[Closed] Is May about to call an election?

Coalition of Chaos?
Coalition of Chaos!

High 5s round the table at Tory HQ.

I would gone for "Mongolian Clusterf%ck" myself.

But great dodge of the question Ninfan - we're seeing your true colours - you're resentful of state resources being used on women.

Hang on, make your mind up, a minute ago I was advocating more state resources being allocated to women, now I'm against it?

BTW, how do you think the UK would cope with a massively exploding population if contraceptives and abortions weren't provided by the state - eh?

Sounds good, less need for immigration innit 😉 however nobody is suggesting that, are they, so I'm calling straw man.

Hang on, make your mind up, a minute ago I was advocating more state resources being allocated to women, now I'm against it?

Except in this case, you're advocating the removal of choice from women.

Again, perhaps you should be forced to enter counselling if you're in a minor accident or entertain even the most mildy misogynistic view - I'm sure you would support that wouldn't you ninfan?

Answer whether you would.

Sounds good, less need for immigration innit however nobody is suggesting that, are they, so I'm calling straw man.

So women are the cause of immigration woes in your universe then Ninfan? Nice. It's all teh lefts and wimminz fault isn't it?

What would solve that actually, is moving to an economy that doesn't rely on unskilled labour for economic growth.

OMG - Tom and Ninfan in an arguement - this is not going to end well!

All these poor, emotional, undecided women obviously need help in the form of counselling....

The majority of women did not feel counselling was necessary because they were already certain of their decision.

most women do not seem to want or need pre-termination counselling therefore policies aimed at mandatory counselling, would be contrary to women's wishes. Counselling should be targeted at women with risk factors for psychological complications post-termination.

http://jfprhc.bmj.com/content/41/3/181

LOL

Except in this case, you're advocating the removal of choice from women.

I'm not advocating anything, your argument was that Tim Farron was advocating it, remember? IM just defending his right to advocate it if he wants to. Some might say you're advocating the removal of life from healthy babies for no good reason, and question your morals, which they gave just as much a right to do as you to question theirs. Personally I'm not opposed in any way to abortion, but I think it's right and proper that the taking of (arguably potential) life is heavily regulated

Again, perhaps you should be forced to enter counselling if you're in a minor accident or entertain even the most mildy misogynistic view - I'm sure you would support that wouldn't you ninfan?

AGain, you appear to be arguing that I'm advocating something, when the issue was that Tim Farron voted for it, it seems you're unable to differentiate between someone having an opinion or belief, and someone else believing they are entitled to that belief just as much as you are entitled to yours, regardless of my own feelings on the issue - this confusion possibly explains your own inability to accept other people's opinions as being just as valid as yours. Regardless, I'm sure there would be plentiful data on the efficacy of certain interventions in reducing the future likelihood and impact of Trauma, and cost benefit analysis of such - not an area I have any knowledge of, but certainly the type of thing that I can see an MP voting on an issue after taking advice on, and without knowing what data is available for the wide variety of traumatic episodes that people undertake, impossible for me to castigate him on... and I'm betting you don't know either.

Edit:

would be contrary to women's wishes

Ah, no analysis of efficacy or the incidence of trauma inside and outside counselling groups versus control, just not what they want, not much data there really is there?

Would that be a bad thing? I know a couple of ladies who have discussed having an abortion and both found the whole thing a pretty traumatic experience.

You were indirectlys advocating it.

Regardless, I'm sure there would be plentiful data on the efficacy of certain interventions in reducing the future likelihood and impact of Trauma, and cost benefit analysis of such - not an area I have any knowledge of, but certainly the type of thing that I can see an MP voting on an issue after taking advice on, and without knowing what data is available for the wide variety of traumatic episodes that people undertake, impossible for me to castigate him on... and I'm betting you don't know either.

I just posted the data.

Personally I'm not opposed in any way to abortion, but I think it's right and proper that the taking of [b](arguably potential)[/b] life is heavily regulated

Better get the government in on masturbating then.

As above, that contains no data on efficacy - just on satisfaction

indirectlys advocating it.

Ah, [i]indirectly[/i]... right... keep digging.

