What else can he say, though? "It's all going swimmingly" fails the "grip on reality" test. "We've got a few decades of sewage to swim through first, like in the Shawshank Redemption on a loop" fails the electability test. "The thing believed in was a mistake and I'm sorry"... He'd have to be insanely brave to say that.
People with more knowledge of this than me- has any top politician said "I was wrong" and got away with it?
On the other hand, David Davis is pretty free to speak his own mind these days.
I’m not sure what he means by a “Remainer’s Brexit” - and I’m certainly not going to watch the full interview - but his advice to “come back in a year’s time” is not completely batshit.
Ture, he's not tied to the government. But he still wants to be taken seriously, and "that thing I wanted for so long, and worked so hard to achiveve, is turning into a pile of poo for the country" doesn't help with that.
There's a reason that physicists say that bad ideas die out one professor at a time. (And, frankly, we physicists are better at the whole "when the facts change, I change my mind" thing than most. There have to be some perks in having no social skills.)
What else can he say, though? "It's all going swimmingly" fails the "grip on reality" test. "We've got a few decades of sewage to swim through first, like in the Shawshank Redemption on a loop" fails the electability test. "The thing believed in was a mistake and I'm sorry"... He'd have to be insanely brave to say that.
People with more knowledge of this than me- has any top politician said "I was wrong" and got away with it?
On the other hand, David Davis is pretty free to speak his own mind these days.
I’m not sure what he means by a “Remainer’s Brexit” - and I’m certainly not going to watch the full interview - but his advice to “come back in a year’s time” is not completely batshit.
If this is the remainer’s Brexit, perhaps we could switch to a leaver’s Brexit that involves membership of the single market.
The Leavers Brexit more likely consists of bricking up the channel tunnel and laying razor wire on the coast of Kent whilst the RAF strafes refugee boats.
Macron's party is not committing to support NUPES vs FN where that's the remaining choice - they will only decide "from case to case".
Which could be pivotal as to which of the 2 becomes the main opposition, Melenchon's block or FN assuming Macron's Party beats Melenchon or Le Pen's Party where that is the choice with centre right votes and if most of the centre right votes go to FN in a NUPES v FN runoff
What else can he say, though? "It's all going swimmingly" fails the "grip on reality" test. "We've got a few decades of sewage to swim through first, like in the Shawshank Redemption on a loop" fails the electability test. "The thing believed in was a mistake and I'm sorry"... He'd have to be insanely brave to say that.
People with more knowledge of this than me- has any top politician said "I was wrong" and got away with it?
On the other hand, David Davis is pretty free to speak his own mind these days.
I’m not sure what he means by a “Remainer’s Brexit” - and I’m certainly not going to watch the full interview - but his advice to “come back in a year’s time” is not completely batshit.
If this is the remainer’s Brexit, perhaps we could switch to a leaver’s Brexit that involves membership of the single market.
The Leavers Brexit more likely consists of bricking up the channel tunnel and laying razor wire on the coast of Kent whilst the RAF strafes refugee boats.
This is what I imagine a HYUFD wet dream looks like. Followed by a declaration of war on Scotland.
Macron's party is not committing to support NUPES vs FN where that's the remaining choice - they will only decide "from case to case".
Which could be pivotal as to which of the 2 becomes the main opposition, Melenchon's block or FN assuming Macron's Party beats Melenchon or Le Pen's Party where that is the choice with centre right votes and if most of the centre right votes go to FN in a NUPES v FN runoff
Absolutely no prospect.of FN becoming the opposition. They'll likely come fourth behind the mainstream Right.
What else can he say, though? "It's all going swimmingly" fails the "grip on reality" test. "We've got a few decades of sewage to swim through first, like in the Shawshank Redemption on a loop" fails the electability test. "The thing believed in was a mistake and I'm sorry"... He'd have to be insanely brave to say that.
People with more knowledge of this than me- has any top politician said "I was wrong" and got away with it?
On the other hand, David Davis is pretty free to speak his own mind these days.
I’m not sure what he means by a “Remainer’s Brexit” - and I’m certainly not going to watch the full interview - but his advice to “come back in a year’s time” is not completely batshit.
If this is the remainer’s Brexit, perhaps we could switch to a leaver’s Brexit that involves membership of the single market.
The Leavers Brexit more likely consists of bricking up the channel tunnel and laying razor wire on the coast of Kent whilst the RAF strafes refugee boats.
