Recent Comments

  1. 27 May ’15 at 10:48 am

    dipu on Zidane the greatest of all time

    ZIDAN GREATEST PLAYER EVER. I HAVE NO DOUBT. HE ALREADY PROVE IN 1998 WORDCUP 2000 euro

  2. 25 May ’15 at 2:41 pm

    Nicolas Bourbaki on Don’t be an e-diot

    With respect, I don’t think your arguments are valid. Sure, nicotine is addictive. So is caffeine, but we don’t feel a need to make this into a big public health issue. I guess it’s better not to be addicted to caffeine than to be addicted to it, all else being equal, but caffeine brings the benefit of increased alertness, and people generally consider that worth the addiction. Similarly, I’m not totally sure what benefit people get from nicotine but my impression is that it often makes people feel a bit happier and less stressed out, so it seems to me that that benefit could also be worth the addiction. Even if you don’t think it’s worth it, is it your place to decide that for other people?

    On the issue of presence of harmful chemicals, this seems uncertain and in any case, it doesn’t seem like it would be impossible to manufacture versions of e-cigarettes that don’t bring these harmful chemicals along with them.

    At the end you mention the fear that smoking in e-cigarette form will be re-popularised. Well, what’s wrong with that? It seems to me that you’re making the error I see a lot of people make when they talk about e-cigarettes. It’s an understandable error and I made it myself for some time. Traditional cigarette smoking caused lung cancer, due to tar inhalation. Therefore, traditional cigarette smoking needed to be discouraged. But since e-cigarettes weren’t around when this message became internalised in society, people internalised it just as “smoking (without qualification) needs to be discouraged”. Now e-cigarettes have come along, and you can smoke them without inhaling tar. So they don’t cause lung cancer, and as far as I can tell they don’t have any serious negative health effects at all. So the original implication fails to hold in the case of e-cigarettes; there is no justification for the belief that e-cigarette smoking should be discouraged. Yet people still have this internalised belief that “smoking should be discouraged” and continue to apply it to e-cigarette smoking, even though there’s no reason for it.

    Part of the problem is that people have been trained to have a kind of disgust reaction to smoking, as a result of this internalised message. Even I still find it unpleasant to be in the same room as somebody smoking an e-cigarette. But this disgust reaction no longer serves a purpose, and I think it can be un-learned.

  3. 25 May ’15 at 2:14 pm

    Nicolas Bourbaki on Abortion comments spark anger and complaints after debate

    The way I see it, there’s a strict, legalistic sense of “freedom of speech”, which refers to the right not to have your speech restricted by the government (specifically), and there’s also a weaker sense of the phrase, which I think people are using here. In this sense, “freedom of speech” refers to the idea that it’s a social good for people to be able to hear other people expressing the full range of opinions within the range of society (for reasons why this is a good idea, try reading, e.g., John Stuart Mill). For better or for worse, the idea that abortion is in some form the taking of a human life exists in our society, it exists among people at this university, and people who believe in “freedom of speech” in the non-strict sense will therefore believe that we shouldn’t silence people who try to express it. And I think asking for Life Matters to be de-ratified counts as silencing, since YUSU is supposed to represent the whole student body.

    If you don’t agree that the phrase “freedom of speech” should be used in this way, just mentally replace it with something like “free flourishing of ideas”, and see if people’s points still stand.

  4. 24 May ’15 at 6:37 pm

    stephanie pollard on Inside perspective: make-up artist

    I worked and styled Pearl’s hair for many years ..Pearl would be thrilled to know that you are using them ! She was an awesome make up artist …Well done !

  5. 23 May ’15 at 12:31 am

    T.A. on YorkShakes 2015 Review: Richard III at the Guildhall

    I think the reviewer pointed out various aspects that Dramasoc could possibly improve in the future, but at the same time she pointed out that the play was one of their best performances’ and she would like to see more from them to encourage DramaSoc to keep on going! Read the review another time with a positive mindset and you will realize that it is not negative at all. You know it’s like think twice before you say anything, or read twice before you write anything. And honestly, only in the 8th paragraph does she ”negatively” criticize the acting, if you would really prefer to call it so. I prefer to say it is Miss reviewer’s perspective on how the play was done, which you are quite quite free to offer in a review. Overall, I would say it was a positive (that would encourage improvement) if not a balanced review. WELL DONE and Very Well Written Miss Reviewer! Keep it up!

  6. 22 May ’15 at 12:16 am

    Tom Wilde on Could Labour Learn from the SNP?

    I hope Labour don’t copy the SNP too much, because in government the SNP have been rubbish. They have a dismal record in both healthcare and primary education, to name but two areas. The only thing they are really great at is stirring up jingoism and division. Add that to the general UK-wide disillusionment with the Westminster political class and you have a fairly complete explanation of the SNP’s 50% vote the other week.

  7. 21 May ’15 at 10:58 pm

    Anonymous on Could Labour Learn from the SNP?

    Who edited this? Sentences beginning with ‘and’, apostrophes in the wrong place (for example, ‘red Ed’s).

    Also, the SNP aren’t Labour’s biggest threat. If they’d have got every seat in Scotland, Labour still wouldn’t have won. There’s no need for sensationalism; Labour lost for a variety of reasons, of which the SNP are only one.

  8. 21 May ’15 at 10:06 pm

    Kate Marshall on Report from the Queerstion Time Debate

    I wasn’t responsible for when the article was released, but I will say there were nine attendees to the evening and I had more notes on what was said than I was able to include. You’ll notice that I did actually quote her views at the end of the fifth paragraph and she got more mention than Joe Riches.

    For what it’s worth, I thought Megan was great, had some of the most progressive views there, and whilst it might sound dismissive to reference her use of intersectionality, I consider that to be a very positive thing.

  9. I personally found the habitat on the campus more than suitable for my needs. There was lots of algae to eat, water to splash in, and other ducks for me to be friends with.

    Zofia, third year English literature and history student.

  10. God! Even a duck like me has a better understanding of tax than this. Tax evasion is when you can’t be bothered to pay tax and tax avoidance is when you can’t be bothered to pay tax. Bird brains!

  11. Does the ‘D’ in ‘Big D’ stand for ‘Duck’ or ‘Disappointment’?

  12. 19 May ’15 at 11:14 pm

    Anonymous on Derwent cruise past plucky Vanbrugh

    You’ve got the wrong scoreline at the top.