Okay, so the first thing to recognise is that terminology in left wing theory can be super confusing and the same words can be used to mean different things at different times or in different places, or sometimes in the same place at the same time.
Communism however in modern usage is fairly straightforward as it is used almost exclusively as it is defined in conventional Marxist doctrine(and yes there are many branches of Marxism).
That said big C Communism means a state of being that is achieved as the end point of societal evolution where there is no state, the means of production is controlled by the community and the needs of all are met.
In conventional Marxist thought the way of achieving this is through a transitional stage of socialism where the means of production is controlled by a "Vanguard" state. Many states in history have claimed to be communist in ideology(they are working towards this stateless utopia) but none have claimed to have achieved communism, only to be in the process of transitioning to it.
To all the leftist theory heads out there, don't at me, I know this is a huge oversimplification, it is deliberate for someone who is obviously new to this.
Not the question asked, but relevant: When each individual enterprise considers its own transport needs, road transport is usually cheaper. However, when looking at the collective needs of an entire economy, rail is usually a way more efficient and cost-effective option.
Private rail companies will only invest where there are epic amounts of cargo or passengers to move, which when left to the private sector leads to massive under investment and over-reliance on road transport. There is no coherent argument against having extensive government investment in rail.
I'm not aware of any that are acid, usually they're strong alkaline, NaOH or KOH which is extremely corrosive, but there are some that are enzymatic that are supposed to break down organic material, not very well in my experience.
The Socratic method is used extensively in medical training to the point that I think most doctors wouldn't think of it as the Socratic method but rather just as the way you speak to students and trainees.
I can't imagine how it could work in a lecture hall, it's best used one on one or at most small groups.
Someone told this to workers at a cafe I go to occasionally. They don't usually have a particularly long wait which makes it seem insincere and a little ridiculous.
To be clear it has become popular as a substitute for (or adjunct to) smoking. As a quitting aid it isn't especially effective, even if slightly more effective than NRT.
I must say in my practice I haven't seen anyone quit using vapes, it just becomes a substitute.
Thankyou, I have been relying on an article I read several years ago, which in my memory was Cochrane also, I may be able to track it down. Turns out I'm out of date on that stat.
I stand by it having uncertain long term consequences when other forms of NRT are proven safe.
It's an interesting idea, I honestly don't think there is an easy solution here though. Balancing freedom of speech with controlling false and misleading information is a supremely difficult and as yet unsolved problem.
I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding, I don't feel that you've actually addressed the issue at hand.
Specifically the event where Murdoch papers took payment from the fossil fuel lobby and in return ran front page stories pushing specifically their line that increased natural gas is necessary. This was made technically legal by small print on the next page.
The longstanding convention is that when presented as such a story has been written by a journalist to create the content and not pursue promotion, 'advertorials', while problematic in themselves, have always had a note, often small print, directly adjacent to the story.
The event reported here was deliberate misdirection intended to escape the notice of the reader.
The issue isn't the freedom of the fourth estate, it isn't even advertising or opinion in the press, it is that it should be clear to the reader what is news, what is opinion and what is advertising. There already exist laws that protect this separation. The Murdoch papers have found a loophole and have deliberately exploited it to deliberately mislead their readers. It is difficult to interpret it any other way and it is this specifically which should be made illegal by clarifying existing laws to close this loophole.
I'm sincerely sorry if I sound angry. I was trying to be concise. I am genuinely interested in hearing why you think outlawing this kind of deception would not be appropriate. I am quite certain we would disagree but I am always interested in hearing opposing opinions.
Really, please expand on this, I will try to respond with kindness and understanding despite any disagreement.
This is deliberately misleading. I'm not sure why you think it can't be outlawed, numerous laws exist regarding false and misleading advertising which is exactly what this is.
It is not reasonable to expect even a majority of people to pick up on this kind of deliberate deception.
Making this kind of deliberate deception illegal would not be limiting freedom of speech, opinion pieces and clearly labelled advertising are one thing, a front page story with no indication that it is not news is another.
I have also driven extensively through mainly country WA and elsewhere and briefly worked as a truck driver in the NT, in my experience there is no consistency in understanding of these signals, as pointed out by the article, and I'm sceptical that it is consistently applied by truckies.
I do believe that there is an understanding among experienced truckies and some(a majority???) of other road users that there is a system but it is not universally understood by cara-fucking-van drivers, or apparently school bus drivers either.
As a car driver I have on at least 2 occasions had a truckie indicate it is safe for me to overtake(indicating L-L) in a situation that would have caused an accident. The only time it is safe to overtake is when you as the driver can be satisfied it is safe to do so. Relying on potentially ambiguous signals that are not universally understood is a literal accident waiting to happen.
I have been slightly obsessed with this since being quite outraged at a clear signal to pass being so dangerous and I've raised it with several truckies over the years, I think a small majority of truckies assume it's universally understood but a large minority never indicate to pass as it is dangerous/raises liability concerns. A clearly non random sample and I may have been asking leading questions...
You make a good point that for the truckies safety there is a need to indicate that it is unsafe but if people are misunderstanding this then I don't know what the solution is.
I think the debate on this issue is blown out of proportion.
First, giving a small amount of money to someone in need is a very direct and human act of compassion which makes it worthwhile, if you gift someone money it is their prerogative what they do with it and the idea that it is harmful is blown out of proportion.
Second, giving money to a local charity is also worthwhile, if you don't feel comfortable for whatever reason.
The idea that one approach is good and the other is actively bad is at best a distraction and at worst an excuse to do nothing at all
The fact is that even in Australia, which by world standards has a not bad safety net, it is not possible for most people to get crisis housing and waiting lists for public housing are rarely less than 6 months, welfare payments can be cut off for trivial reasons and public mental health services are overwhelmed. These are the problems that successive governments have refused to tackle.
If you can make someone's day with a small gift then please do.
Okay, so the first thing to recognise is that terminology in left wing theory can be super confusing and the same words can be used to mean different things at different times or in different places, or sometimes in the same place at the same time.
Communism however in modern usage is fairly straightforward as it is used almost exclusively as it is defined in conventional Marxist doctrine(and yes there are many branches of Marxism).
That said big C Communism means a state of being that is achieved as the end point of societal evolution where there is no state, the means of production is controlled by the community and the needs of all are met.
In conventional Marxist thought the way of achieving this is through a transitional stage of socialism where the means of production is controlled by a "Vanguard" state. Many states in history have claimed to be communist in ideology(they are working towards this stateless utopia) but none have claimed to have achieved communism, only to be in the process of transitioning to it.
To all the leftist theory heads out there, don't at me, I know this is a huge oversimplification, it is deliberate for someone who is obviously new to this.