Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
Not much irrigation round our ways, but a week of 40C+ is not at all unheard of, without a big impact on environment nor agriculture (but we do have AC). But I guess it depends where crops are in the growing cycle - and how long it stays about above 30C - as to how much crop damage is done (assuming all crops in the UK are C3 plants).
Are you talking temperatures in the sun?
Nope. Air temps.
Currently modelled 8 days away... It will be a hot spell. I think 35 is likely somewhere. 40 deg plus - not a chance. It’s summer. This is what happens.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
I've experienced that level of heat in Egypt and it was ok because the humidity was zero. 45C plus humidity would knock me sideways
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
I've experienced that level of heat in Egypt and it was ok because the humidity was zero. 45C plus humidity would knock me sideways
The worst I’ve had was 42 degrees in northern India. It sucked all the energy out of you as soon as you tried to get up and do anything. Had to change sleeping habits to avoid the worst of it.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
Nevertheless the polite thing nowadays is to keep your delusions to yourself.
Not if you are evangelical it isn't
Yes, it is. They are simply impolite, trying to thrust their nonsense where it isn’t welcome.
Perhaps I could start the non-religion of Evangelical Atheism?
As I bid goodnight, may I just say how much I'm enjoying the (impending) Tory Civil War? Let's hope it lasts at least a couple of years.
If they were in Opposition, I might share your hopes.
But they're not.
For the good of country it needs to be sorted in a fortnight.
To hell with the members in other words.
My hunch is that the fact that the members will make the final choice will be what loses them the next election.
Of the last 3 general election majority winners, Blair, Cameron and Johnson, all 3 were picked by Labour or Tory members.
Tory MPs alone however picked general election losers Hague and Howard and May who lost her majority in 2017. Labour MPs alone meanwhile picked Gordon Brown who lost Labour its majority in 2010
None of which proves anything, all the circumstances were entirely different.
Currently the Tories are behind in all the polls, they face a torrid couple of years economically so if they are going to survive the 2024 GE they are going to need a candidate with wide appeal but the members will go for the candidate that puts their own narrow financial and ideological interests first.
As I bid goodnight, may I just say how much I'm enjoying the (impending) Tory Civil War? Let's hope it lasts at least a couple of years.
If they were in Opposition, I might share your hopes.
But they're not.
For the good of country it needs to be sorted in a fortnight.
To hell with the members in other words.
My hunch is that the fact that the members will make the final choice will be what loses them the next election.
Of the last 3 general election majority winners, Blair, Cameron and Johnson, all 3 were picked by Labour or Tory members.
Tory MPs alone however picked general election losers Hague and Howard and May who lost her majority in 2017. Labour MPs alone meanwhile picked Gordon Brown who lost Labour its majority in 2010
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
You first paragraph is my point really. This will moderate, it almost always does. It’s not about a statistical bias, it’s more that prediction/model at 8;days plus, even using ensembles, is still not that accurate. I think you triggered me a bit by posting the GFS pub run.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
🔥🔥🔥
I'm ignorant about these things, but why does this differ so much from the usual 14-day forecasts, which show temperatures up to 34 max next Sunday (bad enough!)?
Mr Javid reels off the cost of each measure and says he would fund the package from a mixture of the £32 billion fiscal headroom forecast to be available by 2024-25, and an efficiency savings programme that would see 1 per cent cut from all Whitehall spending, including on the NHS.
"Efficiency savings". CALLED IT!
It's their version of 'bankers bonuses' funding everything.
As I bid goodnight, may I just say how much I'm enjoying the (impending) Tory Civil War? Let's hope it lasts at least a couple of years.
If they were in Opposition, I might share your hopes.
But they're not.
For the good of country it needs to be sorted in a fortnight.
To hell with the members in other words.
My hunch is that the fact that the members will make the final choice will be what loses them the next election.
Of the last 3 general election majority winners, Blair, Cameron and Johnson, all 3 were picked by Labour or Tory members.
Tory MPs alone however picked general election losers Hague and Howard and May who lost her majority in 2017. Labour MPs alone meanwhile picked Gordon Brown who lost Labour its majority in 2010
None of which proves anything, all the circumstances were entirely different.
Currently the Tories are behind in all the polls, they face a torrid couple of years economically so if they are going to survive the 2024 GE they are going to need a candidate with wide appeal but the members will go for the candidate that puts their own narrow financial and ideological interests first.
Well if Tory members prefer 2 or 3 years of dry as dust, hard right Conservatism to 6 or 7 years of wet soggy centrism that is their affair.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
I've experienced that level of heat in Egypt and it was ok because the humidity was zero. 45C plus humidity would knock me sideways
45C with humidity is actively dangerous. You can’t lose heat and you die of hyperthermia.
Correct. Always, always keep a gallon of drinking water and a shade in the car. You can be dead really quickly in the sun and humidity.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
Not much irrigation round our ways, but a week of 40C+ is not at all unheard of, without a big impact on environment nor agriculture (but we do have AC). But I guess it depends where crops are in the growing cycle - and how long it stays about above 30C - as to how much crop damage is done (assuming all crops in the UK are C3 plants).
Are you talking temperatures in the sun?
Nope. Air temps.
Currently modelled 8 days away... It will be a hot spell. I think 35 is likely somewhere. 40 deg plus - not a chance. It’s summer. This is what happens.
Its summer [in the 21st century], this is what happens [now].
I hope you’re right about 40C. It’s morbidly fascinating but not something we really want to be experiencing regularly.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
As I bid goodnight, may I just say how much I'm enjoying the (impending) Tory Civil War? Let's hope it lasts at least a couple of years.
If they were in Opposition, I might share your hopes.
But they're not.
For the good of country it needs to be sorted in a fortnight.
To hell with the members in other words.
My hunch is that the fact that the members will make the final choice will be what loses them the next election.
Of the last 3 general election majority winners, Blair, Cameron and Johnson, all 3 were picked by Labour or Tory members.
Tory MPs alone however picked general election losers Hague and Howard and May who lost her majority in 2017. Labour MPs alone meanwhile picked Gordon Brown who lost Labour its majority in 2010
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
I think we've been in the high 20s today here. My mate doing fencing for me certainly noticed.
That's high enough to be very difficult for me since it sends insulin doses haywire (may have to halve the dose compared to normal weather for the same effect, then it's into a hypo and guzzling orange juice if I call it wrongly), so tomorrow I'll be doing my house painting starting at 6am and paperwork in the middle of the day.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
It’s all right for you lot dahn sahf. We are still forecasted to have 16C. No wonder Covid’s so prevalent in the West of Scotland. It’s still too miserable to socialise outdoors.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
Not much irrigation round our ways, but a week of 40C+ is not at all unheard of, without a big impact on environment nor agriculture (but we do have AC). But I guess it depends where crops are in the growing cycle - and how long it stays about above 30C - as to how much crop damage is done (assuming all crops in the UK are C3 plants).
