That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much meat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
Although I can only read the headline, I'll bet that the article from a "private jet travel boss" is entirely objective.
But it's true. You can dispute the detailed numbers on the private jet claim, but pets are REALLY REALLY bad for the environment, and owning one is a monumental act of selfishness. Because you don't NEED a pet
"By owning a pet, you are doing more damage to the environment than you might realise
Truth-telling about pets can be a painful process but cats and dogs, particularly, are having a devastating impact on the planet"
This actually ties into our discussion this morning on the costs of saving the planet. Cars, lifestyle, meat, and now pets.
I think there is certainly an element in humans that looks for an external threat and that in turn justifies all kinds of bonkers behaviour. Not hugely dissimilar to the various witch hunts and other religious or ritual behaviours.
This is not to say that the temperature is not changing atm.
Yeah, but the witch hunts were CAUSED BY CATS
True story
Lonely old women turned to cats for company, but the cat shit had feline toxoplasmosis in it, and this being the 15th-17th centuries, hygiene standards weren-t very good and the toxoplasmosis infected the old ladies, who went mad thereby (the parasite is known to cause bizarre mental disorders) and this weirdness got noticed by the neighbours, who accused the batty old hags of witchery, and so they were burned
That is why witches are depicted with their cats, as familiars. Vinegar Joe killed the Crone
I thought it was the toxoplasmosis that turned you into a cat lover? That's what it does to mice, anyway, so that they get eaten and the parasite is thus recycled.
Parasites are so freaky. Parasitic wasps in particular are perfectly Satanic
Laydz and Genlmen, the life cycle of Ampulex Compressa, AKA the Emerald Cockroach Wasp
(Brace)
"Female wasps of this species were reported to sting a cockroach (specifically a Periplaneta americana, Periplaneta australasiae, or Nauphoeta rhombifolia)[ twice, delivering venom. The wasp delivers an initial sting to a thoracic ganglion and injects venom to mildly and reversibly paralyze the front legs of its victim. A biochemically-induced transient paralysis takes over the cockroach, where the temporary loss of mobility facilitates the second venomous sting at a precise spot in the victim's head ganglia (brain), in the section that controls the escape reflex. As a result of this sting, the roach will first groom extensively, and then become sluggish and fail to show normal escape responses. The venom is reported to block receptors for the neurotransmitter octopamine.[
Once the host is incapacitated, the wasp proceeds to chew off half of each of the roach's antennae, after which it carefully feeds from exuding hemolymph. The wasp, which is too small to carry the roach, then leads the victim to the wasp's burrow, by pulling one of the roach's antennae in a manner similar to a leash. In the burrow, the wasp will lay one or two white eggs, about 2 mm long, between the roach's legs. It then exits and proceeds to fill in the burrow entrance with any surrounding debris, more to keep other predators and competitors out than to keep the roach in.
With its escape reflex disabled, the stung roach simply rests in the burrow as the wasp's egg hatches after about 3 days. The hatched larva lives and feeds for 4–5 days on the roach, then chews its way into its abdomen and proceeds to live as an endoparasitoid. Over a period of 8 days, the final-instar larva will consume the roach's internal organs, finally killing its host, and enters the pupal stage inside a cocoon in the roach's body. Eventually, the fully grown wasp emerges from the roach's body to begin its adult life. Development is faster in the warm season"
There's more horrific stuff going on in an average square mile of English soil than we coukd possibly imagine.
Darwin is said (maybe apocryphally) to have lost his faith in a benign Deity when he learned the nature of parasitic wasps
John Hurt's Alien in miniature form...
Some friends are into plant galls, which is admittedly a bit of an esoteric hobby. Many are made by wasps that somehow hijack the DNA of a plant to make it construct wasp homes. Oak apples (caused by the wasp Biorhiza pallida) are one that should be familiar to most people. All bizarre stuff.
I do wonder how many cancers and other degenerative diseases (Alzheimers?) are not random mutations as sometimes thought but are responses to parasitic or viral infections of some kind or another. Indeed, I believe Toxoplasma has been flagged as the likely cause of some brain tumours as well as "mad cat lady" syndrome (if that's not a phrase that gets me cancelled).
Talking of ancient civilisations, meanwhile, how long have humans been around? Some perhaps few hundred thousand years. Dinosaurs existed for 120m years. Just imagine where (if?) humanity will be in 1m years, let alone 120m years. Bonkers.
Pedant hat.
Dinosaurs are a whole Superorder in traditional Linnean classification. They are represented by something north of 700 species and existed for around 170 million years.
Humans are one species of the Superorder Euarchonta which has itself been around for over 80 million years.
Okey dokey. Still interested in what we will be up to in a million years' time.
I agree. There was an interesting study done about 25 years ago looking at average 'life' expectancies of species.
The bad news is that compared to invertebrates we do pretty badly.
Invertebrate species last on average 7 - 10 million years Vertebrate species last on average 3-5 million years Mammalian species last on average 1-3 million years.
Of course there are plenty of outliers to this. I have seen claims that blue whales have been around for the last 4.5 million years but I am not sure if they would count as the same species as we define them today.
But if we don't wipe ourselves out - and given that as a species we have only been around for aboiut 200,000 years - I reckon there is a decent chance we will still be around as a species in a million years.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much meat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
Although I can only read the headline, I'll bet that the article from a "private jet travel boss" is entirely objective.
But it's true. You can dispute the detailed numbers on the private jet claim, but pets are REALLY REALLY bad for the environment, and owning one is a monumental act of selfishness. Because you don't NEED a pet
"By owning a pet, you are doing more damage to the environment than you might realise
Truth-telling about pets can be a painful process but cats and dogs, particularly, are having a devastating impact on the planet"
This actually ties into our discussion this morning on the costs of saving the planet. Cars, lifestyle, meat, and now pets.
I think there is certainly an element in humans that looks for an external threat and that in turn justifies all kinds of bonkers behaviour. Not hugely dissimilar to the various witch hunts and other religious or ritual behaviours.
This is not to say that the temperature is not changing atm.
Yeah, but the witch hunts were CAUSED BY CATS
True story
Lonely old women turned to cats for company, but the cat shit had feline toxoplasmosis in it, and this being the 15th-17th centuries, hygiene standards weren-t very good and the toxoplasmosis infected the old ladies, who went mad thereby (the parasite is known to cause bizarre mental disorders) and this weirdness got noticed by the neighbours, who accused the batty old hags of witchery, and so they were burned
That is why witches are depicted with their cats, as familiars. Vinegar Joe killed the Crone
I thought it was the toxoplasmosis that turned you into a cat lover? That's what it does to mice, anyway, so that they get eaten and the parasite is thus recycled.
Parasites are so freaky. Parasitic wasps in particular are perfectly Satanic
Laydz and Genlmen, the life cycle of Ampulex Compressa, AKA the Emerald Cockroach Wasp
(Brace)
"Female wasps of this species were reported to sting a cockroach (specifically a Periplaneta americana, Periplaneta australasiae, or Nauphoeta rhombifolia)[ twice, delivering venom. The wasp delivers an initial sting to a thoracic ganglion and injects venom to mildly and reversibly paralyze the front legs of its victim. A biochemically-induced transient paralysis takes over the cockroach, where the temporary loss of mobility facilitates the second venomous sting at a precise spot in the victim's head ganglia (brain), in the section that controls the escape reflex. As a result of this sting, the roach will first groom extensively, and then become sluggish and fail to show normal escape responses. The venom is reported to block receptors for the neurotransmitter octopamine.[
Once the host is incapacitated, the wasp proceeds to chew off half of each of the roach's antennae, after which it carefully feeds from exuding hemolymph. The wasp, which is too small to carry the roach, then leads the victim to the wasp's burrow, by pulling one of the roach's antennae in a manner similar to a leash. In the burrow, the wasp will lay one or two white eggs, about 2 mm long, between the roach's legs. It then exits and proceeds to fill in the burrow entrance with any surrounding debris, more to keep other predators and competitors out than to keep the roach in.
