Here we go. They’re getting riled up about temporary ex utero life support for non viable foetuses.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Here we go. They’re getting riled up about temporary ex utero life support for non viable foetuses.
I've heard about those procedures being performed but have never come across it. Generally if there's danger to the mother's life beyond 20 weeks, a delivery via C-section is performed and then you do your best to keep the baby alive.
If the foetus is found to be non-viable (i.e. dead) then an evacuation may be performed but this usually requires consultation with at least one other consultant OB-GYN in my experience. What I think Northam may have been talking about is a fetus delivered and then put on a respirator and then showing no signs of brain stem function. The criteria for declaring infants brain dead is complicated and where I work requires 3 consultant pediatricians to sign off on before the diagnosis is made. Only then can a conversation be had with the parents about removing life-preserving measures. So clearly I think Shapiro et. al are taking the Governor's words out of context.
If the foetus is found to be non-viable (i.e. dead) then an evacuation may be performed but this usually requires consultation with at least one other consultant OB-GYN in my experience. What I think Northam may have been talking about is a fetus delivered and then put on a respirator and then showing no signs of brain stem function. The criteria for declaring infants brain dead is complicated and where I work requires 3 consultant pediatricians to sign off on before the diagnosis is made. Only then can a conversation be had with the parents about removing life-preserving measures. So clearly I think Shapiro et. al are taking the Governor's words out of context.
Had an interview with German newspaper "Die Zeit" published today.
Let me just translate my favourite part:
So apart from the fact that the bloke talks like the random pub goer but with a degree, all I take from him is that "what goes wrong for young men" is their inability to give birth which makes them unattractive.
Great.
Amazing.
Let me just translate my favourite part:
So apart from the fact that the bloke talks like the random pub goer but with a degree, all I take from him is that "what goes wrong for young men" is their inability to give birth which makes them unattractive.
Great.
Amazing.
so stupid 
Its absolutely astounding how much drivel that guy speaks when you listen to what he's saying. Usually he hides it a bit better behind long words.
Actually, forget about that, this is my favourite part:
Peterson explains why men are order and women are chaos:
feck my life. This dude actually qualifies as an intellectual.
Answer from the Zeit interviewer:
"I take it, one has to read the 600 pages of your book to actually understand that one."
Peterson explains why men are order and women are chaos:
feck my life. This dude actually qualifies as an intellectual.
Answer from the Zeit interviewer:
"I take it, one has to read the 600 pages of your book to actually understand that one."
Peterson is like that crazy idea you wake up with in the hazy twilight, and which you dismiss by the time you've stepped out of bed. Only this time you don't dismiss it but instead go around telling every person you meet during the day about it, and then look on aghast when people query your penguin-spacesuits with racist embroidery innovation.
That’s weird, I thought he was all about meaningful, open discourse. The best idea winning the day, etc.
Such an odious toad.
What do people here think of Andrew Yang? Seems to also talk a lot of sense and has, imo, good plans to tackle unprecedented challenges in the coming future.
His birthday is a day after mine
Nothing if he is chatting to Joe Rogan
What's wrong with Joe? I like him. And to be fair, it's hard to say no to getting paid to talk about your ideas for the president on a pretty popular platform that reaches people across the political spectrum.
I just can't trust Joe he seems to be trying to hard to hide he is really right wing .
I've read about Yang and would like him somewhere else other than on rogan
He has a fairly diverse group on his show....from Roger Penrose to Tulsi Gabbard to Jordan Peterson to Steven Rinella.
I think he's just his own thing. We really gotta stop grouping people in either left or right. You can refer to my original post, which is Yang speaking in Iowa. No Joe Rogan in sight.
Rogan isn't right wing. He's just gone all the way down the anti-SJW rabbit hole which has led to him platforming a lot of trash. How own views are pretty liberal, socially at least.
How is he right wing?
He’s intelligent enough to realise there is no right or left wing.
There are issues. We have opinions about them.
He could be painted as far left just as easily as right wing.
His views on drugs are pretty far left.
