I watched Trump's advocating of using hydroxychloroquine yesterday with dismay. 'What harm can it do?' this imbecile says. Apart from known gastrointestinal side-effects there are other diseases such as Lupus whose sufferers depend on the drug, and it can effect those who like Trump are obese (okay Pelosi said that). If Trump's advocation causes a run on supplies how many of those in genuine need will lose their supply?
And then, to top it all, I read today that Trump's family trust holdings include a fund whose largest holding is Sanofi, the maker of Plaquenil, the branded version of hydroxychloroquine. This alone should justify impeachment to my mind. Can the US really vote for this appalling human being again?

1. Given the brain has a digital structure (on/off neurons) how is it that it generates vague concepts? — TheMadFool

How can a digitally produced image show a foggy day?

↪Tim3003
I agree completely with what you are saying, but feeling as though the only reason to live is "why not?" seems unsatisfactory to me. — JacobPhilosophy

So find your reasons to live! I suspect that won't be done intellectually but through trying 'life' and seeing what appeals.. From my experience you cannot find reasons to live from an ivory tower, you have to get stuck in and let your reactions tell you what's worthwhile and what isn't. We 'philosophers' may think we're highly evolved but we are animals at heart with the same drives and needs as anyone else.

Why is it that you need a reason to live? Given that you were born, living is your natural state; surely your question should be 'is there a reason to end your life?'. Of all the life-forms on earth only man ever questions whether he has a reason to live, and then only when he's idle..

I'm making (trying to) the case that time has no beginning. Every time we have ever dealt with can be put into the framework of past, present and future. You can't deny that. So, if for no other reason than statistical ones, the Big Bang too must fit into this model of past, present and future i.e. there was a time before the Big Bang. An argument against this, a claim that the Big Bang was the beginning of time, doesn't exist at all. — TheMadFool

No. Relativistic physics denies that premise. NOT every time we have ever dealt with has a past and a future. You seem unable to comprehend the concept of time having a beginning. Time is not a philosophical term any more, but a scientific one. Your attempt to discuss this question purely in philosophical terms is therefore flawed. You seem to be denying what is perceived by physicists as scientific truth, either through ignorance or some counter belief. Unless you can expound your counter theory and it stands up to investigation, your argument has no merit to me.

If the Big Bang was in the future, there must be a past, a time before the Big Bang to which the Big Bang was in the future of. — TheMadFool

Can I ask about your knowledge of physics? You seem to cling to an pre-scientific concept of time which is strictly linear, unending, outside and beyond the other forces in the universe; and, if you believe the claims of relativity, wrong.

How does your understanding square with the observed fact that time slows down depending on your speed and the gravity acting upon you? If, like a light beam, you travel at the 186,000 miles per second time stands still - it effectively ceases to exist. For a light beam there is no past and no future. But for others observing it 'time' continues as 'normal'. Time is no longer seen as a set-in-stone governing property of the universe. As I understand the Big Bang theory it was born in the Big Bang, along with space, matter and energy. The real question nowadays for physicists is whether time exists at all outside our minds.

I agree with what you said but I'm questioning the very idea of a beginning. It's nonsensical to talk of a beginning at all in a sequence (time is a sequence) in which every point has another point that precedes it. — TheMadFool

..only once it's started - not before. At 'point 1' of time there was no 'before' as that's when time was created. Your concept of time seems to assume that it must be linear and unbounded. Einstein would disagree I think..

Can I not say e.g. 15 billion years ago or 100 billion years ago? Yes, I can and there's no x years ago that can be a beginning because for every x years ago point in time there's another point x - 1 years ago. — TheMadFool

You can talk in theory of 100 billion years ago just as you can talk in theory of time travel. The fact that we can conceptualise these ideas does not guarantee that in the universe they are possible..

Why is it "nonsensical" to say ask of time before the Big Bang? What is particularly "nonsensical" about it? Does it lead to a contradiction? How? Where? — TheMadFool

If you're saying time began with the Big Bang surely you can't talk about time before the Big Bang - any more than you can talk about what's north of the North Pole. 'Northness' starts with the Pole. If you're saying time existed before the Big Bang it's a different question. So you have to decide which route to go down as the Big Bang theory has to differ according to your choice..

In effect it always seems reasonable to ask, for any posited beginning of time itself, for a time before that beginning. This leads to an infinite regress - for any beginning of time we can always ask for a time before that purported beginning. This then implies that to say time had a beginning is nonsensical. It (time) can't have a beginning. So, if time has no beginning, is the past infinite? — TheMadFool

I don't think it is reasonable to say time had a beginning, and then speculate on how we deal with time before that. If time began with the Big Bang, then the concept of time before it is nonsensical, and can't be palmed off as 'infinite'. Whatever existed before the Big Bang (even assuming the concept of 'existance' is any more valid than 'time' to describe it) time wasn't part of it. Even that statement is absurd, because there is no 'before' the Big Bang.