With its escape reflex disabled, the stung roach simply rests in the burrow as the wasp's egg hatches after about 3 days. The hatched larva lives and feeds for 4–5 days on the roach, then chews its way into its abdomen and proceeds to live as an endoparasitoid. Over a period of 8 days, the final-instar larva will consume the roach's internal organs, finally killing its host, and enters the pupal stage inside a cocoon in the roach's body. Eventually, the fully grown wasp emerges from the roach's body to begin its adult life. Development is faster in the warm season"
There's more horrific stuff going on in an average square mile of English soil than we coukd possibly imagine.
Darwin is said (maybe apocryphally) to have lost his faith in a benign Deity when he learned the nature of parasitic wasps
John Hurt's Alien in miniature form...
Some friends are into plant galls, which is admittedly a bit of an esoteric hobby. Many are made by wasps that somehow hijack the DNA of a plant to make it construct wasp homes. Oak apples (caused by the wasp Biorhiza pallida) are one that should be familiar to most people. All bizarre stuff.
I do wonder how many cancers and other degenerative diseases (Alzheimers?) are not random mutations as sometimes thought but are responses to parasitic or viral infections of some kind or another. Indeed, I believe Toxoplasma has been flagged as the likely cause of some brain tumours as well as "mad cat lady" syndrome (if that's not a phrase that gets me cancelled).
It is intersting how many cancers are starting to be identified as being caused by viruses. HPV is the most obvious these days - hence the reaon all the kids are vaccinated against it at school.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Perhaps it’s like that Star Trek episode where we find out that all humanoid life has a common origin. That wouldn’t be incompatible with their viewpoint.
DeSantis knows how to handle a hurricane. The racist shooting poses a bigger dilemma. A racially-motivated Jacksonville tragedy, couple with a looming storm, pose big tests for the governor.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ handling of back-to-back crises — a racist mass shooting and a potentially catastrophic hurricane — could help burnish his image as a can-do, effective governor or further damage his standing with Black Americans who have grown livid over his policies.
Already, DeSantis’ attempts to show leadership in the immediate aftermath of the Saturday shooting were poorly received by some Black lawmakers, Democrats and residents in Florida. In the hours after a 21-year-old white man killed three Black Floridians near a historically Black college in Jacksonville, several state Democrats blamed DeSantis, who is running for president, for creating an environment, through policies such as loosening gun laws and ending diversity programs, that helped hate fester.
DeSantis has condemned the shooting and said “targeting people due to their race has no place in this state of Florida.” But attending a Sunday night vigil in Jacksonville, he was jeered and booed by people who had come out to remember the victims. At one point, a Jacksonville Democratic councilmember stepped in to calm the crowd, urging people to “put parties aside.” Later during the event, a pastor took issue with DeSantis describing the gunman as a “scumbag,” and said he should have used the word “racist” instead.
The vigil stood in contrast to press conferences in Tallahassee on Sunday and Monday, when DeSantis appeared visibly tired but spoke authoritatively about preparations overseeing Tropical Storm Idalia, which is forecast to become a major hurricane. He canceled campaign appearances and fundraisers, and told Floridians Sunday they could “rest assured” because “I am here” and would “get the job done.”
“He needs to be in Florida for as long as it takes,” said Adam Hollingsworth, the former chief of staff to Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who served as governor before DeSantis. “His presidential ambitions could be a distraction, but first Gov. DeSantis has to dance with the one who brought him. Right now, that’s the people of Florida.”
De Santis's problem is that in order to appeal to racist voters he has to pretend that systemic racism doesn't exist, which means that he has no effective response when systemic racism is revealed in events like mass shootings by white supremacists. Teaching kids that slavery wasn't so bad isn't going to solve the problem.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Who doesn't believe in aliens?
In the infinitude of a trillion galaxies, with a googleplex of exoplanets, it is vanishingly unlikely that Earth is the only planet that harbours life, or ever have, or ever will
Whether any of this life has reached human levels of sophisitication, or beyond, and whether this life might have contacted us, in some form, are very very diffferent questions. Do not confuse them
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Perhaps it’s like that Star Trek episode where we find out that all humanoid life has a common origin. That wouldn’t be incompatible with their viewpoint.
Oddly enough (or perhaps not) Scottish Presbyterian scientists and theologians debated this 200-ish years ago ago and came to a clear conclusion. All part of divine creation and plenitude IIRC.
Talking of ancient civilisations, meanwhile, how long have humans been around? Some perhaps few hundred thousand years. Dinosaurs existed for 120m years. Just imagine where (if?) humanity will be in 1m years, let alone 120m years. Bonkers.
Pedant hat.
Dinosaurs are a whole Superorder in traditional Linnean classification. They are represented by something north of 700 species and existed for around 170 million years.
Humans are one species of the Superorder Euarchonta which has itself been around for over 80 million years.
Okey dokey. Still interested in what we will be up to in a million years' time.
I agree. There was an interesting study done about 25 years ago looking at average 'life' expectancies of species.
The bad news is that compared to invertebrates we do pretty badly.
Invertebrate species last on average 7 - 10 million years Vertebrate species last on average 3-5 million years Mammalian species last on average 1-3 million years.
Of course there are plenty of outliers to this. I have seen claims that blue whales have been around for the last 4.5 million years but I am not sure if they would count as the same species as we define them today.
But if we don't wipe ourselves out - and given that as a species we have only been around for aboiut 200,000 years - I reckon there is a decent chance we will still be around as a species in a million years.
And still be arguing about bloody planning laws.
Frankly, I'm just astonished that every single one of my ancestors managed to reproduce. I mean, how likely is that?
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you believe.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
You were claiming that all infrastructure was paid out of taxation, which is patently nonsense, not to mention stuff that should be sent to the treatment plant, except there isn't one or the old one is now overworked.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Good use of the portmanteau word 'bokum' there. I shall adopt it.
Anyway, I'm sure the CofE can find a place in its infintely flexible belief system for aliens ('we believe that what God wants is exactly the same as what establishment belief is right now.')
Talking of ancient civilisations, meanwhile, how long have humans been around? Some perhaps few hundred thousand years. Dinosaurs existed for 120m years. Just imagine where (if?) humanity will be in 1m years, let alone 120m years. Bonkers.
Pedant hat.
Dinosaurs are a whole Superorder in traditional Linnean classification. They are represented by something north of 700 species and existed for around 170 million years.
Humans are one species of the Superorder Euarchonta which has itself been around for over 80 million years.
Okey dokey. Still interested in what we will be up to in a million years' time.
I agree. There was an interesting study done about 25 years ago looking at average 'life' expectancies of species.
The bad news is that compared to invertebrates we do pretty badly.
Invertebrate species last on average 7 - 10 million years Vertebrate species last on average 3-5 million years Mammalian species last on average 1-3 million years.
Of course there are plenty of outliers to this. I have seen claims that blue whales have been around for the last 4.5 million years but I am not sure if they would count as the same species as we define them today.
But if we don't wipe ourselves out - and given that as a species we have only been around for aboiut 200,000 years - I reckon there is a decent chance we will still be around as a species in a million years.
And still be arguing about bloody planning laws.
Frankly, I'm just astonished that every single one of my ancestors managed to reproduce. I mean, how likely is that?