As above, that contains no data on efficacy - just on satisfaction

Most psychological trials are self reporting - efficacy would only exist for an actual trial of an intervention - and efficiacy of an intervention doesn't prove need of it's compulsory use.

Ah, no analysis of efficacy or the incidence of trauma inside and outside counselling groups versus control, just not what they want, not much data there really is there?

Again, those same women who report not needing counselling would also be unlikely to self report trauma. There's no hard scientific way of judging whether someone has suffered trauma - unless they're having PTSD style flashbacks in front of your eyes.

Dumbass

[img] [/img]

Or, just resort to insults when your argument isn't going too well.

Most psychological trials are self reporting.

And Cochrane reviews tend to place greater weight on studies with more than eighteen respondents, Dumbass 😆

Edit to your edit:

those same women who report not needing counselling would also be unlikely to self report trauma

Which, of course, demonstrates the ineffectiveness of relying on them opting in to counselling services then, doesn't it?

And Cochrane reviews tend to place greater weight on studies with more than eighteen respondents, Dumbass

There were 200 respondants.

You're displaying quite a lack of understanding in how trauma is diagnosed in the first place.

So actually, I stand by my "dumbass" statement.

And you wouldn't know what the **** Cochrane actually is, if it smacked you upside the head Ninfan.

keep digging 😆

Ninfan, you really are showing your ignorance.

Which, of course, demonstrates the ineffectiveness of relying on them opting in to counselling services then, doesn't it?

Not really, because if someone reports that they feel okay - they probably are - psycholigical intervention should be patient based - overthinking and prodding any possible issues is more likely to harm a patient than help them. Psychologists have a duty to do no harm as well.

women who report not needing counselling would also be unlikely to self report trauma

if someone reports that they feel okay - they probably are

😆

So, if they say they don't need counselling, then they're probably ok, and even if they aren't, then we won't know about it, because by your own admission, they are unlikely to self report trauma.

Because they aren't traumatised in the first place you utter buffoon....if someone doesn't think they are traumatised, it's not helpful to tell them they are. Therapy, like drugs can be thought of carrying with it - adverse events/side effects.

you utter buffoon

[img] [/img]

Or, just resort to insults when your argument isn't going too well.

But you just admitted that even if they are, then they are unlikely to self report it.

Talk about setting yourself up for false negatives.

Do you want to keep digging further?

No I admitted they would be unlikely to self report trauama, because they don't believe they have it and likely aren't actually traumatised and that psychologists rely on self reporting. Even if they were traumatised, a shrink has very few ways of being able to tell without the patient admitting it.

And, for a good introductory read on why you don't force therapy on people who say they don't need it - outside of very extreme circumstances - read

https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-21/edition-1/when-therapy-causes-harm

But you just admitted that even if they are, then they are unlikely to self report it.

Talk about setting yourself up for false negatives.

Ninfan, stop parroting sciencey sounding words to try to hide the fact that you're a Turmp supporter.

[quote=tjagain ]OMG - Tom and Ninfan in an arguement - this is not going to end well!

can you resist?...

No I admitted they would be unlikely to self report trauama, because they don't believe they have it and likely aren't actually traumatised.

Of course they're not traumatised - the survey was performed at the clinic at the time of abortion.

If you wanted to look at the effects of trauma and different interventions from a clinical basis then the [i]sensible[/i] thing to do would be to follow them up several months, perhaps even years after that abortion, and see how they felt about it.

Your 'study' is about as clinically valid as my left toe - it's little more than an opinion survey

You people bickering aren't helping on the big issues here:

if he said it was a sin to w**k vigorously in a cupboard with an orange in mouth my while wearing my sisters bra and watching videos of Jedward, that might put me off him. Has he made an media comment on that

Oh, I see you ascribe to PASS Ninfan.

The term "post-abortion syndrome" ("PAS") has been used by anti-abortion advocates to describe a broad range of adverse emotional reactions which they attribute to abortion.[1][17][49] For example, David C. Reardon is a prominent proponent of this purported "syndrome", and has cited it to support his anti-abortion views.[50] "Post-abortion syndrome" has not found widespread acceptance outside the anti-abortion community; the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not recognize PAS as an actual diagnosis or condition, and it is not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR or in the ICD-10 list of psychiatric conditions. Some physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that the focus on "post-abortion syndrome" is a tactic used by anti-abortion advocates for political purposes, and that PAS does not really exist.[14][18][51][52][50]

I would argue that if some women do feel that they have been traumatised after an abortion, the answer is not to force pre-abortion counselling on them - but inform them of the risk of trauma and leave pre-abortion and post-abortion counselling open to them.