This is what I imagine a HYUFD wet dream looks like. Followed by a declaration of war on Scotland.
I think that may involve the razor wire being extended around the true blue counties and mass deportations of non-blue voters to the badlands north of Oxfordshire ...
What else can he say, though? "It's all going swimmingly" fails the "grip on reality" test. "We've got a few decades of sewage to swim through first, like in the Shawshank Redemption on a loop" fails the electability test. "The thing believed in was a mistake and I'm sorry"... He'd have to be insanely brave to say that.
People with more knowledge of this than me- has any top politician said "I was wrong" and got away with it?
On the other hand, David Davis is pretty free to speak his own mind these days.
I’m not sure what he means by a “Remainer’s Brexit” - and I’m certainly not going to watch the full interview - but his advice to “come back in a year’s time” is not completely batshit.
If this is the remainer’s Brexit, perhaps we could switch to a leaver’s Brexit that involves membership of the single market.
The Leavers Brexit more likely consists of bricking up the channel tunnel and laying razor wire on the coast of Kent whilst the RAF strafes refugee boats.
This is what I imagine a HYUFD wet dream looks like. Followed by a declaration of war on Scotland.
I think that may involve the razor wire being extended around the true blue counties and mass deportations of non-blue voters to the badlands north of Oxfordshire ...
I think it's the other war round now - razor wire around the Red Wall to keep the lefty liberal southerners out.
Foreseeable problems with Monday's NI legislation: big Tory split, blocked by Lords, EU retaliation (inc on science cooperation), tension with Washington, DUP doesn't come back to Stormont, questions about legality, some NI trade groups don't want it... https://www.ft.com/content/2286f0f5-4f6e-4cf9-91e5-2ea2d6e782ee
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.
One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.
As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.
In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.
(Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it. No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained. And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours, but if we are talking about intelligence as awareness (in the unaware sense a paperback book is highly intelligent) then in one respect it has to resemble human awareness: 'That there is something that it is like to have it'. There is nothing that it is like to be a book. But (h/t Thomas Nagel) there is something that it is like to be a bat. Or a cat. When machines have that they will be AI in that profound sense. (FWIW I guess they never will, but who knows?
My own view is that AI will never attain consciousness. Because it isn't a feature of a neural network. It is something else outwith the collection of atoms which make up a brain.
No it is not. Entities which have no characteristics at all other than the power to explain a thing have an absolutely terrible track record. See under phlogiston and universal aether. Why does a brain have to be anything over and above a neural network made of meat?
Wasn't saying it was. But consciousness has proved to be so impossible to even define with any agreement, let alone isolate, that we must be missing something. Maybe AI will give us a clue as to what that might be, as Malmesbury implies.
But how interesting is that? There's stacks of disagreement about what all these mental concepts mean. Love and truth and courage and stuff. And indeed about the meaning of meaning. You are merely stipulating that neural networks can't be conscious, so there. Conversely I think there's half a cubic foot of meat in my head which is conscious, and meat is just the stuff steaks are made of, so it can't be that hard
The thing you have just said can't be that hard just happens to be called 'The Hard Problem' by philosophy and neuro-science. This is because (a) no-one knows the answer (b) no-one knows by what methodology it might be approached and (c) no-one can give an example (even if wrong) of what an answer might conceivably look like.
Apart from that it is, as you say, not hard.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that when AI meets @HYUFD will be an.... interesting moment?
What else can he say, though? "It's all going swimmingly" fails the "grip on reality" test. "We've got a few decades of sewage to swim through first, like in the Shawshank Redemption on a loop" fails the electability test. "The thing believed in was a mistake and I'm sorry"... He'd have to be insanely brave to say that.
People with more knowledge of this than me- has any top politician said "I was wrong" and got away with it?
On the other hand, David Davis is pretty free to speak his own mind these days.
I’m not sure what he means by a “Remainer’s Brexit” - and I’m certainly not going to watch the full interview - but his advice to “come back in a year’s time” is not completely batshit.
If this is the remainer’s Brexit, perhaps we could switch to a leaver’s Brexit that involves membership of the single market.
The Leavers Brexit more likely consists of bricking up the channel tunnel and laying razor wire on the coast of Kent whilst the RAF strafes refugee boats.
This is what I imagine a HYUFD wet dream looks like. Followed by a declaration of war on Scotland.
I think that may involve the razor wire being extended around the true blue counties and mass deportations of non-blue voters to the badlands north of Oxfordshire ...