You wouldn't be posting on PB if they didn't, so no need to be astounded.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
You were claiming that all infrastructure was paid out of taxation, which is patently nonsense, not to mention stuff that should be sent to the treatment plant, except there isn't one or the old one is now overworked.
I'm don't really understand BR's position here. If United Utilities need to put in infrastructure for a new development, they should charge their existing customers for it rather than the developer or government?
(I think there is an interesting idea here but it seems a bit inconsistent)
I'm increasingly confident the Tories will hold Mid Beds because there won't be a clear challenger.
For us Psephologists, this is indeed an excellent test case for about a billion similar Blue Wall examples come the General Election. I am genuinely fascinated to learn how this example plays out.
Now it could be as straightforward as a constituency poll with just weeks to polling showing one challenger some way ahead of the other, is all it will take for the tactical voters to know what to do. And that same poll also bring an end to the Lib Dem v lab stand off over who is going to switch to just token campaigning.
There is certain to be a coach load of Blue Wall constituency polls published during the next general election campaign to guide tactical voters in any case.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Good use of the portmanteau word 'bokum' there. I shall adopt it.
Anyway, I'm sure the CofE can find a place in its infintely flexible belief system for aliens
Oh great. Endless years of the CofE bickering about whether alien marriage is permissible. Vaughan Roberts from St Ebbe's will proclaim that he has struggled with attraction to aliens but, despite that, alien marriage is intolerable and any church that supports it must be drummed out (contd. p94)
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
You were claiming that all infrastructure was paid out of taxation, which is patently nonsense, not to mention stuff that should be sent to the treatment plant, except there isn't one or the old one is now overworked.
No, I didn't, I said all public infrastructure is paid for out of taxes, which it is.
Private infrastructure, owned and operated by United Utilities, is United Utilities responsibility.
Either way, it is not a new home tenant or owner's responsibility. If its private, then its up to the private firm to resolve and bill their customers accordingly. If its a regulated private sector that has an obligation to serve all people, then they need to charge all their customers accordingly at whatever appropriate regulation-based rates there are, but its their responsibility either way.
If its public, then yes it should come from taxation.
The fact that an old plant is overworked isn't relevant. If there's been population growth that has led to it being overworked then that means that there needs to be investment - whether that be taxpayer investment if its public infrastructure, or commercial investment if its private infrastructure.
Neither way should it be a barrier to building homes or relieving overcrowding. The homes should be built and if the investment is needed it should be done, but neither should be a barrier to the other happening. Unless you want to shut the borders and start deporting hundreds of thousands of people, shoving people into overcrowded HMOs isn't an alternative to investing in sewage treatment,
I don't think I've ever seen a ghost. Not one God has ever spoken to me. I've never seen a miracle. I believe aliens exist in some form, maybe even in our solar system as amoeba or some far off galaxy civilisation. They might have visited us but I have no proof either way. There's plenty of stuff that I can't explain but I don't think it's aliens or ghosts or a God. Maybe it's the universe's way of telling me I'm a boring c###?
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Depends on interpretation of whatever writ ye hold holy.
For example, "making man in God's image" does NOT necessarily mean that highly-evolved Giant Lizards of Planet WTF are NOT also reflections of the Divine.
A truly omniscient God will by definition be unbound by your - or my - feeble ken. Or barbie!
BTW have you considered possibility, that Robert Oppenheimer's famous Trinity quote, was actually him foreseeing the Birth of Barbie just a decade and a half later . . .
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
You were claiming that all infrastructure was paid out of taxation, which is patently nonsense, not to mention stuff that should be sent to the treatment plant, except there isn't one or the old one is now overworked.
I'm don't really understand BR's position here. If United Utilities need to put in infrastructure for a new development, they should charge their existing customers for it rather than the developer or government?
(I think there is an interesting idea here but it seems a bit inconsistent)
It is United Utilities responsibility to manage their infrastructure.
If their infrastructure is insufficient, they need to invest to improve it. That is their regulated responsibility.
How they pay for that is their responsibility and theirs alone. If the state wants to support it, then it is the taxpayers responsibility. It is not the responsibility of young people or immigrants who happen to live in newer buildings, the age of the building is neither here nor there to the demands to go to treatment plants.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
Talking of ancient civilisations, meanwhile, how long have humans been around? Some perhaps few hundred thousand years. Dinosaurs existed for 120m years. Just imagine where (if?) humanity will be in 1m years, let alone 120m years. Bonkers.
Pedant hat.
Dinosaurs are a whole Superorder in traditional Linnean classification. They are represented by something north of 700 species and existed for around 170 million years.
Humans are one species of the Superorder Euarchonta which has itself been around for over 80 million years.
Okey dokey. Still interested in what we will be up to in a million years' time.
I agree. There was an interesting study done about 25 years ago looking at average 'life' expectancies of species.
The bad news is that compared to invertebrates we do pretty badly.
Invertebrate species last on average 7 - 10 million years Vertebrate species last on average 3-5 million years Mammalian species last on average 1-3 million years.
Of course there are plenty of outliers to this. I have seen claims that blue whales have been around for the last 4.5 million years but I am not sure if they would count as the same species as we define them today.
But if we don't wipe ourselves out - and given that as a species we have only been around for aboiut 200,000 years - I reckon there is a decent chance we will still be around as a species in a million years.
And still be arguing about bloody planning laws.
Frankly, I'm just astonished that every single one of my ancestors managed to reproduce. I mean, how likely is that?
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
But what gives you the faith? How do you get it? Is it as simple as waking up and thinking "I believe in God/Allah/Thor/Yoda"? What makes you believe, and why?
Talking of ancient civilisations, meanwhile, how long have humans been around? Some perhaps few hundred thousand years. Dinosaurs existed for 120m years. Just imagine where (if?) humanity will be in 1m years, let alone 120m years. Bonkers.
Pedant hat.
Dinosaurs are a whole Superorder in traditional Linnean classification. They are represented by something north of 700 species and existed for around 170 million years.
Humans are one species of the Superorder Euarchonta which has itself been around for over 80 million years.
Okey dokey. Still interested in what we will be up to in a million years' time.
I agree. There was an interesting study done about 25 years ago looking at average 'life' expectancies of species.
The bad news is that compared to invertebrates we do pretty badly.
Invertebrate species last on average 7 - 10 million years Vertebrate species last on average 3-5 million years Mammalian species last on average 1-3 million years.
Of course there are plenty of outliers to this. I have seen claims that blue whales have been around for the last 4.5 million years but I am not sure if they would count as the same species as we define them today.
But if we don't wipe ourselves out - and given that as a species we have only been around for aboiut 200,000 years - I reckon there is a decent chance we will still be around as a species in a million years.
And still be arguing about bloody planning laws.
Frankly, I'm just astonished that every single one of my ancestors managed to reproduce. I mean, how likely is that?
Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport.
Aberdeen airport is not bad (I've been there), although the taxi rank is a bit bus shelter. It's alright: nothing special but clean and safe. However, travelling from/to Aberdeen gives you the opportunity to do this:
A bed! In a train! With a door you can lock and barricade to prevent others from getting to you! And room service! No telly, but I've slept in a lot worse.
Its a tourist service sold for £lots. And why not - it sells out in the summer. As an example I can have a return flight to London for £139 next week. Whereas the sleeper is sold out and would have been £100 more than that for one way...
Who needs a sleeper berth? The seats are cheap as chips.
As I understand it from watching and reading various reviews of the seats, the proposition is: A seat which has little padding A seat which has restricted room due to air ducts Said air ducts which blow cold air so that it is too cold Overhead lights which are pointlessly bright
Which ignores the other reality which is that its a seat and I don't sleep in a seat.