I'd say that it is highly likely that forcing counselling on people who cause trauma in of itself as well.

BTW: Do you think that it's acceptable for the state to issue medical interventions against the religious wishes of adults? Eg blood transfusions?

Might be time for you 2 to get your own thread there...

I would argue

Oh, well, that settles it then - why bother with experts eh?

Do you think that it's acceptable for the state to issue medical interventions against the religious wishes of adults?

Capacity is a complex issue that doesn't really lend itself to blanket comment - that's why it so often ends up in court

Capacity is a complex issue that doesn't really lend itself to blanket comment - that's why it so often ends up in court

So you're saying that women don't have the psychological agency to make a decision in regards to their treatment - but some male religious folk do? 😆

Oh, well, that settles it then - why bother with experts eh?

You mean like the RCOG?

BTW: A clinical trial of forced counselling would never pass the ethics stage.

you're saying that

Am I? Where? Seems you're trying to extrapolate...

I'm assuming that is what you are implying by stating that capacity is a complex issue - which it really isn't in the case of healthy women.

Not really a complex issue is it

Consent to treatment is the principle that a person must give permission before they receive any type of medical treatment, test or examination. This must be done on the basis of an explanation by a clinician.

It becomes complex with children or those who are so mentally unfit so as to lack that capacity.

I'm assuming

Ah, right, shall we put that in the same box as

indirectlys advocating

Whereby you keep having to make up stuff that you wished I had said to base your argument on, because what I actually said left you floundering

No Nifan, you're purposely obfuscating your opinion - just in case someone calls you out on it - a tactic that you have fairly skillfully mastered as a coping mechanism in the Trump thread.

because what I actually said left you floundering

Where? Forced counselling trials can't be done due to ethics, so only an informed opinion can be made about the results of forcing counselling on people.

And experts? The experts ****ing agree with me. 😆 Experts are only experts if they back up the opinions of right-thinking Trump supporters/Tories though, aren't they? 😆

purposely obfuscating your opinion

We're going to need that ducking stool again

Children, can I just point out that you are two men arguing over a matter that concerns neither of you. Neither of you have had nor will ever go through an abortion. Perhaps leave this to those who might, eh?

I do - I don't tell women or support the idea that they need counselling. 👿

Round up the dwarfs that will fix it.

What a boot single mothers eh.

And today on vox political

In 2002, a secret Liberal Democrat document came to light – produced by the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors – in which local activists were urged to “be wicked, act shamelessly, stir endlessly” in order to win elections.

Though I'd like to see proof of such a document

This thread has gone a bit off piste.

Good read on the hypocrisy of the right wing press, re energy price caps
especially after Fallon was caught out lying through his teeth on R4 this morning

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/23/energy-prices-tory-cap-miliband-freeze

This thread has gone a bit off piste.

On STW?

Never!

[quote=jambalaya ]I'm not so sure @aracer
If it's Le Pen vs Macron of Fillion then yes its expected than Le Pen loses to tactical voting.

There we go then. Though I was wrong about your next president not being the winner of yesterday's vote - clearly I'd not been keeping up with polling as I'd expected Le Pen to get most votes in that.

ninfan - Member

possibly explains your own inability to accept other people's opinions as being just as valid as yours.

Genuine LOL, LOLZ, ROFL, etc. 😆 😆 😆

I don't know how you have the bare faced cheek. 😆 😆

Works for me Tim. 😉
[img] [/img]

I like that you gave him a LibDem coloured flag

Tim says yellow is the new blue. And red.

Have you seen the vote swap they've arranged in York?
They're pairing York Central LibDems with York Outer Labour types and agreeing to vote for each other's parties.
Tactical voting innovation space or what?
Perhaps it's happening all over the country of course and I just hadn't noticed it.