Are you talking temperatures in the sun?
Nope. Air temps.
Currently modelled 8 days away... It will be a hot spell. I think 35 is likely somewhere. 40 deg plus - not a chance. It’s summer. This is what happens.
Its summer [in the 21st century], this is what happens [now].
I hope you’re right about 40C. It’s morbidly fascinating but not something we really want to be experiencing regularly.
I expect to be right about the heat moderating as we get closer. I also think that our recent summers might have yielded hot spells, but have not been great overall.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
Clearly this is the candidates telling the 'selectorate' what they want to hear, which they will then disregard in the name of political expediency. Whoever takes over is just going to be stumbling along, managing decline until a near inevitable defeat in 2024.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
Nevertheless the polite thing nowadays is to keep your delusions to yourself.
Not if you are evangelical it isn't
Yes, it is. They are simply impolite, trying to thrust their nonsense where it isn’t welcome.
They are trying to save you for eternal life with the Lord, try stopping them!
If, as mooted, 20 backers will be required to enter the race, I can easily see only 8 making it onto the first round ballot, which means some already declared and most of the yet to declare will not make the start line.
Of the 8, I rate the chances of getting on the ballot paper as follows:
Certain - Hunt, Sunak Quite likely with block backing - Braverman You'd think they ought, but could be tight - Javid, Zahawi Good chance of failing, but could attract a constituency - Tugendhat Likely to fail, but look out for a long shot chance of an audacious.out-Thatcherimg that puts jet lagged Truss's place in danger - Badenoch Not a cat in hell's chance - Shapps
Should be in, watch out for Badenoch - Truss Longer she waits, the more a shock non start could occur - Mordaumt Probably not - bar
As I bid goodnight, may I just say how much I'm enjoying the (impending) Tory Civil War? Let's hope it lasts at least a couple of years.
If they were in Opposition, I might share your hopes.
But they're not.
For the good of country it needs to be sorted in a fortnight.
To hell with the members in other words.
My hunch is that the fact that the members will make the final choice will be what loses them the next election.
Of the last 3 general election majority winners, Blair, Cameron and Johnson, all 3 were picked by Labour or Tory members.
Tory MPs alone however picked general election losers Hague and Howard and May who lost her majority in 2017. Labour MPs alone meanwhile picked Gordon Brown who lost Labour its majority in 2010
None of which proves anything, all the circumstances were entirely different.
Currently the Tories are behind in all the polls, they face a torrid couple of years economically so if they are going to survive the 2024 GE they are going to need a candidate with wide appeal but the members will go for the candidate that puts their own narrow financial and ideological interests first.
Well if Tory members prefer 2 or 3 years of dry as dust, hard right Conservatism to 6 or 7 years of wet soggy centrism that is their affair.
That would be a fair point if it were not for the fact that members will actually be choosing the Prime Minister of this country for the next 2 years and there is sod all 99.9% of us can do about it.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
You first paragraph is my point really. This will moderate, it almost always does. It’s not about a statistical bias, it’s more that prediction/model at 8;days plus, even using ensembles, is still not that accurate. I think you triggered me a bit by posting the GFS pub run.
Isn’t the pub run the 18z? Which is glitching currently and showing yesterday’s run, annoyingly.
EDIT: which is now working and has 38C on Saturday and 43C on Sunday.
If, as mooted, 20 backers will be required to enter the race, I can easily see only 8 making it onto the first round ballot, which means some already declared and most of the yet to declare will not make the start line.
Of the 8, I rate the chances of getting on the ballot paper as follows:
Certain - Hunt, Sunak Quite likely with block backing - Braverman You'd think they ought, but could be tight - Javid, Zahawi Good chance of failing, but could attract a constituency - Tugendhat Likely to fail, but look out for a long shot chance of an audacious.out-Thatcherimg that puts jet lagged Truss's place in danger - Badenoch Not a cat in hell's chance - Shapps
Should be in, watch out for Badenoch - Truss Longer she waits, the more a shock non start could occur - Mordaumt Probably not - bar
I think Badenoch may prove more popular than Braverman over the next few days.
If, as mooted, 20 backers will be required to enter the race, I can easily see only 8 making it onto the first round ballot, which means some already declared and most of the yet to declare will not make the start line.
Of the 8, I rate the chances of getting on the ballot paper as follows:
Certain - Hunt, Sunak Quite likely with block backing - Braverman You'd think they ought, but could be tight - Javid, Zahawi Good chance of failing, but could attract a constituency - Tugendhat Likely to fail, but look out for a long shot chance of an audacious.out-Thatcherimg that puts jet lagged Truss's place in danger - Badenoch Not a cat in hell's chance - Shapps
Should be in, watch out for Badenoch - Truss Longer she waits, the more a shock non start could occur - Mordaumt Probably not - bar
Don't forget Priti who will announce on Wednesday with a platform of bringing back hanging, putting sharks in the Channel and slashing the tax take so much it could fit in her bathtub!
Are red wall MPs really going to get behind cuts to corporation tax? They are surely a substantial part of the MP electorate.
The redwall is probably mostly lost back to Labour anyway post Boris and now Brexit is done.
Best Tories can hope for is a 1992 or 2015 style scraped majority
The red wall may not be lost if someone actually did some levelling up, stuff like reinstating HS2 to Manchester and Leeds, moving jobs from London northwards, apart from the ones being moved from the Treasury to Rishi’s neighbouring constituency.
Except much of that loses the blue wall too, workers there don't want to move north
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
You first paragraph is my point really. This will moderate, it almost always does. It’s not about a statistical bias, it’s more that prediction/model at 8;days plus, even using ensembles, is still not that accurate. I think you triggered me a bit by posting the GFS pub run.
Isn’t the pub run the 18z? Which is glitching currently and showing yesterday’s run, annoyingly.
Its now coming out and looks slightly earlier and may get even hotter.........
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
Mathew's Gospel, though I sm not sure which translation.
Note though it is angels that do the dirty work, not humN followers.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
You first paragraph is my point really. This will moderate, it almost always does. It’s not about a statistical bias, it’s more that prediction/model at 8;days plus, even using ensembles, is still not that accurate. I think you triggered me a bit by posting the GFS pub run.
Isn’t the pub run the 18z? Which is glitching currently and showing yesterday’s run, annoyingly.
As I bid goodnight, may I just say how much I'm enjoying the (impending) Tory Civil War? Let's hope it lasts at least a couple of years.
If they were in Opposition, I might share your hopes.
But they're not.
For the good of country it needs to be sorted in a fortnight.
To hell with the members in other words.
My hunch is that the fact that the members will make the final choice will be what loses them the next election.
Of the last 3 general election majority winners, Blair, Cameron and Johnson, all 3 were picked by Labour or Tory members.