EDIT - Scott at Planes, Trains, Everything has done all of the overnight travel options from London to Glasgow. The sleeper seats were the most expensive and least comfortable...
Presumably from a commercial perspective the seated passengers (presumably a public service obligation) are an annoyance for what is being marketed as a luxury service. But I thought that, even as a luxury service, it was poor. We had to wait over an hour for breakfast and couldn't go anywhere out of our cabin. The only thing was, as it was over an hour late getting in to the destination, we got all our money back under the delay repay scheme. But it isn't a great train journey. Its better to travel to Aberdeen or Inverness on the refurbished 125's.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
If the rot setting in is a 16 point lead - according to one Twitter commentor from the Tories it is - then I think SKS should just declare himself PM now as clearly the Tories have given up being serious.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I do understand faith.
It is a naive belief in the supernatural rather than a rigorous scientific investigation into reality. It's easier to believe in the mythical than to face the reality that there are things you do not understand.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I normally do say nothing. I abhor those Richard Dawkins books, or indeed any debate about god's existence, because it is not something that I am remotely interested in "discussing". There is no god hence I couldn't care less what other people think or try to prove one way or the other.
This started because @Rochdale says he has a ghost cat. He doesn't. There is a phenomenon which his mind has created and with the power of suggestion he has seen a cat. As have other people. Just like that hypnotist at my passing out ball.
It is no more a "real" ghost cat than those magicians on Britain's Got Talent are performing "real" magic. Or perhaps you do think that because the guy correctly pulls the six of hearts out of Simon Cowell's pocket that they have been using magic.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Good use of the portmanteau word 'bokum' there. I shall adopt it.
Anyway, I'm sure the CofE can find a place in its infintely flexible belief system for aliens
Oh great. Endless years of the CofE bickering about whether alien marriage is permissible. Vaughan Roberts from St Ebbe's will proclaim that he has struggled with attraction to aliens but, despite that, alien marriage is intolerable and any church that supports it must be drummed out (contd. p94)
I'm increasingly confident the Tories will hold Mid Beds because there won't be a clear challenger.
For us Psephologists, this is indeed an excellent test case for about a billion similar Blue Wall examples come the General Election. I am genuinely fascinated to learn how this example plays out.
Now it could be as straightforward as a constituency poll with just weeks to polling showing one challenger some way ahead of the other, is all it will take for the tactical voters to know what to do. And that same poll also bring an end to the Lib Dem v lab stand off over who is going to switch to just token campaigning.
There is certain to be a coach load of Blue Wall constituency polls published during the next general election campaign to guide tactical voters in any case.
Besides, there aren't that many marginal Conservative seats where it's unclear who the main challenger is;
Here I've highlighted 2019 Conservative seats where Labour or the Lib Dems were in second place and within 10% of each other. They are 2 of the 95 seats the Conservatives need to be the largest party.
(London and Westminster and Finchley and Golders Green, if you're interested.)
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I normally do say nothing. I abhor those Richard Dawkins books, or indeed any debate about god's existence, because it is not something that I am remotely interested in "discussing". There is no god hence I couldn't care less what other people think or try to prove one way or the other.
This started because @Rochdale says he has a ghost cat. He doesn't. There is a phenomenon which his mind has created and with the power of suggestion he has seen a cat. As have other people. Just like that hypnotist at my passing out ball.
It is no more a "real" ghost cat than those magicians on Britain's Got Talent are performing "real" magic. Or perhaps you do think that because the guy correctly pulls the six of hearts out of Simon Cowell's pocket that they have been using magic.
This is sixth form epistemology, and it ain't worth my time. TBH
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Why? Jesus or Mohammed didn't say anything about there being no life in the universe beyond humanity.
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
So, humans are made in the image of God? But those super intelligent aliens who've mastered space travel before us are not made in the image of God? (Unless you believe that aliens are likely to be humanoid in appearance,)
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Yes that's reasonable.
But if they take the responsibility rather than septic tanks doing so, then it is up to them how they finance their responsibilities.
New home or old home, the shit needs processing either way.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Perhaps it’s like that Star Trek episode where we find out that all humanoid life has a common origin. That wouldn’t be incompatible with their viewpoint.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
But what gives you the faith? How do you get it? Is it as simple as waking up and thinking "I believe in God/Allah/Thor/Yoda"? What makes you believe, and why?
I heartily recommend Ayahuasca. But you need to get the good stuff. Don't fuck about with fake wizards in Iquitos
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I normally do say nothing. I abhor those Richard Dawkins books, or indeed any debate about god's existence, because it is not something that I am remotely interested in "discussing". There is no god hence I couldn't care less what other people think or try to prove one way or the other.
This started because @Rochdale says he has a ghost cat. He doesn't. There is a phenomenon which his mind has created and with the power of suggestion he has seen a cat. As have other people. Just like that hypnotist at my passing out ball.
It is no more a "real" ghost cat than those magicians on Britain's Got Talent are performing "real" magic. Or perhaps you do think that because the guy correctly pulls the six of hearts out of Simon Cowell's pocket that they have been using magic.
This is sixth form epistemology, and it ain't worth my time. TBH
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much meat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
Although I can only read the headline, I'll bet that the article from a "private jet travel boss" is entirely objective.
But it's true. You can dispute the detailed numbers on the private jet claim, but pets are REALLY REALLY bad for the environment, and owning one is a monumental act of selfishness. Because you don't NEED a pet
"By owning a pet, you are doing more damage to the environment than you might realise
Truth-telling about pets can be a painful process but cats and dogs, particularly, are having a devastating impact on the planet"
Not defending pets. Just querying whether the contribution of a "private travel jet boss" in the notoriously factual DT is of any more value than the contribution of, say, Arthur the Alsatian in weighing up the environmental cost of private jets vs. pets.
I imagine he is a tad biased, but his central point is good. Any pet owner is in a bad position to point their accusing, poo-covered, multi-parasitised fingers at anyone else, for enviro-negative behaviour
I read that article and his central claim is that a private jet only emits 2.1 tonnes of carbon each year. This would only be possible if it never flew anywhere.
Probably mixed up "year" with "hour". Easy mistake to make...
Khan had previously pledged to go further and introduce a zero emissions zone in central London in his transport strategy, which was first published in 2018. It was updated last year to highlight “the triple challenges of toxic air pollution, the climate emergency and traffic congestion”.
In the plan, the mayor had pledged to work towards a new central London zone by 2025, which it said would “likely” require any non-zero emission vehicle to pay a daily charge. As well as Ulez, central London has a congestion charge zone that levies a £15 daily fee on drivers of all petrol or diesel-engined vehicles.
A spokesperson for the mayor said that, although the zero emission zone plan had been shelved, it was still possible that individual London boroughs could implement their own schemes with support from Transport for London.
Really poor from Khan as this was an excellent policy. With few exceptions, driving in Central London is pointless and needlessly damaging to our health and the environment. Weak weak weak.
Khan had previously pledged to go further and introduce a zero emissions zone in central London in his transport strategy, which was first published in 2018. It was updated last year to highlight “the triple challenges of toxic air pollution, the climate emergency and traffic congestion”.
In the plan, the mayor had pledged to work towards a new central London zone by 2025, which it said would “likely” require any non-zero emission vehicle to pay a daily charge. As well as Ulez, central London has a congestion charge zone that levies a £15 daily fee on drivers of all petrol or diesel-engined vehicles.
A spokesperson for the mayor said that, although the zero emission zone plan had been shelved, it was still possible that individual London boroughs could implement their own schemes with support from Transport for London.
