humans (not gods) to address what they saw as the problems of their times. If the texts are not changed, they inevitably will not be fit for a future age. The really strange thing is that if these texts really were directly inspired by god(s), why have these gods not come back and updated them? The answer seems prety obvious. None of that proves gods dont exist, merely that if they do they have more interesting things in their lives than visiting us. But being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, theres no way they would have popped down at one time to intervene and then just hopped it. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 26, 2024 10:43:03 GMT
For an ASHP every 1 kilowatt of energy in creates 3 kilowats of heat out. Tremendously efficient. No, it does not. The efficiency varies depending on the outside temperture and desired inside temperature. So if its 15C out and you want 18 inside, thats pretty efficient. But if its 0C out and you want 21C inside, much less so. One website sugests that at about -4C you are at the break even point where you arent getting any heat gain compared to just using the electricty conventionally for heat. One of the advantages of ground source is the earth tends to stay at a more even temperature. (theoretically, there is a little heat escaping from the earth's core, so if you perfectly insulate a home on top of the earth, it would be receiving heat from below naturally. Even better if you put it underground. Or a mile down (mines get hot)) |
|