Tory MPs alone however picked general election losers Hague and Howard and May who lost her majority in 2017. Labour MPs alone meanwhile picked Gordon Brown who lost Labour its majority in 2010
None of which proves anything, all the circumstances were entirely different.
Currently the Tories are behind in all the polls, they face a torrid couple of years economically so if they are going to survive the 2024 GE they are going to need a candidate with wide appeal but the members will go for the candidate that puts their own narrow financial and ideological interests first.
Well if Tory members prefer 2 or 3 years of dry as dust, hard right Conservatism to 6 or 7 years of wet soggy centrism that is their affair.
That would be a fair point if it were not for the fact that members will actually be choosing the Prime Minister of this country for the next 2 years and there is sod all 99.9% of us can do about it.
Well tough, that was the prize Tory members got when the party won a majority of 80 in 2019
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
I've experienced that level of heat in Egypt and it was ok because the humidity was zero. 45C plus humidity would knock me sideways
45C with humidity is actively dangerous. You can’t lose heat and you die of hyperthermia.
We were in Lisbon in 2018 during a heatwave when it was 44C. The breeze, such as it was, was like the blast of hot air you get when you open the oven door. Under 40C is bearable in the shade if you don’t need to be active. Over 40C, not so much.
If, as mooted, 20 backers will be required to enter the race, I can easily see only 8 making it onto the first round ballot, which means some already declared and most of the yet to declare will not make the start line.
Of the 8, I rate the chances of getting on the ballot paper as follows:
Certain - Hunt, Sunak Quite likely with block backing - Braverman You'd think they ought, but could be tight - Javid, Zahawi Good chance of failing, but could attract a constituency - Tugendhat Likely to fail, but look out for a long shot chance of an audacious.out-Thatcherimg that puts jet lagged Truss's place in danger - Badenoch Not a cat in hell's chance - Shapps
Should be in, watch out for Badenoch - Truss Longer she waits, the more a shock non start could occur - Mordaumt Probably not - bar
I don't think Badenoch will have a problem reaching 20 nominations. Grant Shapps may do.
Grant Shapps is likely to be the first to be knocked out of the race IMO.
I would be amazed if all of them are able to get the necessary nominations.
Javid, Zahawi, Shapps and Badenoch seem the most in danger of this IMHO.
Depends how many nominations are needed. I thought it was 8 atm but they may change it.
From memory of the last time, the entry into the contest requires only a first and second nomination. There will be a threshold on the first vote, possibly as high as 15%, that will eliminate all but a handful of candidates, and the MPs will then need to redistribute their votes among the remaining candidates.
Grant Shapps is likely to be the first to be knocked out of the race IMO.
I would be amazed if all of them are able to get the necessary nominations.
Javid, Zahawi, Shapps and Badenoch seem the most in danger of this IMHO.
Depends how many nominations are needed. I thought it was 8 atm but they may change it.
From memory of the last time, the entry into the contest requires only a first and second nomination. There will be a threshold on the first vote, possibly as high as 15%, that will eliminate all but a handful of candidates, and the MPs will then need to redistribute their votes among the remaining candidates.
Last time they needed 8 nominations but only the proposer and seconder were made public
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
“Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions”. Yes.
And I agree with Tubbs, don’t think current record of about 38 will be broken.
By way of qualification I am a farmers daughter. 🚜 Jades Tractor Forecasts for rest of July
As I understand it the problem is short lived and very South East, as the coming weeks high retreats east next weekend, Thames, Humber, German Bight, and a low pushes north to South East across the country, the south east of UK could from the anticyclone (clockwise) older hotter high, pull the Spain France weather onto it. What is then supposed to happen, as cyclone follows away after old high, is a younger so not as hot high builds over us from the southwest, so rest of July should be nice but not much extreme heat. The last weekend 30th 31st wear a bra under t-shirt in case it rains. Hope this helps.
It’s that we have yet to have a forty, which is why even on low confidence models before it’s averages out, it newsworthy.
Grant Shapps is likely to be the first to be knocked out of the race IMO.
I would be amazed if all of them are able to get the necessary nominations.
Javid, Zahawi, Shapps and Badenoch seem the most in danger of this IMHO.
Depends how many nominations are needed. I thought it was 8 atm but they may change it.
Rumour is 20, which would help winnow out the time wasters.
Of course, they could go with a system of only needing 2, an a threshold for the first round as sandpit suggests, but requiring 20 would make the first round less pointless.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
“Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions”. Yes.
And I agree with Tubbs, don’t think current record of about 38 will be broken.
By way of qualification I am a farmers daughter. 🚜 Jades Tractor Forecasts for rest of July
As I understand it the problem is short lived and very South East, as the coming weeks high retreats east next weekend, Thames, Humber, German Bight, and a low pushes north to South East across the country, the south east of UK could from the anticyclone (clockwise) older hotter high, pull the Spain France weather onto it. What is then supposed to happen, as cyclone follows away after old high, is a younger so not as hot high builds over us from the southwest, so rest of July should be nice but not much extreme heat. The last weekend 30th 31st wear a bra under t-shirt in case it rains. Hope this helps.
It’s that we have yet to have a forty, which is why even on low confidence models before it’s averages out, it newsworthy.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
“Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions”. Yes.
And I agree with Tubbs, don’t think current record of about 38 will be broken.
By way of qualification I am a farmers daughter. 🚜 Jades Tractor Forecasts for rest of July
As I understand it the problem is short lived and very South East, as the coming weeks high retreats east next weekend, Thames, Humber, German Bight, and a low pushes north to South East across the country, the south east of UK could from the anticyclone (clockwise) older hotter high, pull the Spain France weather onto it. What is then supposed to happen, as cyclone follows away after old high, is a younger so not as hot high builds over us from the southwest, so rest of July should be nice but not much extreme heat. The last weekend 30th 31st wear a bra under t-shirt in case it rains. Hope this helps.
It’s that we have yet to have a forty, which is why even on low confidence models before it’s averages out, it newsworthy.
In your experience, do many farmers wear a bra under their t-shirt?
Grant Shapps is likely to be the first to be knocked out of the race IMO.
I would be amazed if all of them are able to get the necessary nominations.
Javid, Zahawi, Shapps and Badenoch seem the most in danger of this IMHO.
We don't know the threshold yet. But Shapps and Javid are certainly struggling already
Tugendhat seems to be losing momentum with only 1 new backer today
We have no real way of telling. There will be a lot of people who will only declare privately. And some who do that to multiple candidates....
If, as looks possible, we get nominations closing on Wednesday, it is going to be a frenzied couple of days
True but public backers help drive momentum. The fact that Javid only has 3 public backers is not going to help when a lot of other candidates are running on similar platforms.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
“Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions”. Yes.
And I agree with Tubbs, don’t think current record of about 38 will be broken.