Cause he provides a platform for right wing lunatics.
There is no link between those two statements.
And more often than not agrees with them . It's not just me a lot of people feel the same .
Also this this I'm a libertarian is often an excuse to deny you are a Republican.
That's my problem with him really he clearly comes off as right wing but denies it hiding behind the libertertarian banner .
I can see how he may irk someone on the left by allowing people like Peterson to come on his show but when you look at his over all guest list, it represents a pretty broad spectrum of people, most of which are people outside politics - ranging from UFC fighters to Neuroscientists to comedians to health experts to basically any number of other people.
I used to think the same but having watched more of his stuff I've noticed he tends to agree with whoever his guest is, even if their point of view is at odds with something he agreed with previously.
I think he's a moron but not quite as right wing as one might think based solely on his podcasts with right wing personalities.
I often get the feeling Rogan is more right wing than he lets on. Maybe thats just my own left wing bias at play though? Actually now that I think of it that is probably more likely.
Rogan is high for about 95% of his podcasts. It's a conversation rather than an interview - He's not there to grill or debate his guests. Most of those conversations with Peterson, Shapiro, Harris etc. tend to just be the same anti-SJW garbage but he has actually pushed back on Crowder regarding drugs, Candace Owens' regarding climate change and Dave Rubin on his general idiocy. I've listened to Rogan for years and in no way would I describe his views as conservative - certainly not by American standards. He's a centrist or a liberal but very much anti-censorship or political correctness which is pretty natural for comedians.
When he has left wing guests like Tusli Gabbard, Kyle Kulinski, Abby Martin etc. he doesn't push back either and agrees with their points. It's just his style.
Last edited:
Its moreso left wing bias imo. If you told an actual right winger that Rogan was right wing they would probably have a good laugh.
Joe Rogan's the poster child for the dangers of HGH and weed. A smart and funny guy who's gone off the deep end.
Dangerously into his conspiracy theories and too often gives a platform to those that should be ignored. Masks it all behind an "open mind/inquisitive nature" facade. Gives the game away in the odd interview when he starts agreeing with certifiable loons.
Massive head these days too. Down to the PEDs I guess.
He's generally agreeable with most of his guests.
Yeah fair enough. I haven't listened to much of him but he seems fairly inquisitive and genuine. The quality of his podcast/segment varies widely with the quality of guest he has on.
That’s ok. It’s a Sunday morning where I am. If you think that bald twat doesn’t engage in such rhetoric or have guests who do. Then good for you.
I think you’re right about agreeing with whoever is on. I think he wants to keep conversation flowing so is agreeable with whomever he talks to. The only fight I’ve seen him have with a guest was with that twunt Steven crowder.
I do think he gets easily swayed by the BS of people like Shapiro, Peterson etc though
This is a good way of putting it. His focus is having a good show to listen to, not some ideological crusade
The dangers of weed
I think he has a good show and reading a post like this doesn’t convince me otherwise a whole lot.Glad to know others get it with him
And he provides a platform for left wingers too. Quit spewing disinformation.
The dangers of weed
I specifically said HGH & weed but yeah, there are dangers with weed alone if you do too much of it. Just like every other drug.
Personally I find the guy comes across as a paranoid cuckoo but if you like the show then good for you. I'm not trying to convince you of anything and like I said, he is pretty funny.
He kind of reminds me of Will Absolute from on here. Smart and stupid all at the same time.
I don’t know who Will Absolute is but I think Joe has actually ditched some of his more out there conspiracy theories. Eddie Bravo is the real conspiracy theorist and Joe laughs at him
Unless you’re referring to asphyxiation then there are no such dangers of weed alone. But you referring to both at the same time so...
I don’t know how you can compare with Will Ansolute. One guy is an open minded one who is agreeable with a lot of his guests for the sake of good conversation, but has some questionable views. The other is bitter asshole who never seemed to be agreeable.
Joe has become significantly less conspiracy minded with time so that sort of blows your weed theory. The podcast was actually better back then too, more laid back.