We poor humans don't have the brains or language to deal with this problem!

Apparently the UK is walking back the whole "herd immunity strategy" and some officials are now explaining it was just "a medical concept" but not an actual strategy. — boethius

It never was an actual strategy. The govt has never said it was, but perhaps not denying others' reports has caused speculation that it might be. Being quick and candid about their strategy has not been a strong point of UK govt communication so far!

Well in the UK, the govt is now saying that the over 70's might all have to go into forced self-isolation in a few weeks. Judging by past timetabling that means they're preparing the ground for the announcement being made this week (or if they're not, they'll soon realise they'll have to make it this week), and the restriction coming into effect say 72 hours thereafter. So by next weekend I'm guessing we'll all be shopping for our parents/grandparents - or having our children shop for us. Then there's the collection of medical prescriptions too...

Slowly they are realising that once there is regulatory and tariff divergence from the EU, that many farmers will have tariffs of around 40% imposed from their main markets. And that when the lower US food standards flood the market with cheaper food, which has been acknowledged this week by the trade secretary. The farmers will be unable to compete and most of them will go out of business. — Punshhh

I believe the 40% figure is for UK lamb exports, and assumes no EU trade deal is reached and we fall back to WTO rules. That doesnt seem likely, especially as the EU fishermen want some of the 35% of UK fisheries they catch to be maintained. Some sort of bargain should be reached I think. The big hit for the UK could be dominance of London's financial services, which the EU wants to reign back. I think Boris will reflect he has fewer voters to lose in the City than in the shires and coastal towns..

As for cheap US food imports, you talk as if the trade deal has already been done. It hasn't..

Not only this, but they have seen through the capitalism promised by the Tory's and can see how they represent the greedy and privileged. They look at the crises in public services and the lack of management of them by the Tory's. What is in it for them if they vote Tory? — Punshhh

The cringe-making film of the new Cabinet's first meeting, reciting Boris's mantra of '40 new hospitals, 20,000 new police officers,' etc like kids in kindergarten answers that. Removing the obstruction in the Treasury to the new bribe-the-new-Tory-voters policy makes it clear to me what Boris's 'govt of the people' will prioritise. We will probably soon have Tories criticising this wreckless spending. How ironic!

There is talk about the border poll in Ireland and that it is a requirement of the Good Friday Agreement that the pole be held should public opinion in Northern Ireland demand it. This is under international law. Next Scotland, these are unstoppable forces and Johnson knows it, but he is prepared to throw the Union under the buss to get his term in No10 and save the Party*. — Punshhh

This is Sinn Fein sabre-rattling isn't it? It's not clear whether the poll they favour would involve the Irish voters too (if they get to decide, it will). Doesnt the GF agreement stipulate a poll for NI voters alone?

What is totally amazing is that after a long time in power in the UK, the conservatives could get such a huge victory in the elections. They'll surely be now happy with Boris. — ssu

I'm afraid I blame the blinkered left-wingers in the Labour party for this catastrophic dereliction of duty. In the '80s Labour swung left and spent a decade in the wildnerness. Now they've done it again under Corbyn. What is the definition of a fool? Someone who does the same thing twice and expects different results. (Or is that 'insanity'? I forget). If there's one thing to be said for populism it's that its politicians do listen to the voters. Boris has won on that simple realisation..

More evidence of the new administration consolidating power in order to push forward a hard right agenda. Or it is a sign of the paranoia of Johnson and Cummings, turning inwards and demanding to hold all the reigns from the centre. — Punshhh

The latter I think. Like any demagogue populist leader Boris wants yes-men in his cabinet. Unlike Trump he has the wit not to lose his temper publicly with those who stand up to him.The NI secretary Julian Smith also went, despite universal praise for getting the assembly working again. His crime? Having some thoughts of his own. Cummings seems to be becoming drunk with power, almost Rasputin-like. I wonder how long before he goes off the Boris-rails?

In a way, the only thing the Brexiteers have succeeded in is that they now cannot blame Brussels for everything that sucks anymore. — ssu

Not yet. The blame for problems with the EU trade deal will be placed firmly with the EU, eg for not allowing a Canada-style free-trade + full market-access option - which the EU have said is not possible. But the Brexiteer govt as usual wants to have its cake and eat it. Doubtless when the economy tanks in a year or 2 that will be Brussells' fault too for restricting our trade or sneakily enticing our manufacturers to relocate there..