By way of qualification I am a farmers daughter. 🚜 Jades Tractor Forecasts for rest of July
As I understand it the problem is short lived and very South East, as the coming weeks high retreats east next weekend, Thames, Humber, German Bight, and a low pushes north to South East across the country, the south east of UK could from the anticyclone (clockwise) older hotter high, pull the Spain France weather onto it. What is then supposed to happen, as cyclone follows away after old high, is a younger so not as hot high builds over us from the southwest, so rest of July should be nice but not much extreme heat. The last weekend 30th 31st wear a bra under t-shirt in case it rains. Hope this helps.
It’s that we have yet to have a forty, which is why even on low confidence models before it’s averages out, it newsworthy.
In your experience, do many farmers wear a bra under their t-shirt?
I always kept a couple in the glove/bra compartment of my landrover.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
You first paragraph is my point really. This will moderate, it almost always does. It’s not about a statistical bias, it’s more that prediction/model at 8;days plus, even using ensembles, is still not that accurate. I think you triggered me a bit by posting the GFS pub run.
Isn’t the pub run the 18z? Which is glitching currently and showing yesterday’s run, annoyingly.
I assumed that was the 18z. Yes, 18z = pub
The 18z brings 38c Saturday, 43c on the Sunday widely! and high 30s SE corner only Monday as the heat is squeezed away
Grant Shapps is likely to be the first to be knocked out of the race IMO.
I would be amazed if all of them are able to get the necessary nominations.
Javid, Zahawi, Shapps and Badenoch seem the most in danger of this IMHO.
Depends how many nominations are needed. I thought it was 8 atm but they may change it.
Rumour is 20, which would help winnow out the time wasters.
Of course, they could go with a system of only needing 2, an a threshold for the first round as sandpit suggests, but requiring 20 would make the first round less pointless.
Indeed, the first round would be a waste of time if the only point of it was to eliminate Grant Shapps.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
And that's where we get witch burnings from
Only if witches use their powers for Satanic works
If, as mooted, 20 backers will be required to enter the race, I can easily see only 8 making it onto the first round ballot, which means some already declared and most of the yet to declare will not make the start line.
Of the 8, I rate the chances of getting on the ballot paper as follows:
Certain - Hunt, Sunak Quite likely with block backing - Braverman You'd think they ought, but could be tight - Javid, Zahawi Good chance of failing, but could attract a constituency - Tugendhat Likely to fail, but look out for a long shot chance of an audacious.out-Thatcherimg that puts jet lagged Truss's place in danger - Badenoch Not a cat in hell's chance - Shapps
Should be in, watch out for Badenoch - Truss Longer she waits, the more a shock non start could occur - Mordaumt Probably not - bar
Don't forget Priti who will announce on Wednesday with a platform of bringing back hanging, putting sharks in the Channel and slashing the tax take so much it could fit in her bathtub!
As long as she doesn't get confused and start proposing putting sharks in murderers bathtubs.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
Mathew's Gospel, though I sm not sure which translation.
Note though it is angels that do the dirty work, not humN followers.
NIV
It's really no leap at all for people to see themselves as having a duty to fulfil that role themselves. After all, "angel" means messenger, and evangelists = ev (good) angel (message) ist (doer) = bringer of good news. Evangelism is literally people doing the work of angels. And if sometimes angels throw the evil into the furnace then that is a job some people will happily do.
And the Bible is already replete with explicit sacrificial themes and tales. It's really quite psychotic when you get into it.
Well if you are not evil no need for you to worry then, if you are evil we will be after you however!
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
I've experienced that level of heat in Egypt and it was ok because the humidity was zero. 45C plus humidity would knock me sideways
45C with humidity is actively dangerous. You can’t lose heat and you die of hyperthermia.
We were in Lisbon in 2018 during a heatwave when it was 44C. The breeze, such as it was, was like the blast of hot air you get when you open the oven door. Under 40C is bearable in the shade if you don’t need to be active. Over 40C, not so much.
Once approaching blood temperature things get difficult. Using the latent heat of evaporation works up to a point.
One thing I hope the Tories have learned from Labour is not to lend support to fringe candidates in order to get them on the ballot.
Look what that did for Labour
Hasn't been an issue, since the Tory system was low threshold for nominations, but MPs still retain control of the choice of the final two. So it's ok to lend support to fringe candidates as the selectorate knows them all already and is unlikely to switch en masse to some fringe loony.
Labour's problem was the threshold being met then took it out of the hands of MPs, so their lending of support sacrificed their control.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
You first paragraph is my point really. This will moderate, it almost always does. It’s not about a statistical bias, it’s more that prediction/model at 8;days plus, even using ensembles, is still not that accurate. I think you triggered me a bit by posting the GFS pub run.
Isn’t the pub run the 18z? Which is glitching currently and showing yesterday’s run, annoyingly.
I assumed that was the 18z. Yes, 18z = pub
The 18z brings 38c Saturday, 43c on the Sunday widely! and high 30s SE corner only Monday as the heat is squeezed away
Low 20s Tuesday which would feel like mid winter! A 20c drop in 2 days
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
Mathew's Gospel, though I sm not sure which translation.
Note though it is angels that do the dirty work, not humN followers.
NIV
It's really no leap at all for people to see themselves as having a duty to fulfil that role themselves. After all, "angel" means messenger, and evangelists = ev (good) angel (message) ist (doer) = bringer of good news. Evangelism is literally people doing the work of angels. And if sometimes angels throw the evil into the furnace then that is a job some people will happily do.
And the Bible is already replete with explicit sacrificial themes and tales. It's really quite psychotic when you get into it.
What's the most important religious festival in Berwick?
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
“Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions”. Yes.
And I agree with Tubbs, don’t think current record of about 38 will be broken.
By way of qualification I am a farmers daughter. 🚜 Jades Tractor Forecasts for rest of July
As I understand it the problem is short lived and very South East, as the coming weeks high retreats east next weekend, Thames, Humber, German Bight, and a low pushes north to South East across the country, the south east of UK could from the anticyclone (clockwise) older hotter high, pull the Spain France weather onto it. What is then supposed to happen, as cyclone follows away after old high, is a younger so not as hot high builds over us from the southwest, so rest of July should be nice but not much extreme heat. The last weekend 30th 31st wear a bra under t-shirt in case it rains. Hope this helps.
It’s that we have yet to have a forty, which is why even on low confidence models before it’s averages out, it newsworthy.
Ooh. Does PB have a new Met Girl? ⛅️ 🌧 ☀️
I ❤️ Weather watching. I can’t resist looking at long range stuff everyday.
Coming from the dales I have sat on hillsides watching over sheep. I listen to the wild intelligence of my body - I know the living universe, I do weather I know weather as well as landscape and the sky, I feel it, the moon mothering my watery body and the fatherly sun enriching my blood. 👢👢
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
I've experienced that level of heat in Egypt and it was ok because the humidity was zero. 45C plus humidity would knock me sideways
45C with humidity is actively dangerous. You can’t lose heat and you die of hyperthermia.