I think it's the other war round now - razor wire around the Red Wall to keep the lefty liberal southerners out.
Macron's party is not committing to support NUPES vs FN where that's the remaining choice - they will only decide "from case to case".
Which could be pivotal as to which of the 2 becomes the main opposition, Melenchon's block or FN assuming Macron's Party beats Melenchon or Le Pen's Party where that is the choice with centre right votes and if most of the centre right votes go to FN in a NUPES v FN runoff
Absolutely no prospect.of FN becoming the opposition. They'll likely come fourth behind the mainstream Right.
Assuming all Macron voters vote for FN over Melenchon's block, which is not a given and taking account of the fact the centre right voters will likely vote for FN over Melenchon's block even if they also vote for Macron's Party over FN and Melenchon's block.
FN are now ahead in 67 more seats than the mainstream right in the first round
What else can he say, though? "It's all going swimmingly" fails the "grip on reality" test. "We've got a few decades of sewage to swim through first, like in the Shawshank Redemption on a loop" fails the electability test. "The thing believed in was a mistake and I'm sorry"... He'd have to be insanely brave to say that.
People with more knowledge of this than me- has any top politician said "I was wrong" and got away with it?
On the other hand, David Davis is pretty free to speak his own mind these days.
I’m not sure what he means by a “Remainer’s Brexit” - and I’m certainly not going to watch the full interview - but his advice to “come back in a year’s time” is not completely batshit.
If this is the remainer’s Brexit, perhaps we could switch to a leaver’s Brexit that involves membership of the single market.
The Leavers Brexit more likely consists of bricking up the channel tunnel and laying razor wire on the coast of Kent whilst the RAF strafes refugee boats.
This is what I imagine a HYUFD wet dream looks like. Followed by a declaration of war on Scotland.
I think that may involve the razor wire being extended around the true blue counties and mass deportations of non-blue voters to the badlands north of Oxfordshire ...
No, they would all be deported to Scotland, we don't want them in the redwall, which as most Labour and LD voters in the Home Counties are also Unionists would kill 2 birds with 1 stone
Macron's party is not committing to support NUPES vs FN where that's the remaining choice - they will only decide "from case to case".
Which could be pivotal as to which of the 2 becomes the main opposition, Melenchon's block or FN assuming Macron's Party beats Melenchon or Le Pen's Party where that is the choice with centre right votes and if most of the centre right votes go to FN in a NUPES v FN runoff
Absolutely no prospect.of FN becoming the opposition. They'll likely come fourth behind the mainstream Right.
Assuming all Macron voters vote for FN over Melenchon's block, which is not a given and taking account of the fact the centre right voters will likely vote for FN over Melenchon's block even if they also vote for Macron's Party over FN and Melenchon's block.
FN are now ahead in 67 more seats than the mainstream right in the first round
Looks like Marine Le Pen isn't elected in the 1st round. She's on 53.96% of the vote in Pas-de-Calais 11e, but turnout was only 42.60% so that's less than the 25% of the electorate you need to be exempt from the runoff.
What else can he say, though? "It's all going swimmingly" fails the "grip on reality" test. "We've got a few decades of sewage to swim through first, like in the Shawshank Redemption on a loop" fails the electability test. "The thing believed in was a mistake and I'm sorry"... He'd have to be insanely brave to say that.
People with more knowledge of this than me- has any top politician said "I was wrong" and got away with it?
On the other hand, David Davis is pretty free to speak his own mind these days.
I’m not sure what he means by a “Remainer’s Brexit” - and I’m certainly not going to watch the full interview - but his advice to “come back in a year’s time” is not completely batshit.
If this is the remainer’s Brexit, perhaps we could switch to a leaver’s Brexit that involves membership of the single market.
The Leavers Brexit more likely consists of bricking up the channel tunnel and laying razor wire on the coast of Kent whilst the RAF strafes refugee boats.
This is what I imagine a HYUFD wet dream looks like. Followed by a declaration of war on Scotland.
I think that may involve the razor wire being extended around the true blue counties and mass deportations of non-blue voters to the badlands north of Oxfordshire ...
No, they would all be deported to Scotland, we don't want them in the redwall, which as most Labour and LD voters in the Home Counties are also Unionists would kill 2 birds with 1 stone
And tanks? Can we expect tanks? Or least tactical nukes?
