If the Euro elections were run an infinite number of times would the Lib Dems eventually win one ?
Possibly, but a branch of theoretical physics suggest that universes exist for all possibilities. So presumably there is one where that would happen. There is probably another where Ed Miliband is a charismatic popular leader.
There is probably another where Ed Miliband is a charismatic popular leader.
I think you've disproved the theory.
What about the universe where Nick Clegg is widely trusted?
It would probably rain doughnuts and you would never get fat.
Interesting how it's okay to say something like "I could murder a beer" but doing the same sort of thing with the word "rape" is not acceptable in polite company.
So their "wickedness" is that they believe that for somebody to be moral, they need to act in accordance with their views on morality?
I'm pretty sure that's accurate for the vast majority of humanity. It's scraping the floor to say that makes them "wicked".
For the umpteenth time, they are not wicked, the belief is. A litterbug is not wicked, littering is a wickedness however. And no, they believe that FOR REDEMPTION they must act in accordance with their necessarily narrow view of morality. The wickedness is the happy way in which those of faith will assume their own redemption at the expense of those that do not meet their code. The amount it disturbs me personally varies depending on the faith. Catholics, for example, I find particularly egregious. Unitarians are far less disturbing to me because they reject the notion of damnation, whilst retaining the necessity of morality as defined by them for redemption.
Ultimately, it is down to the individual what they choose to believe, and I would not condone the suppression of choice in this regard, however, I am explaining my belief, which is that all faith is born of lies, naively and is almost exclusively held at the cost of others eternal souls. Something I could never tolerate as a belief in myself.
This is really a great site. Early on this morning posters, myself among them, were bemoaning another day of UKIP plus Scotland posts. Instead we have had religion, philosophy, data protection policy, and much else besides (no steam trains though or cats, but one cannot have everything) and all without anyone directing anything. Political Betting the Public Bar of the internet.
Thanks all for some interesting chat, but now I must go and clean the floors before Herself gets home.
I can't say I have ever heard anyone saying "they could rape a beer"
I may need to investigate more bars
The point is you can insert the word "murder" into a variety of phrases like the one I gave but it's not thought to be acceptable to ever use the word "rape" in the same sort of way such as Austin Mitchell did yesterday.
It implies murder is less serious than rape, which I don't think should be the situation.
The problem is there are some sorts of murder which some people don't take completely seriously — for example one gangster shooting dead another gangster. But with rape they're all of equal gravity. That seems to be why it's okay to use the word "murder" but not "rape" in phrases.
An interesting thought experiment — what would feminists get more exercised about? A gangster murdering another gangster, or a gangster raping another gangster? (with females involved somehow)
In terms of wickedness, I said religious faith is a wickedness, not the individual. The same way dropping a packet of chips on the floor and leaving it is a wickedness. The individual is not wicked unless their religion defines them totally, in which case they are, by my definition, wicked. Not to mention ridiculously naive.
What is wicked about Quakers and Unitarians? I suspect they do more good than you do.
Individually? Depends on the individual. Probably nothing. In terms of their faith? Unitarians believe that acts of ethical morality as defined by their faith are required for redemption. That is an imposition on those not of like mind. Likewise Quakers.
Declaration: My paternal grandfather is a Quaker, as was his late wife, but my Dad is a devout Atheist. From what I've gathered in spending some time with Quakers and with Humanists there's really not much difference between them. I'd say that Quakerism is a bit like Christianity without all the rubbish bits. Myself? I simply lack belief.
Interesting how it's okay to say something like "I could murder a beer" but doing the same sort of thing with the word "rape" is not acceptable in polite company.
The argument goes something along the lines of: "Rape is a unique crime in that it is, at heart, a violent and degading assertion of power over another. It is also [primarily] a crime against women committed by men, and as such it's casual use by men is doubly offensive." Now I'm reasonably sympathetic to that view, and to me it distinguishes it from murder (and to a lesser extent "torture"). However it was clear yesterday that many (most?) on here disagree, although I perceived that most of those objecting were male and over 50. The accuracy and relevance of that perception are uncertain...
In any event, I'm not going to champion the view given above; there are a multitude of destinations on teh interwebs where you can discuss it all day long.
And this is the pride that Daemon Barber exhibits. I don't need no one ever - I'll do it my way, because no one knows as much as I do. The trait of dictators.
For somebody not criticising, you pass a lot of criticism.
Not that I don't do the same, but let's be honest about it.
You don't wonder when time began? Or where the world ends and why?
I wonder about the nature of time, when time permits.
But given the nature of what we know being constrained by the reality that we exist within, wondering what is outside it is a bit pointless (imo) The Worlds End is a pub on the Cannongate (at the bottom end of the Royal Mile) in Edinburgh (Note - other pubs may exist by the same name) How the universe will end is a different question, but not one I think that is necessarily constrained by not knowing what exists outside of the universe.