We were in Lisbon in 2018 during a heatwave when it was 44C. The breeze, such as it was, was like the blast of hot air you get when you open the oven door. Under 40C is bearable in the shade if you don’t need to be active. Over 40C, not so much.
Yes. I was cycling in France - the Loire Valley - a couple of years ago when it topped 40°C. It was like riding into a hairdryer. I got into the habit of setting off at 6am and trying to get as many km in before it got unbearable.
Of course, that plan was rather upended by the air-conditioned, out-of-town, modern hotel I booked myself into on the hottest day; turned up at the door at 2pm; encountered a sign saying it was fermé until 6pm. My French is not as good as it once was but I think my exact phrase was "ras le cul de cet hôtel de merde".
As I bid goodnight, may I just say how much I'm enjoying the (impending) Tory Civil War? Let's hope it lasts at least a couple of years.
If they were in Opposition, I might share your hopes.
But they're not.
For the good of country it needs to be sorted in a fortnight.
To hell with the members in other words.
My hunch is that the fact that the members will make the final choice will be what loses them the next election.
Of the last 3 general election majority winners, Blair, Cameron and Johnson, all 3 were picked by Labour or Tory members.
Tory MPs alone however picked general election losers Hague and Howard and May who lost her majority in 2017. Labour MPs alone meanwhile picked Gordon Brown who lost Labour its majority in 2010
None of which proves anything, all the circumstances were entirely different.
Currently the Tories are behind in all the polls, they face a torrid couple of years economically so if they are going to survive the 2024 GE they are going to need a candidate with wide appeal but the members will go for the candidate that puts their own narrow financial and ideological interests first.
Well if Tory members prefer 2 or 3 years of dry as dust, hard right Conservatism to 6 or 7 years of wet soggy centrism that is their affair.
That would be a fair point if it were not for the fact that members will actually be choosing the Prime Minister of this country for the next 2 years and there is sod all 99.9% of us can do about it.
Well tough, that was the prize Tory members got when the party won a majority of 80 in 2019
Weird, just the other day you were very adamant that the minority of Tory members still backing Boris deserved and indeed it should be required to have their views taken into account.
Why is that, if someone else's faction wins the 'prize'?
It seems political minorities only need listening to sometimes.
If you think we are “hollowed out” then there is sone structural inefficiency compared to what we have done in living memory.
I think there is a huge amount of spending that just happens because someone once thought it was a good idea and it is hard to challenge
You have to account for the demographic burden which is “worth” a percent or two per decade in pension spending, health pressures etc.
Like for like we are probably at a 50 year low, and the candidates are proposing to slice further.
Do you have any convincing maths on that?
Pensioners now contribute for an extra 3 years before getting any state pensions, compared to 15-20 years ago.
Whilst life expectancy is up by 5 years or so since 1990.
Which sounds quite balanced.
If you think the demographic burden is a fiction, you are living in a hole.
I found this at the ONS site.
…As a result, State Pension spending has continued to rise in recent decades. It amounted to almost £92 billion in 2017 (equivalent to 5.1% of GDP), up from £26 billion in 1992 (3.6% of GDP). Based on current population projections, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) predicts that state pension expenditure will rise to 6.1% of GDP by 2042.
That latter figure accounts for the rising pension age, too.
This figure does not include health burden arising from an elderly pop.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
And that's where we get witch burnings from
Only if witches use their powers for Satanic works
Witches don't have powers. Often they were just awkward women. The hag as a concept is rooted in ageism and misogyny, and the expression of revulsion at these essentially harmless women, combined with superstitious explanations for random events like crop failures or other natural phenomena, combined with a religious framing that tells you about casting demons into the flames, lead to murder. Thou shalt not kill didn't always get a look in when thou shalt not suffer a witch to live was in play. Still. Religion of peace yadda yadda.
How do you know? Can you prove there are no witches of evil?
Though of course the Koran just advocated the pouring of boiling water over non believers
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
I've experienced that level of heat in Egypt and it was ok because the humidity was zero. 45C plus humidity would knock me sideways
45C with humidity is actively dangerous. You can’t lose heat and you die of hyperthermia.
We were in Lisbon in 2018 during a heatwave when it was 44C. The breeze, such as it was, was like the blast of hot air you get when you open the oven door. Under 40C is bearable in the shade if you don’t need to be active. Over 40C, not so much.
Once approaching blood temperature things get difficult. Using the latent heat of evaporation works up to a point.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
I've experienced that level of heat in Egypt and it was ok because the humidity was zero. 45C plus humidity would knock me sideways
45C with humidity is actively dangerous. You can’t lose heat and you die of hyperthermia.
We were in Lisbon in 2018 during a heatwave when it was 44C. The breeze, such as it was, was like the blast of hot air you get when you open the oven door. Under 40C is bearable in the shade if you don’t need to be active. Over 40C, not so much.
Once approaching blood temperature things get difficult. Using the latent heat of evaporation works up to a point.
Net Zero? Nah, burn baby burn!
It’s the wet bulb temperature that’s important.
I now check the wet bulb temperature quite often. It’s a lifesaver, though someone should come up with a better name because it sounds confusing.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
Mathew's Gospel, though I sm not sure which translation.
Note though it is angels that do the dirty work, not humN followers.
NIV
It's really no leap at all for people to see themselves as having a duty to fulfil that role themselves. After all, "angel" means messenger, and evangelists = ev (good) angel (message) ist (doer) = bringer of good news. Evangelism is literally people doing the work of angels. And if sometimes angels throw the evil into the furnace then that is a job some people will happily do.
And the Bible is already replete with explicit sacrificial themes and tales. It's really quite psychotic when you get into it.
Well if you are not evil no need for you to worry then, if you are evil we will be after you however!
I do have to worry if you're also the one who decides whether I'm evil. The religious mindset leads a lot of people to seeing themselves as judge, jury, and executioner.
Well you were the one who suggested we Christians would be doing the work of the angels!
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
Mathew's Gospel, though I sm not sure which translation.
Note though it is angels that do the dirty work, not humN followers.
NIV
It's really no leap at all for people to see themselves as having a duty to fulfil that role themselves. After all, "angel" means messenger, and evangelists = ev (good) angel (message) ist (doer) = bringer of good news. Evangelism is literally people doing the work of angels. And if sometimes angels throw the evil into the furnace then that is a job some people will happily do.
And the Bible is already replete with explicit sacrificial themes and tales. It's really quite psychotic when you get into it.
Well if you are not evil no need for you to worry then, if you are evil we will be after you however!
I do have to worry if you're also the one who decides whether I'm evil. The religious mindset leads a lot of people to seeing themselves as judge, jury, and executioner.
It depends very much. My own church is pretty laissez-faire on these things. It is for God to judge not us. We are pretty much opposed to evangelism too. If God wanted people to join us, he would send them.