What else can he say, though? "It's all going swimmingly" fails the "grip on reality" test. "We've got a few decades of sewage to swim through first, like in the Shawshank Redemption on a loop" fails the electability test. "The thing believed in was a mistake and I'm sorry"... He'd have to be insanely brave to say that.
People with more knowledge of this than me- has any top politician said "I was wrong" and got away with it?
On the other hand, David Davis is pretty free to speak his own mind these days.
I’m not sure what he means by a “Remainer’s Brexit” - and I’m certainly not going to watch the full interview - but his advice to “come back in a year’s time” is not completely batshit.
If this is the remainer’s Brexit, perhaps we could switch to a leaver’s Brexit that involves membership of the single market.
The Leavers Brexit more likely consists of bricking up the channel tunnel and laying razor wire on the coast of Kent whilst the RAF strafes refugee boats.
This is what I imagine a HYUFD wet dream looks like. Followed by a declaration of war on Scotland.
I think that may involve the razor wire being extended around the true blue counties and mass deportations of non-blue voters to the badlands north of Oxfordshire ...
I think it's the other war round now - razor wire around the Red Wall to keep the lefty liberal southerners out.
What else can he say, though? "It's all going swimmingly" fails the "grip on reality" test. "We've got a few decades of sewage to swim through first, like in the Shawshank Redemption on a loop" fails the electability test. "The thing believed in was a mistake and I'm sorry"... He'd have to be insanely brave to say that.
People with more knowledge of this than me- has any top politician said "I was wrong" and got away with it?
On the other hand, David Davis is pretty free to speak his own mind these days.
I’m not sure what he means by a “Remainer’s Brexit” - and I’m certainly not going to watch the full interview - but his advice to “come back in a year’s time” is not completely batshit.
If this is the remainer’s Brexit, perhaps we could switch to a leaver’s Brexit that involves membership of the single market.
The Leavers Brexit more likely consists of bricking up the channel tunnel and laying razor wire on the coast of Kent whilst the RAF strafes refugee boats.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
No, it's not. The whole point is that the C of E is an Erastian, heretical institution subordinated to the state. The Piskies are not.
It is undeniable that the Piskies are part of the Anglican communion today. The church upon which Charles sought to impose the prayer book of 1637 - which was somewhat more 'high church' than the English form- was episcopal, not Roman Catholic and therefore 'Anglican' is a reasonable description of it.
As to spot the heretic today, each to his or her own. The Piskies marry gays and have dropped the Filioque clause in the creed. Neither of these steps command much backing in the western church generally. (Heresy hunting is not a good idea).
'Anglican' is not a reasonable description, as they were and are in different countries altogether. Episcopalian, yes, but under the KIng of Scotland or ENgland as appropriate [edit]. The Piskies and the C of E were never merged.
Anglican IS a reasonable description as it includes all churches within the Anglican communion, far more than just the C of E
But you are using it to claim a spurious identity that never existed before the vague umbrella of the more recent Anglican communion. In contrast, Barbados was far more firmly part of the British empire.
ISTM that the main point is what the Scottish Episcopal Church describes itself as, which has been discussed.
I'm not even sure where this stuff about "never merged never the Church of England" comes from, or why it is relevant.
The Anglican Communion is a community of churches, not a church itself. What it means is found on its website.
Quite, but it does n ot follow that the churches themselves are Anglican per se. Anglican, where a chuirch is concerned, is true only of the C of E, in the same way that the British, or more correctly UK, state is the only 'British' member of the British Commonwealth.
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.
One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.
As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.
In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.
(Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it. No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained. And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours, but if we are talking about intelligence as awareness (in the unaware sense a paperback book is highly intelligent) then in one respect it has to resemble human awareness: 'That there is something that it is like to have it'. There is nothing that it is like to be a book. But (h/t Thomas Nagel) there is something that it is like to be a bat. Or a cat. When machines have that they will be AI in that profound sense. (FWIW I guess they never will, but who knows?
My own view is that AI will never attain consciousness. Because it isn't a feature of a neural network. It is something else outwith the collection of atoms which make up a brain.
No it is not. Entities which have no characteristics at all other than the power to explain a thing have an absolutely terrible track record. See under phlogiston and universal aether. Why does a brain have to be anything over and above a neural network made of meat?
Wasn't saying it was. But consciousness has proved to be so impossible to even define with any agreement, let alone isolate, that we must be missing something. Maybe AI will give us a clue as to what that might be, as Malmesbury implies.