Really poor from Khan as this was an excellent policy. With few exceptions, driving in Central London is pointless and needlessly damaging to our health and the environment. Weak weak weak.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I normally do say nothing. I abhor those Richard Dawkins books, or indeed any debate about god's existence, because it is not something that I am remotely interested in "discussing". There is no god hence I couldn't care less what other people think or try to prove one way or the other.
This started because @Rochdale says he has a ghost cat. He doesn't. There is a phenomenon which his mind has created and with the power of suggestion he has seen a cat. As have other people. Just like that hypnotist at my passing out ball.
It is no more a "real" ghost cat than those magicians on Britain's Got Talent are performing "real" magic. Or perhaps you do think that because the guy correctly pulls the six of hearts out of Simon Cowell's pocket that they have been using magic.
This is sixth form epistemology, and it ain't worth my time. TBH
Time for choral evensong?
Nothing so exciting, I do rather like a beautiful choral evensong
One of my most spiritual moments (outside actual theophanies) was listening to an Anglican evensong in King's College, then walking out into a foggy November evening, in Cambridge: the wraiths of the fens winding by the Gothic lanes, the dampness of the air turning everything to illusion, the sounds of tinkling bicycles disppearing, down the silvered cobbles, and into the ghostly mist. Then I carried the chiming tunes of Howells and Bach into the pub - the pub where they announced the discovery of DNA
Khan had previously pledged to go further and introduce a zero emissions zone in central London in his transport strategy, which was first published in 2018. It was updated last year to highlight “the triple challenges of toxic air pollution, the climate emergency and traffic congestion”.
In the plan, the mayor had pledged to work towards a new central London zone by 2025, which it said would “likely” require any non-zero emission vehicle to pay a daily charge. As well as Ulez, central London has a congestion charge zone that levies a £15 daily fee on drivers of all petrol or diesel-engined vehicles.
A spokesperson for the mayor said that, although the zero emission zone plan had been shelved, it was still possible that individual London boroughs could implement their own schemes with support from Transport for London.
Really poor from Khan as this was an excellent policy. With few exceptions, driving in Central London is pointless and needlessly damaging to our health and the environment. Weak weak weak.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Why? Jesus or Mohammed didn't say anything about there being no life in the universe beyond humanity.
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
So, humans are made in the image of God? But those super intelligent aliens who've mastered space travel before us are not made in the image of God? (Unless you believe that aliens are likely to be humanoid in appearance,)
Though once you plug in the same physics and chemistry everywhere, maybe you do end up with something superficially different but fundamentally human-like. Sort of like how Skoda and VW cars are essentially the same.
As for what this tells us about God (as opposed to how we try to make sense of God), probably not very much...
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I normally do say nothing. I abhor those Richard Dawkins books, or indeed any debate about god's existence, because it is not something that I am remotely interested in "discussing". There is no god hence I couldn't care less what other people think or try to prove one way or the other.
This started because @Rochdale says he has a ghost cat. He doesn't. There is a phenomenon which his mind has created and with the power of suggestion he has seen a cat. As have other people. Just like that hypnotist at my passing out ball.
It is no more a "real" ghost cat than those magicians on Britain's Got Talent are performing "real" magic. Or perhaps you do think that because the guy correctly pulls the six of hearts out of Simon Cowell's pocket that they have been using magic.
This is sixth form epistemology, and it ain't worth my time. TBH
Time for choral evensong?
Nothing so exciting, I do rather like a beautiful choral evensong
One of my most spiritual moments (outside actual theophanies) was listening to a magnficent Anglican evensong in King's College, then walking out into a misty November evening, in Cambridge: the wraiths of the fens winding down the Gothic lanes, the dampness of the air turning everything to illusion, the sounds of tinkling bicycles disppearing into the ghostly mist, along the silvered cobbles. Then I carried the chiming and resonant tunes of Howells and Bach into the pub where they announced the discovery of DNA
Been to the pub (more than one pint there), *and* to the dept too.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Why? Jesus or Mohammed didn't say anything about there being no life in the universe beyond humanity.
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
So, humans are made in the image of God? But those super intelligent aliens who've mastered space travel before us are not made in the image of God? (Unless you believe that aliens are likely to be humanoid in appearance,)
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much meat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
Although I can only read the headline, I'll bet that the article from a "private jet travel boss" is entirely objective.
But it's true. You can dispute the detailed numbers on the private jet claim, but pets are REALLY REALLY bad for the environment, and owning one is a monumental act of selfishness. Because you don't NEED a pet
"By owning a pet, you are doing more damage to the environment than you might realise
Truth-telling about pets can be a painful process but cats and dogs, particularly, are having a devastating impact on the planet"
Not defending pets. Just querying whether the contribution of a "private travel jet boss" in the notoriously factual DT is of any more value than the contribution of, say, Arthur the Alsatian in weighing up the environmental cost of private jets vs. pets.
I imagine he is a tad biased, but his central point is good. Any pet owner is in a bad position to point their accusing, poo-covered, multi-parasitised fingers at anyone else, for enviro-negative behaviour
I read that article and his central claim is that a private jet only emits 2.1 tonnes of carbon each year. This would only be possible if it never flew anywhere.
Probably mixed up "year" with "hour". Easy mistake to make...
It is two tonnes of CO2 per hour, yes, so presumably that is what the mistake is.
Khan had previously pledged to go further and introduce a zero emissions zone in central London in his transport strategy, which was first published in 2018. It was updated last year to highlight “the triple challenges of toxic air pollution, the climate emergency and traffic congestion”.
In the plan, the mayor had pledged to work towards a new central London zone by 2025, which it said would “likely” require any non-zero emission vehicle to pay a daily charge. As well as Ulez, central London has a congestion charge zone that levies a £15 daily fee on drivers of all petrol or diesel-engined vehicles.
A spokesperson for the mayor said that, although the zero emission zone plan had been shelved, it was still possible that individual London boroughs could implement their own schemes with support from Transport for London.
Really poor from Khan as this was an excellent policy. With few exceptions, driving in Central London is pointless and needlessly damaging to our health and the environment. Weak weak weak.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Why? Jesus or Mohammed didn't say anything about there being no life in the universe beyond humanity.
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
So, humans are made in the image of God? But those super intelligent aliens who've mastered space travel before us are not made in the image of God? (Unless you believe that aliens are likely to be humanoid in appearance,)
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much meat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
Although I can only read the headline, I'll bet that the article from a "private jet travel boss" is entirely objective.
But it's true. You can dispute the detailed numbers on the private jet claim, but pets are REALLY REALLY bad for the environment, and owning one is a monumental act of selfishness. Because you don't NEED a pet
"By owning a pet, you are doing more damage to the environment than you might realise
Truth-telling about pets can be a painful process but cats and dogs, particularly, are having a devastating impact on the planet"
Not defending pets. Just querying whether the contribution of a "private travel jet boss" in the notoriously factual DT is of any more value than the contribution of, say, Arthur the Alsatian in weighing up the environmental cost of private jets vs. pets.
I imagine he is a tad biased, but his central point is good. Any pet owner is in a bad position to point their accusing, poo-covered, multi-parasitised fingers at anyone else, for enviro-negative behaviour
I read that article and his central claim is that a private jet only emits 2.1 tonnes of carbon each year. This would only be possible if it never flew anywhere.
Probably mixed up "year" with "hour". Easy mistake to make...
It is two tonnes of CO2 per hour, yes, so presumably that is what the mistake is.
When he was questioned, the Luxaviation guy admitted he meant a private jet user - renter - who only took one flight a year. He claimed that is the average
So he bent the numbers quite spectacularly and mendaciously. The more surprising thing for me is that just one dog is worse than a big fuming car
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Why? Jesus or Mohammed didn't say anything about there being no life in the universe beyond humanity.