But we are veering off topic ever so slightly here.
In terms of wickedness, I said religious faith is a wickedness, not the individual. The same way dropping a packet of chips on the floor and leaving it is a wickedness. The individual is not wicked unless their religion defines them totally, in which case they are, by my definition, wicked. Not to mention ridiculously naive.
What is wicked about Quakers and Unitarians? I suspect they do more good than you do.
Individually? Depends on the individual. Probably nothing. In terms of their faith? Unitarians believe that acts of ethical morality as defined by their faith are required for redemption. That is an imposition on those not of like mind. Likewise Quakers.
Declaration: My paternal grandfather is a Quaker, as was his late wife, but my Dad is a devout Atheist. From what I've gathered in spending some time with Quakers and with Humanists there's really not much difference between them. I'd say that Quakerism is a bit like Christianity without all the rubbish bits. Myself? I simply lack belief.
I have a very liberal Muslim friend who regularly used to worship with the Society of Friends, and did not feel that he was being inconsistent in doing so.
How the universe will end is a different question, but not one I think that is necessarily constrained by not knowing what exists outside of the universe.
In terms of wickedness, I said religious faith is a wickedness, not the individual. The same way dropping a packet of chips on the floor and leaving it is a wickedness. The individual is not wicked unless their religion defines them totally, in which case they are, by my definition, wicked. Not to mention ridiculously naive.
What is wicked about Quakers and Unitarians? I suspect they do more good than you do.
Individually? Depends on the individual. Probably nothing. In terms of their faith? Unitarians believe that acts of ethical morality as defined by their faith are required for redemption. That is an imposition on those not of like mind. Likewise Quakers.
Declaration: My paternal grandfather is a Quaker, as was his late wife, but my Dad is a devout Atheist. From what I've gathered in spending some time with Quakers and with Humanists there's really not much difference between them. I'd say that Quakerism is a bit like Christianity without all the rubbish bits. Myself? I simply lack belief.
I confess I do not, other than they are a Christian offshoot, have branches worldwide, believe (certainly in America) in spreading the word, and (I think) believe that redemption comes only through Jesus Christ and God. In which case, I stand by my points. if I am wrong, I shall study their belief more, to better understand it
I'd argue one of the hallmarks of a civilised society is that murder is always regarded as the worst crime possible. When other crimes such as rape and paedophilia start to be thought of as worse than murder, it means something is going wrong with people's moral compasses. To be clear, it's not that rape and paedophilia are not extremely serious crimes, just that murder is more serious.
Interesting how it's okay to say something like "I could murder a beer" but doing the same sort of thing with the word "rape" is not acceptable in polite company.
The argument goes something along the lines of: "Rape is a unique crime in that it is, at heart, a violent and degading assertion of power over another. It is also [primarily] a crime against women committed by men, and as such it's casual use by men is doubly offensive." Now I'm reasonably sympathetic to that view, and to me it distinguishes it from murder (and to a lesser extent "torture"). However it was clear yesterday that many (most?) on here disagree, although I perceived that most of those objecting were male and over 50. The accuracy and relevance of that perception are uncertain...
In any event, I'm not going to champion the view given above; there are a multitude of destinations on teh interwebs where you can discuss it all day long.
Same reason we have murder 'who done its ' by the dozen as entertainment but yet to see a 'who raped somebody ' as a programme
I'm about to open the boozer, I'll give it a look later. It's good to learn more about what others believe.
Laters all, cherish what you believe, and pay no heed to cynics like me should you not wish. Life is an exchange of views and we all share the same sun. As for me, let's spend some more precious seconds in consciousness of the certainty that all I am will exist for all of existence. Comforting, and scientifically spot onl
Interesting how it's okay to say something like "I could murder a beer" but doing the same sort of thing with the word "rape" is not acceptable in polite company.
The argument goes something along the lines of: "Rape is a unique crime in that it is, at heart, a violent and degading assertion of power over another. It is also [primarily] a crime against women committed by men, and as such it's casual use by men is doubly offensive." Now I'm reasonably sympathetic to that view, and to me it distinguishes it from murder (and to a lesser extent "torture"). However it was clear yesterday that many (most?) on here disagree, although I perceived that most of those objecting were male and over 50. The accuracy and relevance of that perception are uncertain...
In any event, I'm not going to champion the view given above; there are a multitude of destinations on teh interwebs where you can discuss it all day long.
Same reason we have murder 'who done its ' by the dozen as entertainment but yet to see a 'who raped somebody ' as a programme
I have to confess to assuming that the reason for that was the uniqueness of the crime in that the victim can't identify the perpetrator.