Johnson has nowhere to live after No 10 reports Telegraph.
His two former homes are rented out.
There are plenty of cheap hotels in Rwanda....
Are there? I heard they were block booked by the British Government for asylum seekers.
Isn’t that policy completely dead now?
Will be interesting to see if any candidates happily tie themselves to it, or do best not to endorse it without getting into the obvious “no? What instead then?”
Johnson has nowhere to live after No 10 reports Telegraph.
His two former homes are rented out.
There are plenty of cheap hotels in Rwanda....
Are there? I heard they were block booked by the British Government for asylum seekers.
Isn’t that policy completely dead now?
Will be interesting to see if any candidates happily tie themselves to it, or do best not to endorse it without getting into the obvious “no? What instead then?”
Perhaps Her Majesty could accommodate Boris? I find it hard to believe that the rather sweeping offence of "Misconduct in Public Office" could not be applied...
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
And that's where we get witch burnings from
Only if witches use their powers for Satanic works
Witches don't have powers. Often they were just awkward women. The hag as a concept is rooted in ageism and misogyny, and the expression of revulsion at these essentially harmless women, combined with superstitious explanations for random events like crop failures or other natural phenomena, combined with a religious framing that tells you about casting demons into the flames, lead to murder. Thou shalt not kill didn't always get a look in when thou shalt not suffer a witch to live was in play. Still. Religion of peace yadda yadda.
How do you know? Can you prove there are no witches of evil?
Though of course the Koran just advocated the pouring of boiling water over non believers
Yes, I can. If you're willing to accept parsimony as a principle of science (see William of Ockham, David Deutsch, and many others). There has never been any phenomenon where Satanic witches offer a simpler, more parsimonious explanation than some other explanation.
And it's that simple. Witches add nothing but questions to any world view.
And I would turn it around. If you're going to burn someone at the stake, I expect more than "well how can you be sure she isn't evil?" as a justification. Burden of proof, admissibility of evidence, hearsay, and reasonableness of views are all legal concepts for good reason. The idea of witches is an insult not just to the scientific mind, but the very foundations of British justice.
Oh, and if you want to tie the Bible conceptually to the Quran, be my guest. They're both works of evil.
If you believe in the concept of evil, as I do, then it is perfectly possible if not probable that there are people of both sexes doing Satanic works.
Interesting you also think not pursuing murder, not committing adultery, not stealing, loving thy neighbour as thyself, being a good Samaritan etc as the Bible also commands are works of evil. Which gives a concerning thought as to what you do think as a work of good!
As I bid goodnight, may I just say how much I'm enjoying the (impending) Tory Civil War? Let's hope it lasts at least a couple of years.
If they were in Opposition, I might share your hopes.
But they're not.
For the good of country it needs to be sorted in a fortnight.
To hell with the members in other words.
My hunch is that the fact that the members will make the final choice will be what loses them the next election.
Of the last 3 general election majority winners, Blair, Cameron and Johnson, all 3 were picked by Labour or Tory members.
Tory MPs alone however picked general election losers Hague and Howard and May who lost her majority in 2017. Labour MPs alone meanwhile picked Gordon Brown who lost Labour its majority in 2010
None of which proves anything, all the circumstances were entirely different.
Currently the Tories are behind in all the polls, they face a torrid couple of years economically so if they are going to survive the 2024 GE they are going to need a candidate with wide appeal but the members will go for the candidate that puts their own narrow financial and ideological interests first.
Well if Tory members prefer 2 or 3 years of dry as dust, hard right Conservatism to 6 or 7 years of wet soggy centrism that is their affair.
If you think we are “hollowed out” then there is sone structural inefficiency compared to what we have done in living memory.
I think there is a huge amount of spending that just happens because someone once thought it was a good idea and it is hard to challenge
You have to account for the demographic burden which is “worth” a percent or two per decade in pension spending, health pressures etc.
Like for like we are probably at a 50 year low, and the candidates are proposing to slice further.
Do you have any convincing maths on that?
Pensioners now contribute for an extra 3 years before getting any state pensions, compared to 15-20 years ago.
Whilst life expectancy is up by 5 years or so since 1990.
Which sounds quite balanced.
If you think the demographic burden is a fiction, you are living in a hole.
I found this at the ONS site.
…As a result, State Pension spending has continued to rise in recent decades. It amounted to almost £92 billion in 2017 (equivalent to 5.1% of GDP), up from £26 billion in 1992 (3.6% of GDP). Based on current population projections, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) predicts that state pension expenditure will rise to 6.1% of GDP by 2042.
That latter figure accounts for the rising pension age, too.
This figure does not include health burden arising from an elderly pop.
My own view is there is only one way to deal with this - funding wise - somehow the property wealth of the boomer generation has to be tapped.
No way will any of the 200 Tory leadership candidates own up to that though.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
Mathew's Gospel, though I sm not sure which translation.
Note though it is angels that do the dirty work, not humN followers.
NIV
It's really no leap at all for people to see themselves as having a duty to fulfil that role themselves. After all, "angel" means messenger, and evangelists = ev (good) angel (message) ist (doer) = bringer of good news. Evangelism is literally people doing the work of angels. And if sometimes angels throw the evil into the furnace then that is a job some people will happily do.
And the Bible is already replete with explicit sacrificial themes and tales. It's really quite psychotic when you get into it.
Well if you are not evil no need for you to worry then, if you are evil we will be after you however!
I do have to worry if you're also the one who decides whether I'm evil. The religious mindset leads a lot of people to seeing themselves as judge, jury, and executioner.
Well you were the one who suggested we Christians would be doing the work of the angels!
Yes, and the works of angels are sometimes evil. Such as throwing people into fires. Luckily, angels don't actually exist to do that work. If only stupid people didn't take it upon themselves to pick up the slack, we'd have a lot less grief in the world.
Angels also save people too and if are not evil or you repent and find Christ you avoid the fires
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
And that's where we get witch burnings from
Only if witches use their powers for Satanic works
Witches don't have powers. Often they were just awkward women. The hag as a concept is rooted in ageism and misogyny, and the expression of revulsion at these essentially harmless women, combined with superstitious explanations for random events like crop failures or other natural phenomena, combined with a religious framing that tells you about casting demons into the flames, lead to murder. Thou shalt not kill didn't always get a look in when thou shalt not suffer a witch to live was in play. Still. Religion of peace yadda yadda.
How do you know? Can you prove there are no witches of evil?
Though of course the Koran just advocated the pouring of boiling water over non believers
I see you suffer the usual delusion that your work of religious fiction is somehow superior to the other fictitious religious works.
The problem of witches was, of course, that they might know remedies and things that made them considerably more useful than some bloke who contributed nothing beyond being able to quote some dusty book in Latin. In short, they could have destabilised the power base of the church.