But how interesting is that? There's stacks of disagreement about what all these mental concepts mean. Love and truth and courage and stuff. And indeed about the meaning of meaning. You are merely stipulating that neural networks can't be conscious, so there. Conversely I think there's half a cubic foot of meat in my head which is conscious, and meat is just the stuff steaks are made of, so it can't be that hard
The thing you have just said can't be that hard just happens to be called 'The Hard Problem' by philosophy and neuro-science. This is because (a) no-one knows the answer (b) no-one knows by what methodology it might be approached and (c) no-one can give an example (even if wrong) of what an answer might conceivably look like.
Apart from that it is, as you say, not hard.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that when AI meets @HYUFD will be an.... interesting moment?
A dangerous moment for humanity.
I dunno, @Leon falling in love with an alien is probably more dangerous.
Been a lovely discussion.this evening. A live election and a number of other somewhat esoteric topics of minority interest, but completely free of any abuse or trolling. I've enjoyed it. Gracias amigues.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
No, it's not. The whole point is that the C of E is an Erastian, heretical institution subordinated to the state. The Piskies are not.
It is undeniable that the Piskies are part of the Anglican communion today. The church upon which Charles sought to impose the prayer book of 1637 - which was somewhat more 'high church' than the English form- was episcopal, not Roman Catholic and therefore 'Anglican' is a reasonable description of it.
As to spot the heretic today, each to his or her own. The Piskies marry gays and have dropped the Filioque clause in the creed. Neither of these steps command much backing in the western church generally. (Heresy hunting is not a good idea).
'Anglican' is not a reasonable description, as they were and are in different countries altogether. Episcopalian, yes, but under the KIng of Scotland or ENgland as appropriate [edit]. The Piskies and the C of E were never merged.
Anglican IS a reasonable description as it includes all churches within the Anglican communion, far more than just the C of E
But you are using it to claim a spurious identity that never existed before the vague umbrella of the more recent Anglican communion. In contrast, Barbados was far more firmly part of the British empire.
ISTM that the main point is what the Scottish Episcopal Church describes itself as, which has been discussed.
I'm not even sure where this stuff about "never merged never the Church of England" comes from, or why it is relevant.
The Anglican Communion is a community of churches, not a church itself. What it means is found on its website.
Quite, but it does n ot follow that the churches themselves are Anglican per se. Anglican, where a chuirch is concerned, is true only of the C of E, in the same way that the British, or more correctly UK, state is the only 'British' member of the British Commonwealth.
Yes it does, as all churches in the Anglican communion hold forth to Anglican doctrine based on the BCP.
The Church of England is a uniquely English church in that it is uniquely an established Anglican church but it is still as Anglican as any other church in the Anglican communion.
That is different to the UK which does not share all its core laws or doctrines with any other Commonwealth nations now, even those where the monarch is still head of State
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
No, it's not. The whole point is that the C of E is an Erastian, heretical institution subordinated to the state. The Piskies are not.
It is undeniable that the Piskies are part of the Anglican communion today. The church upon which Charles sought to impose the prayer book of 1637 - which was somewhat more 'high church' than the English form- was episcopal, not Roman Catholic and therefore 'Anglican' is a reasonable description of it.
As to spot the heretic today, each to his or her own. The Piskies marry gays and have dropped the Filioque clause in the creed. Neither of these steps command much backing in the western church generally. (Heresy hunting is not a good idea).
'Anglican' is not a reasonable description, as they were and are in different countries altogether. Episcopalian, yes, but under the KIng of Scotland or ENgland as appropriate [edit]. The Piskies and the C of E were never merged.
Anglican IS a reasonable description as it includes all churches within the Anglican communion, far more than just the C of E
But you are using it to claim a spurious identity that never existed before the vague umbrella of the more recent Anglican communion. In contrast, Barbados was far more firmly part of the British empire.
ISTM that the main point is what the Scottish Episcopal Church describes itself as, which has been discussed.
I'm not even sure where this stuff about "never merged never the Church of England" comes from, or why it is relevant.
The Anglican Communion is a community of churches, not a church itself. What it means is found on its website.
Quite, but it does n ot follow that the churches themselves are Anglican per se. Anglican, where a chuirch is concerned, is true only of the C of E, in the same way that the British, or more correctly UK, state is the only 'British' member of the British Commonwealth.