To me philosophy is the study of unanswerable questions. It encompasses all subjects therefore. When an answer to a philosophical query is widely accepted that query becomes one of science/psychology/maths etc, rather than philosophy. By way of evidence to naysayers: quote me a question still considered philosophical, whose answer is widley agreed..

Definition of 'number': an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations.

I don't see how inifinity is used in counting, nor is it a particular quantity. It is not finite, so not a number to my way of thinking. Personally I don't like all the maths based on larger and smaller infinities. Those definitions are like saying a colour is more black or less black.

It occurs to me that far from cosying up to Trump the new govt is echoing his priorities with a 'UK first' outlook, which is bound to make enemies internationally - but crucially not of the UK voters, with whom the govt's main loyalty lies. Expect increased jingoism and flag-waving if the going gets rough. One populist govt vs another sounds like a recipe for war to me though, with only its scale to be decided..

Yes it looks like we're going to get a pincer movement between the EU and the US. No surprise there, but who are the Populists going to blame for that lack of foresight, I wonder. — Punshhh

Sajid Javed's announcement of the anti-Google tax ahead of the OECD examination of the problem has annoyed the US - as it was bound to, so it's starting to look like the govt is prioritising a trade deal with the EU over the US. David Gaulke on Newsnight said the hit from no EU deal would be 7% of GDP, whereas that from no US deal would be 0.2%. Also, the govt won't have the manpower to negotiate with both of them at once, despite that being the stated plan. Maybe too the chance of Trump losing this year's election is increasing the appeal of letting a deal wait until the US's future is clear..

I see the EU are already hinting the UK will have to keep the trade goalposts unmoved for a trade deal, meanwhile the US are saying BJ should support a new Trumpist Iran nuclear deal if he wants a US trade deal. So far the Tory rhetoric is that the EU will back down when the hard talking starts. It will be a tricky balancing act. We'll see if Boris's diplomatic skills have improved since his time as Foreign Secretary.

Wouldn't it be a shame if the 'Bung a bob for Big Ben's Brexit bong' campaign fails ?! I'd say the moronic Populist phrasology alone should be enough to end that idea. Other events are planned - so maybe the funeral march should be played instead?.

Anyway back to Brexit, Stormont is back, I didn't see Johnson's speech, but I expect he will be encouraging them to rejoin Ireland, intentionally, or not. — Punshhh

Isn't it odd how the DUP - now that they no longer have any influence with the Westminster govt, have swallowed their allergy to the Irish language, and the NI Assembly is working again? ..

They do achieve a lot, certainly enough to justify their privelidge. Harry has for example created the Invictus games and the whole veteran rehabilitation programme around it. Also he has picked up the batton in campaigning against land mines started by Diana.
Take Prince Charles for example, the contribution he has personally made to the country would amount to a list more than a page in length. — Punshhh

That may sound fine to you, but why should these individuals be able so powerfully to promote the good causes that they personally support? We all have our pet causes, but don't have the money or influence to raise their profiles in the way the Royal family can. For anyone to be in a position of this power, they should - in my opinion, have earned the success and influence they exert over public money, not just happen to be born or marry a Windsor..

btw: aren't we getting off topic again?

The debate at the moment, is about the problem of hate news and persecution of royalty in the UK. A topic which rarely comes to the surface, as criticism of the media, is avoided by the media. — Punshhh

That's because it's an impossible situation. The concept of a Royal family, wealthy and influential, but with no achievements and abilities to give any weight to their views - nor any right to express them, is absurd. It leaves them wide open to tabloid hatred. That unexceptional individuals cannot cope with the pressure the media puts on them to satisfy the public appetite for this living soap opera is totally unsurprising, so I don't blame them at all for flouncing off in a huff. The whole institution is anachronistic, and impossibly hard on the Royal family members if they have any individuality. Once the Queen is gone I expect this will become more obvious.

That's easy, it's politics. But with Brexit, no one knows what the long consequences are either of staying in the EU, or leaving, it hasn't been done before and in a world in such flux no one really knows what's going to happen. — Punshhh

No-one knows, but economic forecasts predict something like a .5% annual hit to UK GDP going forward due to increased hassle trading with Europe from outside its single market and customs union. The Lib Dems forecasted it at £10 billion per year in their election manifesto. I've not heard the Leave campaign assert the 'gains' from new trade deals outside the EU will make up even in part for this loss. They centre on emotive feel-better effects and greater freedoms and control over UK decisions.