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
So, humans are made in the image of God? But those super intelligent aliens who've mastered space travel before us are not made in the image of God? (Unless you believe that aliens are likely to be humanoid in appearance,)
You appear to have very blinkered view of "the image of God" as limited to specimens one might find modeling apparel on a home-shopping web-page.
Perhaps God has a somewhat more expansive view? That anything with any image is ipso facto divine?
I note you have (so far) totally ignored Burning Question of the Summer of '23 = Is Barbie God, or Visa Versa?
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I normally do say nothing. I abhor those Richard Dawkins books, or indeed any debate about god's existence, because it is not something that I am remotely interested in "discussing". There is no god hence I couldn't care less what other people think or try to prove one way or the other.
This started because @Rochdale says he has a ghost cat. He doesn't. There is a phenomenon which his mind has created and with the power of suggestion he has seen a cat. As have other people. Just like that hypnotist at my passing out ball.
It is no more a "real" ghost cat than those magicians on Britain's Got Talent are performing "real" magic. Or perhaps you do think that because the guy correctly pulls the six of hearts out of Simon Cowell's pocket that they have been using magic.
This is sixth form epistemology, and it ain't worth my time. TBH
Time for choral evensong?
Nothing so exciting, I do rather like a beautiful choral evensong
One of my most spiritual moments (outside actual theophanies) was listening to a magnficent Anglican evensong in King's College, then walking out into a misty November evening, in Cambridge: the wraiths of the fens winding down the Gothic lanes, the dampness of the air turning everything to illusion, the sounds of tinkling bicycles disppearing into the ghostly mist, along the silvered cobbles. Then I carried the chiming and resonant tunes of Howells and Bach into the pub where they announced the discovery of DNA
Been to the pub (more than one pint there), *and* to the dept too.
And right outside the pub - across the road - is a church built by King Cnut. A thousand years old
I love Cambridge. It is probably the most beautiful small city in the world, and surely the most fascinating
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
Adequate facilities or no, people are going to add to the particulate levels in the rivers, as discussed, by doing what comes naturally. One assumes that the rivers being affected are broadly the same ones.
If I have to find a fly, it's that in order to appease the Natural England they've had to give them a massive bung. Given that this stupid law was a European one, it continues to disappoint me that we need to stay 'on message' with the EU's masterplan. We've left, so their writ applying across the board can fuck off.
However, overall this is still an extremely positive step and Gove and Sunak deserve credit.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Why? Jesus or Mohammed didn't say anything about there being no life in the universe beyond humanity.
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
So, humans are made in the image of God? But those super intelligent aliens who've mastered space travel before us are not made in the image of God? (Unless you believe that aliens are likely to be humanoid in appearance,)
Though once you plug in the same physics and chemistry everywhere, maybe you do end up with something superficially different but fundamentally human-like. Sort of like how Skoda and VW cars are essentially the same.
As for what this tells us about God (as opposed to how we try to make sense of God), probably not very much...
Khan had previously pledged to go further and introduce a zero emissions zone in central London in his transport strategy, which was first published in 2018. It was updated last year to highlight “the triple challenges of toxic air pollution, the climate emergency and traffic congestion”.
In the plan, the mayor had pledged to work towards a new central London zone by 2025, which it said would “likely” require any non-zero emission vehicle to pay a daily charge. As well as Ulez, central London has a congestion charge zone that levies a £15 daily fee on drivers of all petrol or diesel-engined vehicles.
A spokesperson for the mayor said that, although the zero emission zone plan had been shelved, it was still possible that individual London boroughs could implement their own schemes with support from Transport for London.
Really poor from Khan as this was an excellent policy. With few exceptions, driving in Central London is pointless and needlessly damaging to our health and the environment. Weak weak weak.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
Good.
If they don't want to take responsibility for the region then they shouldn't do so and a different firm should. Or a public firm.
If they can't do their regulated responsibilities then telling people to live in overcrowded HMOs (with just as much shit going into the system from them anyway) isn't an alternative.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
Adequate facilities or no, people are going to add to the particulate levels in the rivers, as discussed, by doing what comes naturally. One assumes that the rivers being affected are broadly the same ones.
If I have to find a fly, it's that in order to appease the Natural England they've had to give them a massive bung. Given that this stupid law was a European one, it continues to disappoint me that we need to stay 'on message' with the EU's masterplan. We've left, so their writ applying across the board can fuck off.
However, overall this is still an extremely positive step and Gove and Sunak deserve credit.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
Feels like a rather significant omission. Nice of Him to leave out that part so it will come as a surprise to us later though. I wonder if they got their own Genisis.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Whilst I tend to agree that religions are a load of guff (and of course have had to retreat on a load of things as science and society have moved on) I am not sure alien life presents unique challenges.
Firstly, I assume you mean intelligent alien life (primitive life isn't all that problematic).
But even assuming you do, is this really that different to undiscovered tribes centuries ago? A hard-line religious person says God has not revealed Himself to the new tribe because He favours us, and that justifies a range of responses from conversion to death (generously offering a choice between the two in some cases). A relative liberal says God is unknowable and reveals Himself to different people in different ways, we have much to learn, blah, blah etc.
As for making man in God's image, it hardly seems like the hardest line to row back if you're religious - they've done it on bigger things. But in any event it may not be necessary. It seems quite possible that an advanced, intelligent alien life form would be fairly similar to us visually and in terms of outlook - there are fundamental limits on biological physical form, there are forms (mental and physical) that give major advantages in communication and manipulation of the world around us, and forming into communities enabling a civilisation to be built probably requires certain things in terms of outlook. Of course, there will be important differences, and the intelligent life form might be a giant luminous slug whose behaviour is utterly beyond our comprehension. But I think that's less likely.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick but I was told that Yorkshire Water (and Severn Trent) had to agree for development work to go ahead. Perhaps they are only allowed to object at the planning stage in very specific circumstances. I shall ask.
We have the same problem as East Anglia - borehole supply is limited (and has to be diluted as it has too much nitrate).
Our local sewage treatment works is a disgrace, but that's a historic problem with discharge into what they claim is a river course, but is actually just an old oxbow which drains into the actual river (albeit an artificial channel) through a flap gate. Hence when the river is high, it backs up. As this usually happens when they have too much water to deal with you can imagine the mess.
YW refuse to do anything about it and get away with this as the effects are mostly hidden from view.
I shall drone them next time they do it and see if that helps wake anyone up.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
Good.
If they don't want to take responsibility for the region then they shouldn't do so and a different firm should. Or a public firm.
If they can't do their regulated responsibilities then telling people to live in overcrowded HMOs (with just as much shit going into the system from them anyway) isn't an alternative.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was simply pointing out it was a statutory requirement on water companies.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I normally do say nothing. I abhor those Richard Dawkins books, or indeed any debate about god's existence, because it is not something that I am remotely interested in "discussing". There is no god hence I couldn't care less what other people think or try to prove one way or the other.
This started because @Rochdale says he has a ghost cat. He doesn't. There is a phenomenon which his mind has created and with the power of suggestion he has seen a cat. As have other people. Just like that hypnotist at my passing out ball.
It is no more a "real" ghost cat than those magicians on Britain's Got Talent are performing "real" magic. Or perhaps you do think that because the guy correctly pulls the six of hearts out of Simon Cowell's pocket that they have been using magic.
This is sixth form epistemology, and it ain't worth my time. TBH
Time for choral evensong?
