A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Start a new discussion in the public forum
Post a new thread
If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID#
of the game.
If you are posting a feature request please check that it isn't mentioned in the todo list.
If you are posting a question please check the FAQ before posting.
If your message is long you may need to write a summary message, and add the full message as a reply.
K here is our map. my question is, if i move my boat from the english channel to the northsea with support from norwegian sea. but he moves his boat from north sea to BEL, with support from Hol, would my move stop his move or at least cut support?
How can a decade old accusation of sexual harassment against Herman Cain even be an issue in American politics after all the liberals dismissed Bill Clinton's adultery with a member of the staff in the White House as being completely irrelevant to his job as president.
The 28% tax on long-term capital gains brought in only $36.9 billion a year from 1987 to 1997, according to the Treasury Department, while the 15% tax brought in $96.8 billion a year from 2004 to 2007.
You're France in S01 and Italy moves to Piedmont while Marseilles moved to Spain and Paris to Picardy along with Brest-MAO. Barring any real diplomacy that has gone on, are you more likely to return to Marseilles in the fall assuming Italy will attack it, or list a hold order assuming a bluff?
Diplomats fall into different categories or archetypes. Some are bossy and curmudgeonly. Some are vague and try to stay neutral toward everybody. Some are pushovers (the best allies of course!). And some are true diplomats. There is a lot to say on this topic and I hope to get a lot of participation in this thread, but I'd like to start with a couple pointers that have served me well:
Since I'm a Luddite and have no idea how to copy and paste on this library Mac I can't give you a link, but I encourage all you homeopathy lunatics to watch any of James Randi's wonderful videos on Youtube. He shows how ridiculous the whole idea is.
I also have some anecdotal evidence of homeopathy's uselessness beyond being a placebo. I'm really prone to getting swimmer's ear. I even get it from the shower. One thing I used to use in addition to the over-the-counter alcohol product to dry the ear out was this herbal drop thing. It seemed to help. Just a few months ago I looked at the label and noticed it was homeopathic. The next time I used it I felt no difference than when I only used the alcohol product (as has happened before when I was out of the herbal stuff). Not exactly damming evidence, but it sure adds credence to the idea that homeopathy is at best a placebo.
Yes, the pharma-drug industry is entirely based on effective treatment while ignoring the fact that psycho-somatic effects can infact have the greater part of the effect.
How you deliver the treatment is often as important, and the fact that people choose to buy it means they are probably getting a better result.
If you develop a drug which fails to outperform a placebo you can indeed sell it. You may not be able to sell it as a drug, but that's not going to stop you putting it on sale...
It is not just the marketing which makes homeopathy effective, it is the ritual, which as i've been saying is something which western medicine often ignores or diminishes when deciding a treatment.
If you are going to apply a free market model then homeopathy should be allowed because you need competition to guarantee the best service to customers.
If you are advocating a nationalised health care system then you shouldn't be complaining about homeopathy you should be advocating reform of that national system to incorporate what the homeopathers have demonstrated ie: that ritual and comfort is important.
You say that 'it doesn't count as effective treatment' that ignores the fact that it does get a better effect than not taking anything. Just because something is all in your head doesn't mean it's not important. (watch the link i posted above on mind-body interactions if you disagree)
and if you advocate a nationalized health care system which doesn't support homeopathy (which i think i would) there is no reason to prevent people from choosing to go and take homeopathic remedies, that about as stupid as drug prohibition.
@Pete, but you're saying that people should NOT have the choice to use something that they believe works EVEN THOUGH they know there is no evidence that it DOES work. They should only have a choice between things with the imprimatur of the scientific establishment. If they (say) reject the scientific method, they should not have the choice to act on that.
I advocate that business can only make a claim about their product that is defensible. A homeopathic placebo is no more effective than a sugar pill from a doctor, but is claimed to be something more. The food and drug industry have to go through various legal and scientific loops and hurdles to sell something - why should the rules be different for the 'alternatives'?
And rejecting the scientific method is not an excuse - the first thing that can tell us is if something has an effect, not how it works. I don't care about how homeopathy works, just if it does. And it doesn't work better than placebo, which is the medical equivalent of not at all. The scientific method is pretty damned effective
Just because people believe things doesn't make them true, and certainly doesn't make them something some can sell.
Pete, Well, if you want some kind of labelling restrictions I wouldn't have a _big_ issue there, though I'd disagree. I didn't really follow what you said on the scientific method. I wasn't suggesting it told us how something worked, just that you were requiring it be used to see IF it did. I agree, of course, about the scientific method, and have no interest at all myself in using homeopathic medicine of any sort. That said, I continue to think it fairly outrageous to suggest that somebody couldn't buy something that they wanted to, if they were told honestly what it was. (I more or less would equalize the opposite way from you -- scrap the FDA, too).