I expect the Johnson has been begging Trump to hold off any escalation until after leaving Day on January 31st. Once we're past that point Johnson will come out of hiding and get into bed with Trump, because Brexit will be done and there will be nothing anyone can do about it. — Punshhh

But Brexit won't be done. The trade deal is the main part. Regardless of Iran I think Johnson has to tread a fine line between keeping close enough to the EU for a speedy trade deal, and close enough to Trump for a deal the US will go for. Anyway, with it now looking like the Iranians are militarily inept enough to shoot down passenger jets in their own skies I suspect they will want to 'de-escalate' as quick as they can, leaving Trump to crow about the US's surgical precision in contrast.

when he gets his high tariff, regulatory divergent trade deal with the EU. — Punshhh

He's probably not going to get that in a year, as the new EU President reiterated today. If he wants a quick deal it will need to be by keeping the 'level playing field' - which seems to be the EU's new favourite phrase. It remains to be seen how much Boris will threaten with the no-deal option to bully the EU into a quick agreement. But will they back down? Given that the UK has far more to lose in a no-trade deal scenario it seems unlikely. Expect the Brexiteers to pipe up too, about the money we're still paying in - for no say, if the Dec 31st deadline looks to be slipping..

Interesting too that the Iran flare-up shows the govt firmly siding with Europe in response, and having had no prior warning of the assasination from Trump, there seems no other option - Boris could not get away with adopting the loyal Trump-poodle stance..

Will he now put any effort into preventing Scotland leaving the UK? I doubt he will want to be the last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and go down as the PM who presided over the break up of the Union.

But how will he achieve this? Surely the only way is to deliver a soft Brexit, but he has sold a hard Brexit. So what does he do? — Punshhh

His indyref strategy to date has been: 'Just say no'. Perhaps he hopes his 'One nation' post Brexit UK will be so successful the majority of Scots will not want to leave it. His New Year resolution seems to be to stoke up Project Positive. This will be fine for say 6 months, but then the honeymoon period will be over and he'll have to start producing. Luckily the opposition are effectively dead..

I heard recently that a new angle for raising the stakes is the chance of head-in-the-sanders like Trump being charged with Crimes against Humanity. Their lack of action can (so it is claimed) be said to be endangering health and causing mounting deaths in the coastal communities most affected by sea level rise. Maybe a submission to the UN Court of Human Rights would set this ball rolling? A guilty verdict - or even a contested trial - would raise the profile of the issue hugely, and make many of the guilty leaders think hard about their priorities. A snowball effect could quickly follow with a big upping of efforts to decarbonise. Maybe the Aussie bush fires are also an opportunity for this ?

I would start a thread on climate change, but I'm no expert on it. — Punshhh

I did some weeks ago, entitled: 'Is climate change too large a problem for mankind to solve'. Depressingly, the unanimous view seems to be 'yes'..

Oh and we won't know if he actually addresses it, rather than just claiming to have done so. — Punshhh

He mentioned setting up a cross-party Social Care group, which would presumably produce a report. Admittedly he could ignore that report, but unless he has a better alternative he'll look pretty stupid. Besides, the small increases in NHS funding he's announced won't do more than plug some holes in the dyke for long. Five years is a long time to keep making excuses with a big majority. That is of course unless Brexit proves a big economic problem.. I still think it's odds on he'll end up hoist by one of his many own petards..

Have you noticed that Johnson in the House of Commons and all the government ministers who were on the media today are saying 36 billion for the NHS and that it's a big increase in spending and 40 new hospitals. That it will be easy to negotiate a trade deal with the EU in 11 months, because we are in perfect alignment on tariffs and regulations etc. All which have been proven to be untruthful by analysts and fact checkers. — Punshhh

You can't say these claims have been proven to be untruthful simply because fact checkers dispute them. These are doubtless the same people who said Boris could not get a Brexit deal.. Anyway, no claim about future events can be called 'untruthful' any more than 'a lie'; 'absurd' or 'implausible' yes.

Re the care crisis: I think it is acute now. Part of the cause of the chronic shortage of beds and nurses in the NHS is the use of faciltiites on the long term care needs of those who cannot survive alone at home, and for whom no care provider beds are avialable. The problem is that whatever system the govt comes up with to address the crisis will be a vote loser, because it entails taking extra money either by general taxes or from those directly needing care - meaning they have to sell their houses, give up their childrens' inheritances etc. The piftfalls any govt faces were shown by Theresa May's attempt - it immediately became labelled as the dementia tax, although it was a viable idea, and quickly got buried. So the only way through is a cross-party agreement on the basic strategy, that way all parties take any hit in popularity and the 'political football' aspect of the issue is removed. As we face more unpopular decisions in future this cross-party approach will be more needed: most immediate example; to tackle climate change by a rapid de-carbonisation programme.