Gay men where in the firing line for much the same reason - a gay relationship between (say) a bishop and a parishioner gave undue influence to that parishioner.
Then there is controlling your flock through being able to decide to gets to marry and reproduce and thus the need to control women and their reproductive capacity. So women get subjugated.
Religion is about control. Pure and simple. And that is why it so often allies with Kings and politicians. The whole thing is a tremendous scam and humanity would be a lot better off without the baleful influence of zealous, evangelical religion.
If you think we are “hollowed out” then there is sone structural inefficiency compared to what we have done in living memory.
I think there is a huge amount of spending that just happens because someone once thought it was a good idea and it is hard to challenge
You have to account for the demographic burden which is “worth” a percent or two per decade in pension spending, health pressures etc.
Like for like we are probably at a 50 year low, and the candidates are proposing to slice further.
Do you have any convincing maths on that?
Pensioners now contribute for an extra 3 years before getting any state pensions, compared to 15-20 years ago.
Whilst life expectancy is up by 5 years or so since 1990.
Which sounds quite balanced.
If you think the demographic burden is a fiction, you are living in a hole.
I found this at the ONS site.
…As a result, State Pension spending has continued to rise in recent decades. It amounted to almost £92 billion in 2017 (equivalent to 5.1% of GDP), up from £26 billion in 1992 (3.6% of GDP). Based on current population projections, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) predicts that state pension expenditure will rise to 6.1% of GDP by 2042.
That latter figure accounts for the rising pension age, too.
This figure does not include health burden arising from an elderly pop.
My own view is there is only one way to deal with this - funding wise - somehow the property wealth of the boomer generation has to be tapped.
No way will any of the 200 Tory leadership candidates own up to that though.
No I would not expect them to, but it’s sad to see them peddle fictions.
She is for Brexit and cutting the state, and against asylum seekers and the woke…and that’s why she loves the United Kingdom.
Clearly couldn't afford a Cass or a Tristan of this world and their PR agency to do the video like Richi Rich.
Deliberate choice I expect. Everyone in politics already knew Rishi had slick PR, opponents weren't go to beat him at that game anyway. A more natural, humble presentation (eg don't have a windscreen) helps differentiate, at least for the first video (which is what most will see before making up their mind).
Instead they'll go hard on authenticity, policy, and understanding ordinary voters I expect. Whenever someone is slick their opponent claims that means they have no substance, it is the default attack.
If you think we are “hollowed out” then there is sone structural inefficiency compared to what we have done in living memory.
I think there is a huge amount of spending that just happens because someone once thought it was a good idea and it is hard to challenge
You have to account for the demographic burden which is “worth” a percent or two per decade in pension spending, health pressures etc.
Like for like we are probably at a 50 year low, and the candidates are proposing to slice further.
Do you have any convincing maths on that?
Pensioners now contribute for an extra 3 years before getting any state pensions, compared to 15-20 years ago.
Whilst life expectancy is up by 5 years or so since 1990.
Which sounds quite balanced.
If you think the demographic burden is a fiction, you are living in a hole.
I found this at the ONS site.
…As a result, State Pension spending has continued to rise in recent decades. It amounted to almost £92 billion in 2017 (equivalent to 5.1% of GDP), up from £26 billion in 1992 (3.6% of GDP). Based on current population projections, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) predicts that state pension expenditure will rise to 6.1% of GDP by 2042.
That latter figure accounts for the rising pension age, too.
This figure does not include health burden arising from an elderly pop.
My own view is there is only one way to deal with this - funding wise - somehow the property wealth of the boomer generation has to be tapped.
No way will any of the 200 Tory leadership candidates own up to that though.
I have rather startled myself by thinking that public ownership of utilities may be needed. I cannot help thinking how much the costs of electricity, gas, water, rail, etc could come down if the profits paid to shareholders were simply reduced to zero.
The problem is, of course, that when this has been done in the past, the industries in question become highly inefficient.
But somebody has to pay for all the billions paid out to shareholders and for public utilities that somebody is you, me and everyone we know....
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
And that's where we get witch burnings from
Only if witches use their powers for Satanic works
Witches don't have powers. Often they were just awkward women. The hag as a concept is rooted in ageism and misogyny, and the expression of revulsion at these essentially harmless women, combined with superstitious explanations for random events like crop failures or other natural phenomena, combined with a religious framing that tells you about casting demons into the flames, lead to murder. Thou shalt not kill didn't always get a look in when thou shalt not suffer a witch to live was in play. Still. Religion of peace yadda yadda.
How do you know? Can you prove there are no witches of evil?
Though of course the Koran just advocated the pouring of boiling water over non believers
I see you suffer the usual delusion that your work of religious fiction is somehow superior to the other fictitious religious works.
The problem of witches was, of course, that they might know remedies and things that made them considerably more useful than some bloke who contributed nothing beyond being able to quote some dusty book in Latin. In short, they could have destabilised the power base of the church.
Gay men where in the firing line for much the same reason - a gay relationship between (say) a bishop and a parishioner gave undue influence to that parishioner.
Then there is controlling your flock through being able to decide to gets to marry and reproduce and thus the need to control women and their reproductive capacity. So women get subjugated.
Religion is about control. Pure and simple. And that is why it so often allies with Kings and politicians. The whole thing is a tremendous scam and humanity would be a lot better off without the baleful influence of zealous, evangelical religion.
Some may well have been creating the magic of Satan, they were not all producing harmless remedies.
Christianity believes at its heart heterosexual marriage leading to reproduction is the best course for humanity and factually that is pretty accurate. Even if you do no longer persecute those who act differently.
Religion is about following a righteous life to eternal salvation that is why I and billions of others around the world still follow it
Taking a wild stab, reducing our (already comparatively very low) carbon emissions at a speed that doesn't impoverish the citizenry and wreck the economy. Weren't you complaining about the cost of living the other day? Join the dots.
This is at least a proper thing to be discussing at this juncture, regarding policy direction for future leadership.
A lot of Conservative thinking, and the General Public are very much on the side of Net Zero 50 (pushed through by May in her Lame Duck Period?) and Labours position, in Millibands hands is Tory’s are not going quickly enough? (Nick Palmer May be the one to correct me if I have that wrong).
That's right. We note the pledges but are sceptical whether the Government is doing enough to achieve them. You might, if feeling uncharitable, call them hot air. Some Tories are perfectly sincere and trying hard; others see it as more of a slogan. Kemi is at least honest in opposing even pretending to be in favour.
We differ somewhat in nuance from the Greens in emphasizing the potential for Britain to lead a green industrial revolution - better wind turbines, better carbon capture, etc., creating new industries, job and exports; the Greens place the emphasis more on reduced consumption.
The Greens' policy regarding economic growth (or the reversal of it) is utterly insane. Sad, mad people. One hopes that at some point they recover.
It is the notion that economic growth can continue unhindered forever that is utterly insane.