"Just because people believe things doesn't make them true, and certainly doesn't make them something some can sell."
and maybe believing things is what makes these treatments more effective than a doctor prescribed placebo. Now think on it. It's not just the sugar pill, it's the fact that some people choose to avoid the nasty pharma-chemical industry doctors who make them feel ill - this is actually the case.
Some people believe that going to the doctor will harm them, and the anti-placebo effect makes this more damaging than going to a homeopather.
People's choice of course, i never suggest forcing people to take homeopathic remedies...
I think many of us are in agreement that an educated consumer is best. As a 'classic' conservative (not the current flavor) the government's role shouldn't be to restrict the sales of (with a few exceptions) items, but in ensure that the consumer has the best possible information about that items effectiveness and impact. If Homeopathy is just shown in trials to be just as good as a placebo then label it as such.
Orathaic - The government should also not take into considerations the delusions of people that refer to doctors whom "make them feel ill" as "nasty pharma-chemical" - those people should take that up with their therapist. I can't speak for all Doctors but of the half dozen medical doctors I know personally they are truthfully looking for the best solution to cure their patient. If there is a problem in a political system, like for example too much power concentrated in a biased and for profit special interest group, that needs to be addressed. But blanket labels like that don't help resolve what is a complex issue.
I think we're on the same page about letting people choose.
@Kalel, i'm not saying Doctors are actually in the pockets or pharmaceutical companies, that doesn't need to be the case for people to get negative side effects from the worry that they are.
And just because something is all in your head doesn't mean it's unimportant.
And i think my arguement is based largely on the fact that doctors need to do a better job addressing the psychological needs of a person alongside the pharmaceutical needs. (a holistic approach, means taking into account the whole system, including psychosomatic effects and 'soft skills' - it may mean having a ritual which helps the patient feel at ease and quell their worries...)
I learned a long time ago that perception *is* reality when it comes to the emotional states of human beings. You can never discount the emotional as it is the inner workings of the Id, the primary animal drive, that bubbles ot the top when things are emotional. And the Id rules over the Ego unless the emotion is brought into check and rationality takes it's place.
'@orathaic - the point is homeopathy has not been shown to be better than a doctor prescribed placebo.'
how can you trial the psycho-somatic effect of the ritual?
Unless i'm wrong, controlled trails likely involved neither homoepathers nor doctors, and this doesn't reflect the real psychosomatic effect which homeopathic practicioners likely bring - a healing ritual which makes them feel better.
You can separate this ritual from the pharmacological effect, and definitely demonstrate that placebo's do aswell in controlled trials, but it is much harder to demonstrate the real-world difference.
and NO, people should not be protected from their own stupidity. They should be allowed to fail; it is a much cheaper system to implement and regulate.
I mean sure, setup an ombudsman and allow people complain when they feel they've been screwed over. But don't setup an institution to regulate and determine in the first place what works; what is acceptable; and what is 'damaging to society' - you end up with stupid regulations based on culture - as we do today, allowing alcohol and tobacco but banning weed and cocoa tea...
@Geo: this version is better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U
@Orathaic - Ok I think we're on some common ground here. I have some baggage around terms like holistic and ritual... they seem like hippy-dippy 'magic' 'psudo-science' terms to me; your mileage with them may vary. I have your definition of holistic and agree with what I understand is the spirit of it. Doctors should take into account the patience psychological as well as physiological state. To me this was always called bed-side-manor. However, I'd have to have you define ritual, because of how vague it is. You'd have to be careful not to get into a territory where medical best practice is to customize the color scheme, number of pillows and candle smell for each patient visit. A doctor visit is not a visit to a spa and I think that what environmental elements would make a patient psychologically comfortable is too varied for a doctor to accommodate. If your point is that Doctor's should get some 'customer service' training as part of their skill set then I'd agree with you 100%.
Oftentimes you are presented with difficult tactical decisions. Consider a move where you could take a SC two different ways. Your opponent can defend against either move successfully, but not both. Which move do you choose?
Now that he's gone, I kind of miss him. Though his comments were often inane and nonsensical, there was a sort of clarity of thought to them that, in retrospect... I really respect. You might even call it a kind of genius? Come back to us, KA!
gameID=71352 - everyone determined to submit orders in time and not to leave in the first turn just 'cause Austria sucks - is welcome to join the game. However, volunteers from the late "Why so Anonymous?" game are most likely to be given priority (pacta sunt servanda). But I think we will have some free seats.
@ Splitdiplomat userID=36887 to withdraw your draw vote seconds before a CD while the rest also votes draw, only because you came out of the turn well is very unsportive behaviour (at least in my eyes).