Punshhh — Punshhh

Unwarranted cynicism at this stage I think. It's a huge problem. At least give Boris the chance to address it before shooting him down..

I can't see Scotland unifying with Eire in the near term. They would have to go via independence to join the EU. — unenlightened

My comment was a joke!

let's see if they make a similar declaration for Scotland. — Punshhh

Only if Scotland votes to become part of Ireland!

They don't go on about immigration anymore because it is toxic, they can be accused of racism. — Punshhh

I think the Tories don't go on about it any more because it's so patently obvious that with the NHS short by 100,000 staff and everyone saying they want a better NHS the new staff have to come from abroad. And maybe people have twigged that as EU immigration has been falling over the past year so non-EU figures have risen to compensate. I also think that peoples' fears of immigration have been molified by the prospect of being able to control it. The so-called aussie-style points system which Boris proffers will be a fig-leaf for a while, but when his hospital and rail building plans stipulates we'll need 5000 new brickies and plumbers as well as NHS cleaners, social care workers - plus of course fruit pickers, people may begin to realise. The 'control' is illusory if we want our job positions filled, and the points system will become simply a means to this end. Additonally, working-age immigration is of course a big help when it comes to offsetting our ageing population - many of whom who are the most vulnerable themselves being the most virulently against it!

Of all the benefits I have come across, the freedom to control the movement of citizens and their benefits is the greatest and certainly from my experience this is the primary reason for the vote to leave.

However it has been pointed out following the vote that there were a number of means of controlling these citizens while in the EU, but they were never exercised by the government, during the critical periods of mass immigration. So it was the incompetence of our government which caused the circumstances which lead to the referendum. — Punshhh

I have thought all along that the freedom of movement issue was a red herring as control of immigration is really an illusion. Isn't it strange how none of the Brexiteers talk about reducing immigration any more, still less of setting ambitious targets as in the past? No. The major incompetence was of the Remain campaign, which failed to make this point during the lead up to the referendum. The concept of 'benefits tourism' was a fiction and a disgraceful scare story pedalled by the Leave campaign.

What are the means of control you mention?

Talking about views on the Brexit issue, can anyone name a tangible benefit to leaving the EU? — Punshhh

Unless the area gets bargained away in the trade deal our fishing industries should gain substantially, and ergo many coastal communities. As an island, if we have control of our own waters we stand to gain much in quota once all the spanish and french boats are excluded.

Also, one reason for some wanting to leave is the overarching influence of the EU courts. I have yet to see an example of where they dictated to the UK what to do in the face of clear opposition here. But presumably there is one somewhere?..

Thirdly I recall hearing our livestock transportation welfare standards are higher than the EU, and as we can't enforce them currently we have to 'trade down' to compete on price. The livestock would benefit if our prefered standards were enforced. Maybe they're the ones who voted for Brexit!

So when push comes to shove, I expect he will put party before country again and push his new converts under the bus. But these people might be the very people he needs to keep onside if he is to save the party. — Punshhh

I don't think Boris is from the party-first mould. I think that he sees himself as Churchill did - above party identities and able to appeal to the people over the top of that loyalty. So far he's being proved right. There will be much trumpeting of investment in the Northern Powerhouse I'm sure, as he seeks to fulfill promises to the ex-Labour voters, but it will be interesting to see if he coughs up for HS2, considered a vital part of that project, but hugely expensive.

He also faces a test on Brexit phase 2. The only realistic route to meeting his Dec 2020 target for an EU trade deal is maintaining close alignment in standards and tarifs with them. The ERG won't like that, but he now has the majority to say f*** you to them. The problem is that if, as he has previously shown, he wants a US trade deal, that approach with the EU won't satisy Trump at all. If he does want to appease Trump and depart from EU standards his loudly promised EU deadline looks unfeasible. However history to date shows that once he's made a promise, he'll do almost anything to keep it, so maybe he'll choose the EU over Trump if it comes to it. No doubt voters would want him to too. And who knows if Trump will even be around in 2021?

Would Heseltine have done that? — Punshhh

I'm guessing not. But give him his due, I think Boris wants to inspire people via optimism and his own leadership qualities. I don't think mean-spirited revenge and triumphalism is his way of thinking. Trump would do it, yes, and for the reasons you give.

But I'm hoping Boris may prove himself a more inclusive Tory leader than any since Churchill. Now that he has his big majority he can dispense with cynical populist tactics if he wants and do whatever he likes. For now I think he does want to reach out to all and become a national hero for uniting the country again. 'Commeth the hour, commeth the man' may well be his motto. Whether events will allow him to do all that remains to be seen.