Capitalism is one giant Ponzi scheme and at some point it will all come crashing down.
Yes, it's only been growing since the dawn of time, why would it continue?
Comments
It will be a hot spell. I think 35 is likely somewhere.
40 deg plus - not a chance.
It’s summer. This is what happens.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
Currently the Tories are behind in all the polls, they face a torrid couple of years economically so if they are going to survive the 2024 GE they are going to need a candidate with wide appeal but the members will go for the candidate that puts their own narrow financial and ideological interests first.
It’s not about a statistical bias, it’s more that prediction/model at 8;days plus, even using ensembles, is still not that accurate. I think you triggered me a bit by posting the GFS pub run.
Badenoch, Braverman, Hunt, Javid, Mordaunt, Shapps, Sunak, Truss, Tugendhat, Zahawi.
Grant Shapps is likely to be the first to be knocked out of the race IMO.
I hope you’re right about 40C. It’s morbidly fascinating but not something we really want to be experiencing regularly.
That's high enough to be very difficult for me since it sends insulin doses haywire (may have to halve the dose compared to normal weather for the same effect, then it's into a hypo and guzzling orange juice if I call it wrongly), so tomorrow I'll be doing my house painting starting at 6am and paperwork in the middle of the day.
Like for like we are probably at a 50 year low, and the candidates are proposing to slice further.
Javid, Zahawi, Shapps and Badenoch seem the most in danger of this IMHO.
Of the 8, I rate the chances of getting on the ballot paper as follows:
Certain - Hunt, Sunak
Quite likely with block backing - Braverman
You'd think they ought, but could be tight - Javid, Zahawi
Good chance of failing, but could attract a constituency - Tugendhat
Likely to fail, but look out for a long shot chance of an audacious.out-Thatcherimg that puts jet lagged Truss's place in danger - Badenoch
Not a cat in hell's chance - Shapps
Should be in, watch out for Badenoch - Truss
Longer she waits, the more a shock non start could occur - Mordaumt
Probably not - bar
EDIT: which is now working and has 38C on Saturday and 43C on Sunday.
Note though it is angels that do the dirty work, not humN followers.
And I agree with Tubbs, don’t think current record of about 38 will be broken.
By way of qualification I am a farmers daughter. 🚜 Jades Tractor Forecasts for rest of July
As I understand it the problem is short lived and very South East, as the coming weeks high retreats east next weekend, Thames, Humber, German Bight, and a low pushes north to South East across the country, the south east of UK could from the anticyclone (clockwise) older hotter high, pull the Spain France weather onto it. What is then supposed to happen, as cyclone follows away after old high, is a younger so not as hot high builds over us from the southwest, so rest of July should be nice but not much extreme heat. The last weekend 30th 31st wear a bra under t-shirt in case it rains. Hope this helps.
It’s that we have yet to have a forty, which is why even on low confidence models before it’s averages out, it newsworthy.
Of course, they could go with a system of only needing 2, an a threshold for the first round as sandpit suggests, but requiring 20 would make the first round less pointless.
Pensioners now contribute for an extra 3 years before getting any state pensions, compared to 15-20 years ago.
Whilst life expectancy is up by 5 years or so since 1990.
Which sounds quite balanced.
If, as looks possible, we get nominations closing on Wednesday, it is going to be a frenzied couple of days
Look what that did for Labour
Net Zero? Nah, burn baby burn!
Labour's problem was the threshold being met then took it out of the hands of MPs, so their lending of support sacrificed their control.
Tweed Mubarak!
Coming from the dales I have sat on hillsides watching over sheep. I listen to the wild intelligence of my body - I know the living universe, I do weather I know weather as well as landscape and the sky, I feel it, the moon mothering my watery body and the fatherly sun enriching my blood. 👢👢
https://conservativehome.com/2022/07/08/next-tory-leader-whos-backing-whom-our-working-list/
Sunak 27
Truss 13
Braverman 10
Hunt 10
Zahawi 10
Badenoch 9
Mordaunt 9
Tugendhat 7
Javid 4
Shapps 2
Total 101
(28% of 358 Con MPs)
Of course, that plan was rather upended by the air-conditioned, out-of-town, modern hotel I booked myself into on the hottest day; turned up at the door at 2pm; encountered a sign saying it was fermé until 6pm. My French is not as good as it once was but I think my exact phrase was "ras le cul de cet hôtel de merde".
Why is that, if someone else's faction wins the 'prize'?
It seems political minorities only need listening to sometimes.
I found this at the ONS site.
…As a result, State Pension spending has continued to rise in recent decades. It amounted to almost £92 billion in 2017 (equivalent to 5.1% of GDP), up from £26 billion in 1992 (3.6% of GDP). Based on current population projections, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) predicts that state pension expenditure will rise to 6.1% of GDP by 2042.
That latter figure accounts for the rising pension age, too.
This figure does not include health burden arising from an elderly pop.
Though of course the Koran just advocated the pouring of boiling water over non believers
https://www.arabnews.com/news/484641
Will be interesting to see if any candidates happily tie themselves to it, or do best not to endorse it without getting into the obvious “no? What instead then?”
https://twitter.com/suellabraverman/status/1545888375848181761?s=21&t=Bdqju1iOYD48KbkxG1sIBQ
She is for Brexit and cutting the state, and against asylum seekers and the woke…and that’s why she loves the United Kingdom.
Interesting you also think not pursuing murder, not committing adultery, not stealing, loving thy neighbour as thyself, being a good Samaritan etc as the Bible also commands are works of evil. Which gives a concerning thought as to what you do think as a work of good!
No way will any of the 200 Tory leadership candidates own up to that though.
The problem of witches was, of course, that they might know remedies and things that made them considerably more useful than some bloke who contributed nothing beyond being able to quote some dusty book in Latin. In short, they could have destabilised the power base of the church.
Gay men where in the firing line for much the same reason - a gay relationship between (say) a bishop and a parishioner gave undue influence to that parishioner.
Then there is controlling your flock through being able to decide to gets to marry and reproduce and thus the need to control women and their reproductive capacity. So women get subjugated.
Religion is about control. Pure and simple. And that is why it so often allies with Kings and politicians. The whole thing is a tremendous scam and humanity would be a lot better off without the baleful influence of zealous, evangelical religion.
Instead they'll go hard on authenticity, policy, and understanding ordinary voters I expect. Whenever someone is slick their opponent claims that means they have no substance, it is the default attack.
The problem is, of course, that when this has been done in the past, the industries in question become highly inefficient.
But somebody has to pay for all the billions paid out to shareholders and for public utilities that somebody is you, me and everyone we know....
Christianity believes at its heart heterosexual marriage leading to reproduction is the best course for humanity and factually that is pretty accurate. Even if you do no longer persecute those who act differently.
Religion is about following a righteous life to eternal salvation that is why I and billions of others around the world still follow it
LOL