Yes it does, as all churches in the Anglican communion hold forth to Anglican doctrine based on the BCP.
The Church of England is a uniquely English church in that it is uniquely an established Anglican church but it is still as Anglican as any other church in the Anglican communion.
That is different to the UK which does not share all its core laws or doctrines with any other Commonwealth nations now, even those where the monarch is still head of State
And to confuse things even more there's churches like the Anglican Church in North America that call themselves Anglican but aren't members of the Anglican Communion.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
No, it's not. The whole point is that the C of E is an Erastian, heretical institution subordinated to the state. The Piskies are not.
It is undeniable that the Piskies are part of the Anglican communion today. The church upon which Charles sought to impose the prayer book of 1637 - which was somewhat more 'high church' than the English form- was episcopal, not Roman Catholic and therefore 'Anglican' is a reasonable description of it.
As to spot the heretic today, each to his or her own. The Piskies marry gays and have dropped the Filioque clause in the creed. Neither of these steps command much backing in the western church generally. (Heresy hunting is not a good idea).
'Anglican' is not a reasonable description, as they were and are in different countries altogether. Episcopalian, yes, but under the KIng of Scotland or ENgland as appropriate [edit]. The Piskies and the C of E were never merged.
Anglican IS a reasonable description as it includes all churches within the Anglican communion, far more than just the C of E
But you are using it to claim a spurious identity that never existed before the vague umbrella of the more recent Anglican communion. In contrast, Barbados was far more firmly part of the British empire.
ISTM that the main point is what the Scottish Episcopal Church describes itself as, which has been discussed.
I'm not even sure where this stuff about "never merged never the Church of England" comes from, or why it is relevant.
The Anglican Communion is a community of churches, not a church itself. What it means is found on its website.
Quite, but it does n ot follow that the churches themselves are Anglican per se. Anglican, where a chuirch is concerned, is true only of the C of E, in the same way that the British, or more correctly UK, state is the only 'British' member of the British Commonwealth.
Yes it does, as all churches in the Anglican communion hold forth to Anglican doctrine based on the BCP.
The Church of England is a uniquely English church in that it is uniquely an established Anglican church but it is still as Anglican as any other church in the Anglican communion.
That is different to the UK which does not share all its core laws or doctrines with any other Commonwealth nations now, even those where the monarch is still head of State
And to confuse things even more there's churches like the Anglican Church in North America that call themselves Anglican but aren't members of the Anglican Communion.
It is still Anglican in doctrine and based around the BCP, it just does not agree with women priests which is the policy of the wider Anglican communion now or gay marriage which is now practiced by the Anglican Episcopal Church in the US.
NEW: leaked section of Northern Ireland #Brexit bill that I've seen hand ministers massive powers to 'switch off' the Protocol...only 3 articles of the NI Protocol are specifically protected.
The question: "Do you have experience of buying solely in imperial units?" is poorly written but can surely only mean "can you remember when we only used imperial measures?".
Any other interpretation is nonsense.
Ha yes you are right, and it’s a terribly worded question.
Or it could mean illegal drugs, which are sold purely in Imperial units.
You never bought a gram?
No I certainly have not.
Coke comes in grams. Weed and hash imperial. Interestingly. Last time I was in Holland the standard measure was 3.5 grams. Which is an Imperial eighth of an ounce. Rather like our 454 grams of mince. But in reverse.
All results in for today's French National Assembly elections.
Ensemble 203 1st places, 217 also qualifying for run-off NUPES 194+196 RN 110+98 LR-UDI 42+33 various left 9+12 various right 8+5 regionalists 7+7 various far right 2+0 various centre 2+10 various far left 1 in a run-off Reconquest 0+0 (Zemmour got beaten into 3rd place by a National Rally candidate)
Data from Le Monde, would suggest that there's 2 triangular battles in the 2nd round.
"New Rwanda flight farce: Priti Patel faces being banned from sending the first Channel migrants to Africa after a 'deluge' of legal claims for all 31 people due to be deported on Tuesday
Priti Patel could be banned from putting Channel migrants on flight to Rwanda Lawyers tabled claims on behalf of 31 individuals due to be deported tomorrow Home Office sources said there was courts could delay the removal of all 31"
"New Rwanda flight farce: Priti Patel faces being banned from sending the first Channel migrants to Africa after a 'deluge' of legal claims for all 31 people due to be deported on Tuesday
Priti Patel could be banned from putting Channel migrants on flight to Rwanda Lawyers tabled claims on behalf of 31 individuals due to be deported tomorrow Home Office sources said there was courts could delay the removal of all 31"
It doesn't look certain to me that Macron gets a majority or not because it depends on mobilisation of voters in the second round next week, but it looks very likely he can create one with a bunch of centrist independent deputies, or even if necessary the Republicans and UDI - not like he has to suck up to the EU-critical left any longer.