Nothing so exciting, I do rather like a beautiful choral evensong
One of my most spiritual moments (outside actual theophanies) was listening to a magnficent Anglican evensong in King's College, then walking out into a misty November evening, in Cambridge: the wraiths of the fens winding down the Gothic lanes, the dampness of the air turning everything to illusion, the sounds of tinkling bicycles disppearing into the ghostly mist, along the silvered cobbles. Then I carried the chiming and resonant tunes of Howells and Bach into the pub where they announced the discovery of DNA
Been to the pub (more than one pint there), *and* to the dept too.
Ditto. The Eagle. Owned and next to Corpus Christi so was the local of my son.
Nicola Sturgeon’s sudden resignation forced the SNP to spend £160,000 finding a new leader, adding to the financial problems that had built up on her watch, it has emerged.
In a report to SNP members, treasurer Stuart McDonald admitted none of the cost of the divisive month-long leadership election had been budgeted for.
He also revealed that after a series of financial crises, the party intended to recruit a “part time qualified accountant” to keep an eye on its books.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Why? Jesus or Mohammed didn't say anything about there being no life in the universe beyond humanity.
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
We have discussed before your reconciliation of Genesis and Evolution and although I can't remember what you said I do remember it was an imaginative and convincing argument (I thought I had you over a barrel, but I didn't).
However how do you reconcile the 'in the beginning' bit if evolution tells us man wasn't anywhere near the beginning?
Nicola Sturgeon’s sudden resignation forced the SNP to spend £160,000 finding a new leader, adding to the financial problems that had built up on her watch, it has emerged.
In a report to SNP members, treasurer Stuart McDonald admitted none of the cost of the divisive month-long leadership election had been budgeted for.
He also revealed that after a series of financial crises, the party intended to recruit a “part time qualified accountant” to keep an eye on its books.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Why? Jesus or Mohammed didn't say anything about there being no life in the universe beyond humanity.
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
So, humans are made in the image of God? But those super intelligent aliens who've mastered space travel before us are not made in the image of God? (Unless you believe that aliens are likely to be humanoid in appearance,)
With this ambiguous earth His dealings have been told us. These abide: The signal to a maid, the human birth, The lesson, and the young Man crucified.
But not a star of all The innumerable host of stars has heard How He administered this terrestrial ball. Our race have kept their Lord’s entrusted Word.
Of His earth-visiting feet None knows the secret, cherished, perilous, The terrible, shamefast, frightened, whispered, sweet, Heart-shattering secret of His way with us.
No planet knows that this Our wayside planet, carrying land and wave, Love and life multiplied, and pain and bliss, Bears, as chief treasure, one forsaken grave.
Nor, in our little day, May His devices with the heavens be guessed, His pilgrimage to thread the Milky Way Or His bestowals there be manifest.
But in the eternities, Doubtless we shall compare together, hear A million alien Gospels, in what guise He trod the Pleiades, the Lyre, the Bear.
O, be prepared, my soul! To read the inconceivable, to scan The myriad forms of God those stars unroll When, in our turn, we show to them a Man.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick but I was told that Yorkshire Water (and Severn Trent) had to agree for development work to go ahead. Perhaps they are only allowed to object at the planning stage in very specific circumstances. I shall ask.
We have the same problem as East Anglia - borehole supply is limited (and has to be diluted as it has too much nitrate).
Our local sewage treatment works is a disgrace, but that's a historic problem with discharge into what they claim is a river course, but is actually just an old oxbow which drains into the actual river (albeit an artificial channel) through a flap gate. Hence when the river is high, it backs up. As this usually happens when they have too much water to deal with you can imagine the mess.
YW refuse to do anything about it and get away with this as the effects are mostly hidden from view.
I shall drone them next time they do it and see if that helps wake anyone up.
They can make representations at the planning stage just like any other organisation but they don't have a veto as far as I know. Anglian have a big problem because, as you say, the boreholes are running dry as the aquifers get depleted. We are just extracting too much water and there is not enough rain to recharge them. This then affects the rivers as well.
Anglian are trying to deal with it with a series of large pipelines from the North to the south of their region.
Pesonally I think it would be much better if someone in Government just saw sense and ordered a bloody big new town or city built in North Lincolnshire instead of cramming everyone in around Peterborough.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
But what gives you the faith? How do you get it? Is it as simple as waking up and thinking "I believe in God/Allah/Thor/Yoda"? What makes you believe, and why?
I heartily recommend Ayahuasca. But you need to get the good stuff. Don't fuck about with fake wizards in Iquitos
Wouldn't 10 pints of Carling and a doner kebab have the same effect and be a bit cheaper?
Comments
Come on PBers, raise your game.
"the soul" LOL.
Some friends are into plant galls, which is admittedly a bit of an esoteric hobby. Many are made by wasps that somehow hijack the DNA of a plant to make it construct wasp homes. Oak apples (caused by the wasp Biorhiza pallida) are one that should be familiar to most people. All bizarre stuff.
I do wonder how many cancers and other degenerative diseases (Alzheimers?) are not random mutations as sometimes thought but are responses to parasitic or viral infections of some kind or another. Indeed, I believe Toxoplasma has been flagged as the likely cause of some brain tumours as well as "mad cat lady" syndrome (if that's not a phrase that gets me cancelled).
The bad news is that compared to invertebrates we do pretty badly.
Invertebrate species last on average 7 - 10 million years
Vertebrate species last on average 3-5 million years
Mammalian species last on average 1-3 million years.
Of course there are plenty of outliers to this. I have seen claims that blue whales have been around for the last 4.5 million years but I am not sure if they would count as the same species as we define them today.
But if we don't wipe ourselves out - and given that as a species we have only been around for aboiut 200,000 years - I reckon there is a decent chance we will still be around as a species in a million years.
And still be arguing about bloody planning laws.
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
Aren't you doing precisely the same?
In the infinitude of a trillion galaxies, with a googleplex of exoplanets, it is vanishingly unlikely that Earth is the only planet that harbours life, or ever have, or ever will
Whether any of this life has reached human levels of sophisitication, or beyond, and whether this life might have contacted us, in some form, are very very diffferent questions. Do not confuse them
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
The Gazette has just this moment commissioned me to go investigate luxury private islands off Cambodia...
Thanks to the power of prayer!
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you believe.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
Anyway, I'm sure the CofE can find a place in its infintely flexible belief system for aliens ('we believe that what God wants is exactly the same as what establishment belief is right now.')
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
(I think there is an interesting idea here but it seems a bit inconsistent)
Now it could be as straightforward as a constituency poll with just weeks to polling showing one challenger some way ahead of the other, is all it will take for the tactical voters to know what to do. And that same poll also bring an end to the Lib Dem v lab stand off over who is going to switch to just token campaigning.
There is certain to be a coach load of Blue Wall constituency polls published during the next general election campaign to guide tactical voters in any case.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
Private infrastructure, owned and operated by United Utilities, is United Utilities responsibility.
Either way, it is not a new home tenant or owner's responsibility. If its private, then its up to the private firm to resolve and bill their customers accordingly. If its a regulated private sector that has an obligation to serve all people, then they need to charge all their customers accordingly at whatever appropriate regulation-based rates there are, but its their responsibility either way.
If its public, then yes it should come from taxation.
The fact that an old plant is overworked isn't relevant. If there's been population growth that has led to it being overworked then that means that there needs to be investment - whether that be taxpayer investment if its public infrastructure, or commercial investment if its private infrastructure.
Neither way should it be a barrier to building homes or relieving overcrowding. The homes should be built and if the investment is needed it should be done, but neither should be a barrier to the other happening. Unless you want to shut the borders and start deporting hundreds of thousands of people, shoving people into overcrowded HMOs isn't an alternative to investing in sewage treatment,
There's plenty of stuff that I can't explain but I don't think it's aliens or ghosts or a God. Maybe it's the universe's way of telling me I'm a boring c###?
