On the subject of the Conservative leadership, I think they should go with Kemi.
Yes, she has problems, and there is a risk that she comes over as lightweight and/or implodes. But I believe she is intelligent and - for a politician - broadly moral. Like Gove, I think she has an interest in seeking out solutions to problems.
That said: she has had little experience of actually managing things, and is apparently thin skinned. One can also only hope that her off the cuff comments are just humour.
Not perfect, then, but I consider Jenrick to be morally challenged. And a charisma vacuum.
Jenrick is a better speaker than Badenoch and more likely to hold onto most 2024 Tory voters and more likely to be able to make inroads with redwall Labour voters as Starmer becomes unpopular.
Reform voters will largely stick with Farage over Badenoch or Jenrick, neither will likely win back LD ex Tory voters either
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
Your comments on PB provide great reassurance to the agnostic dyslexic community about the existence of dog.
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
Alternatively even some atheists would agree with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even if they don't believe he is God.
Most of the Ten Commandments are also the foundation of a civilised society
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
Alternatively even some atheists would agree with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even if they don't believe he is God.
Most of the Ten Commandments are also the foundation of a civilised society
You don’t need to invent a Santa in the sky to understand that killing other people is bad.
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
Alternatively even some atheists would agree with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even if they don't believe he is God.
Most of the Ten Commandments are also the foundation of a civilised society
You don’t need to invent a Santa in the sky to understand that killing other people is bad.
Although fear of the fiery depths of hell may help stop people doing bad things
"The Tories have a chance – but only if they elect a leader willing to disrupt Questioning bankrupt orthodoxies is a step towards devising workable solutions."
I am (I think) a deist because consciousness seems ridiculous to me in a purely materialistic sense. I don't really know anything more than that. Don't even see the evidence for free will frankly.
Free will? If we didn't have free will, would we ever do anything difficult?
It isn't possible to form a rational judgment against the existence of free will, since any such judgment in your mind must, if correct, have arisen by necessity from the operations of the laws of nature beginning before you were were born and so your opinion on the matter arises from necessity not considered judgment, and therefore it is irrational to place any reliance on it. Because you have no free will, you have no choice about placing your reliance on it of course, so the very idea of rationality can be thrown out of the window.
All existing evidence suggest that God, resiling from an infinitude of uneventful timelessness, created the universe for His own entertainment. He enjoys it through the senses of every sentient creature, not just humans. When you crush a fly God experiences the act from both points of view. When a man vanquishes his rival God marks both the triumph and the pity with equanimity. Only humans, with our severely limited perspective, are inclined to take sides. God doesn't care what happens next, as long as it's interesting.
Two important corollaries arise from this: (a) you may logically thank God if something nice happens ... but don't expect Him to help out if something nasty rears its head, and (b) anyone who invokes the name of God in support of their personal opinions about human conduct is either a fool or a charlatan.
It’s certainly true that the debate always circles around whether there is or isn’t a god, and often it seems to be assumed that if the answer is yes, then worship and religion is a given. I strongly doubt the answer is yes, but if it is, there is a whole stack of potential types of gods where worship would be either futile or unjustifiable.
Alternatively even some atheists would agree with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ. Even if they don't believe he is God.
Most of the Ten Commandments are also the foundation of a civilised society
I agree with almost all the teaching of Jesus Christ. Except that bit about a camel's eye. That bit, I'm not that keen on.
"The Tories have a chance – but only if they elect a leader willing to disrupt Questioning bankrupt orthodoxies is a step towards devising workable solutions."
Comments
Reform voters will largely stick with Farage over Badenoch or Jenrick, neither will likely win back LD ex Tory voters either
Either dodgy Jenrick or crazy Kemi will be a gift to the other parties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1ulBcFCt-E
Dem +1%
Nevada
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Michigan
GOP +1%
North Carolina
Georgia
Arizona
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/pennsylvania/
Most of the Ten Commandments are also the foundation of a civilised society
"The Tories have a chance – but only if they elect a leader willing to disrupt
Questioning bankrupt orthodoxies is a step towards devising workable solutions."
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/10/the-tories-have-a-chance-but-only-if-they-elect-a-leader-willing-to-disrupt
"Wimbledon brings in electronic line calling for 2025"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/articles/ce3zg3y23v7o
https://archive.is/uNYlx