Matchups for the 2nd round, my workings from Le Monde's results, but all errors assuredly mine (it is pretty early).
Already elected from the first round (5) NUPES 4, Ensemble 1
Duels in the second round (564) Ensemble v NUPES 274 Ensemble v RN 108 NUPES v RN 61 NUPES v Les Républicains 27 RN v Les Républicains 26 Ensemble v Les Républicains 19 other duels 57 (no combination more than 4)
Triangulars in the second round (8) Ensemble v NUPES v RN 5 Ensemble v NUPES v Les Républicains 2 Ensemble v NUPES v various left 1 (this one is Lot 2e, the top 3 within 0.5% and the 3rd candidate is a PS member opposed to the NUPES alliance)
Comments
Same old tunes
Great, no way to judge Brexit because we've had enough of experts
There's a reason that physicists say that bad ideas die out one professor at a time. (And, frankly, we physicists are better at the whole "when the facts change, I change my mind" thing than most. There have to be some perks in having no social skills.)
Im surprised he hasn’t turned his attention to covering Zac Goldsmith.
https://www.ft.com/content/2286f0f5-4f6e-4cf9-91e5-2ea2d6e782ee
FN are now ahead in 67 more seats than the mainstream right in the first round
https://www.ilmessaggero.it/politica/elezioni_comunali_2022_referendum_diretta_affluenza_quorum_citta_dove_si_vota-6748689.html
Macron 275-320.
Melenchon 180-210
Mainstream Right 40-60
RN 5-25
Others 14-34.
That's Le Figaro predictions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zInyrDfR4us
I've enjoyed it.
Gracias amigues.
I get a few Liz Truss vibes from that sketch.
The Church of England is a uniquely English church in that it is uniquely an established Anglican church but it is still as Anglican as any other church in the Anglican communion.
That is different to the UK which does not share all its core laws or doctrines with any other Commonwealth nations now, even those where the monarch is still head of State
Has anything been announced yet, or is it postponed again? Or in a real break with tradition, getting announced to Parliament first? 😲
NEW: leaked section of Northern Ireland #Brexit bill that I've seen hand ministers massive powers to 'switch off' the Protocol...only 3 articles of the NI Protocol are specifically protected.
@EricHolthaus
·
5h
For pretty much everyone east of the Rockies, this week is going to be very very very hot.
🔴 Many places will be 10-25 degrees F hotter than normal mid-June high temps.
🔴 Chicago: high 97-100°F (heat index 105-110°F) on Tues/Wed.
We are in a climate emergency.
This will be the most intense heat wave for the Carolinas in at least 10 years.
https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/1536044022661357569
Ensemble 203 1st places, 217 also qualifying for run-off
NUPES 194+196
RN 110+98
LR-UDI 42+33
various left 9+12
various right 8+5
regionalists 7+7
various far right 2+0
various centre 2+10
various far left 1 in a run-off
Reconquest 0+0 (Zemmour got beaten into 3rd place by a National Rally candidate)
Data from Le Monde, would suggest that there's 2 triangular battles in the 2nd round.
Priti Patel could be banned from putting Channel migrants on flight to Rwanda
Lawyers tabled claims on behalf of 31 individuals due to be deported tomorrow
Home Office sources said there was courts could delay the removal of all 31"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10909413/New-Rwanda-flight-farce-Doubts-raised-amid-deluge-court-battles.html#comments
Already elected from the first round (5)
NUPES 4, Ensemble 1
Duels in the second round (564)
Ensemble v NUPES 274
Ensemble v RN 108
NUPES v RN 61
NUPES v Les Républicains 27
RN v Les Républicains 26
Ensemble v Les Républicains 19
other duels 57 (no combination more than 4)
Triangulars in the second round (8)
Ensemble v NUPES v RN 5
Ensemble v NUPES v Les Républicains 2
Ensemble v NUPES v various left 1 (this one is Lot 2e, the top 3 within 0.5% and the 3rd candidate is a PS member opposed to the NUPES alliance)