For example, "making man in God's image" does NOT necessarily mean that highly-evolved Giant Lizards of Planet WTF are NOT also reflections of the Divine.
A truly omniscient God will by definition be unbound by your - or my - feeble ken. Or barbie!
BTW have you considered possibility, that Robert Oppenheimer's famous Trinity quote, was actually him foreseeing the Birth of Barbie just a decade and a half later . . .
If their infrastructure is insufficient, they need to invest to improve it. That is their regulated responsibility.
How they pay for that is their responsibility and theirs alone. If the state wants to support it, then it is the taxpayers responsibility. It is not the responsibility of young people or immigrants who happen to live in newer buildings, the age of the building is neither here nor there to the demands to go to treatment plants.
Even Genesis just says in the beginning God made man, it doesn't say he didn't create aliens too later on
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
"Waters separated from the waters".
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtgOzzBMl2o
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
It is a naive belief in the supernatural rather than a rigorous scientific investigation into reality. It's easier to believe in the mythical than to face the reality that there are things you do not understand.
Understanding faith isn't the problem.
This started because @Rochdale says he has a ghost cat. He doesn't. There is a phenomenon which his mind has created and with the power of suggestion he has seen a cat. As have other people. Just like that hypnotist at my passing out ball.
It is no more a "real" ghost cat than those magicians on Britain's Got Talent are performing "real" magic. Or perhaps you do think that because the guy correctly pulls the six of hearts out of Simon Cowell's pocket that they have been using magic.
At least according to Big Science!
https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/jshs.2015.0154?journalCode=jshs
Here I've highlighted 2019 Conservative seats where Labour or the Lib Dems were in second place and within 10% of each other. They are 2 of the 95 seats the Conservatives need to be the largest party.
(London and Westminster and Finchley and
Golders Green, if you're interested.)
https://twitter.com/OwenWntr/status/1696433225214709944
There are plenty of seats where the third party has to be willing to be squeezed, but that's another matter.
But if they take the responsibility rather than septic tanks doing so, then it is up to them how they finance their responsibilities.
New home or old home, the shit needs processing either way.
In the plan, the mayor had pledged to work towards a new central London zone by 2025, which it said would “likely” require any non-zero emission vehicle to pay a daily charge. As well as Ulez, central London has a congestion charge zone that levies a £15 daily fee on drivers of all petrol or diesel-engined vehicles.
A spokesperson for the mayor said that, although the zero emission zone plan had been shelved, it was still possible that individual London boroughs could implement their own schemes with support from Transport for London.
https://www.ft.com/content/d373d159-7a96-427a-9d97-14542eac8527
Really poor from Khan as this was an excellent policy. With few exceptions, driving in Central London is pointless and needlessly damaging to our health and the environment. Weak weak weak.
One of my most spiritual moments (outside actual theophanies) was listening to an Anglican evensong in King's College, then walking out into a foggy November evening, in Cambridge: the wraiths of the fens winding by the Gothic lanes, the dampness of the air turning everything to illusion, the sounds of tinkling bicycles disppearing, down the silvered cobbles, and into the ghostly mist. Then I carried the chiming tunes of Howells and Bach into the pub - the pub where they announced the discovery of DNA
As for what this tells us about God (as opposed to how we try to make sense of God), probably not very much...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/26/flying-shame-the-scandalous-rise-of-private-jets
Quite a spectacular error though.
So he bent the numbers quite spectacularly and mendaciously. The more surprising thing for me is that just one dog is worse than a big fuming car
Perhaps God has a somewhat more expansive view? That anything with any image is ipso facto divine?
I note you have (so far) totally ignored Burning Question of the Summer of '23 = Is Barbie God, or Visa Versa?
I love Cambridge. It is probably the most beautiful small city in the world, and surely the most fascinating
If I have to find a fly, it's that in order to appease the Natural England they've had to give them a massive bung. Given that this stupid law was a European one, it continues to disappoint me that we need to stay 'on message' with the EU's masterplan. We've left, so their writ applying across the board can fuck off.
However, overall this is still an extremely positive step and Gove and Sunak deserve credit.
If they don't want to take responsibility for the region then they shouldn't do so and a different firm should. Or a public firm.
If they can't do their regulated responsibilities then telling people to live in overcrowded HMOs (with just as much shit going into the system from them anyway) isn't an alternative.
Firstly, I assume you mean intelligent alien life (primitive life isn't all that problematic).
But even assuming you do, is this really that different to undiscovered tribes centuries ago? A hard-line religious person says God has not revealed Himself to the new tribe because He favours us, and that justifies a range of responses from conversion to death (generously offering a choice between the two in some cases). A relative liberal says God is unknowable and reveals Himself to different people in different ways, we have much to learn, blah, blah etc.
As for making man in God's image, it hardly seems like the hardest line to row back if you're religious - they've done it on bigger things. But in any event it may not be necessary. It seems quite possible that an advanced, intelligent alien life form would be fairly similar to us visually and in terms of outlook - there are fundamental limits on biological physical form, there are forms (mental and physical) that give major advantages in communication and manipulation of the world around us, and forming into communities enabling a civilisation to be built probably requires certain things in terms of outlook. Of course, there will be important differences, and the intelligent life form might be a giant luminous slug whose behaviour is utterly beyond our comprehension. But I think that's less likely.
We have the same problem as East Anglia - borehole supply is limited (and has to be diluted as it has too much nitrate).
Our local sewage treatment works is a disgrace, but that's a historic problem with discharge into what they claim is a river course, but is actually just an old oxbow which drains into the actual river (albeit an artificial channel) through a flap gate. Hence when the river is high, it backs up. As this usually happens when they have too much water to deal with you can imagine the mess.
YW refuse to do anything about it and get away with this as the effects are mostly hidden from view.
I shall drone them next time they do it and see if that helps wake anyone up.
https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/1696551676478435661
Two months of this season left to make serious gains otherwise have to wait until spring.
In a report to SNP members, treasurer Stuart McDonald admitted none of the cost of the divisive month-long leadership election had been budgeted for.
He also revealed that after a series of financial crises, the party intended to recruit a “part time qualified accountant” to keep an eye on its books.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23754546.snp-leadership-contest-blew-160k-hole-partys-finances/?ref=twtrec
However how do you reconcile the 'in the beginning' bit if evolution tells us man wasn't anywhere near the beginning?
Water, go right ahead, pollute away.
Utterly pathetic.
With this ambiguous earth
His dealings have been told us. These abide:
The signal to a maid, the human birth,
The lesson, and the young Man crucified.
But not a star of all
The innumerable host of stars has heard
How He administered this terrestrial ball.
Our race have kept their Lord’s entrusted Word.
Of His earth-visiting feet
None knows the secret, cherished, perilous,
The terrible, shamefast, frightened, whispered, sweet,
Heart-shattering secret of His way with us.
No planet knows that this
Our wayside planet, carrying land and wave,
Love and life multiplied, and pain and bliss,
Bears, as chief treasure, one forsaken grave.
Nor, in our little day,
May His devices with the heavens be guessed,
His pilgrimage to thread the Milky Way
Or His bestowals there be manifest.
But in the eternities,
Doubtless we shall compare together, hear
A million alien Gospels, in what guise
He trod the Pleiades, the Lyre, the Bear.
O, be prepared, my soul!
To read the inconceivable, to scan
The myriad forms of God those stars unroll
When, in our turn, we show to them a Man.
Alice Meynell
Anglian are trying to deal with it with a series of large pipelines from the North to the south of their region.
Pesonally I think it would be much better if someone in Government just saw sense and ordered a bloody big new town or city built in North Lincolnshire instead of cramming everyone in around Peterborough.