Interesting how it's okay to say something like "I could murder a beer" but doing the same sort of thing with the word "rape" is not acceptable in polite company.
The argument goes something along the lines of: "Rape is a unique crime in that it is, at heart, a violent and degading assertion of power over another. It is also [primarily] a crime against women committed by men, and as such it's casual use by men is doubly offensive." Now I'm reasonably sympathetic to that view, and to me it distinguishes it from murder (and to a lesser extent "torture"). However it was clear yesterday that many (most?) on here disagree, although I perceived that most of those objecting were male and over 50. The accuracy and relevance of that perception are uncertain...
In any event, I'm not going to champion the view given above; there are a multitude of destinations on teh interwebs where you can discuss it all day long.
Same reason we have murder 'who done its ' by the dozen as entertainment but yet to see a 'who raped somebody ' as a programme
My mind is boggling at the thought of Angela Landsbury starring in "Rape She Wrote".
"For somebody not criticising, you pass a lot of criticism."
If so, I was being hypocritical and I apologise. I meant pride in the sense that all men (and women) misuse it, and I'm guilty of that myself. So it should have been a general criticism rather than a specific one. After all, "all men are sinners" - I wonder who said that?
Lawn now cut, weather fine, and no unseemly thunderbolts have struck me. So a good day overall.
The Fridge Inspectorate. It is how UKIP will get the long-term unemployed back to work....
At the risk of giving people ideas, apparently the Japanese naturalization process involves an official checking the contents of your fridge for things with a "sense of incongruity".
In terms of wickedness, I said religious faith is a wickedness, not the individual. The same way dropping a packet of chips on the floor and leaving it is a wickedness. The individual is not wicked unless their religion defines them totally, in which case they are, by my definition, wicked. Not to mention ridiculously naive.
What is wicked about Quakers and Unitarians? I suspect they do more good than you do.
Individually? Depends on the individual. Probably nothing. In terms of their faith? Unitarians believe that acts of ethical morality as defined by their faith are required for redemption. That is an imposition on those not of like mind. Likewise Quakers.
Declaration: My paternal grandfather is a Quaker, as was his late wife, but my Dad is a devout Atheist. From what I've gathered in spending some time with Quakers and with Humanists there's really not much difference between them. I'd say that Quakerism is a bit like Christianity without all the rubbish bits. Myself? I simply lack belief.
I confess I do not, other than they are a Christian offshoot, have branches worldwide, believe (certainly in America) in spreading the word, and (I think) believe that redemption comes only through Jesus Christ and God. In which case, I stand by my points. if I am wrong, I shall study their belief more, to better understand it
Many Quakers are inspired by the teachings of Jesus, but I've never heard one talk about redemption in the way that most other Christians would do. Crucially, Quakers have little in the way of a codified creed in the way that other religions do. It's not inconsistent for a Quaker not to believe in the resurrection of Christ, for example, because they're just not bothered in forcing their beliefs on other people.
I also have never detected any sense from them that they are superior to non-believers in the way that one often hears from zealous adherents to other religions or some atheists.
I think you'd find it interesting to learn a bit more about them.
As an aside, I am amused by your use of the word wicked. When I was nine I broke my leg skiing, and my Grandad came out to spend a few weeks with me in hospital in Austria, so we had a lot of time to talk with each other, and he was intrigued by the more positive meaning that I then attached to the word...
"For somebody not criticising, you pass a lot of criticism."
If so, I was being hypocritical and I apologise. I meant pride in the sense that all men (and women) misuse it, and I'm guilty of that myself. So it should have been a general criticism rather than a specific one. After all, "all men are sinners" - I wonder who said that?
Lawn now cut, weather fine, and no unseemly thunderbolts have struck me. So a good day overall.
Don't apologise, no offence was taken or even inferred was just sayin' ;-)
Whilst we're on the subject of sinning/sinners... Is there any more morally objectionable concept than that of Original Sin?
"For somebody not criticising, you pass a lot of criticism."
If so, I was being hypocritical and I apologise. I meant pride in the sense that all men (and women) misuse it, and I'm guilty of that myself. So it should have been a general criticism rather than a specific one. After all, "all men are sinners" - I wonder who said that?
Lawn now cut, weather fine, and no unseemly thunderbolts have struck me. So a good day overall.
Don't apologise, no offence was taken or even inferred was just sayin' ;-)
Whilst we're on the subject of sinning/sinners... Is there any more morally objectionable concept than that of Original Sin?
[Is there any more morally objectionable concept than that of Original Sin?]
Wow - this is heavy going for an afternoon.
All I will add is what I've learnt from the guardian letters page. The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary - not Jesus.
Ah yes the convolution of dogma that says that Christ couldn't have been born sinless if Mary was with sin. However they then ignore the fact that sinfulness is a human characteristic so therefore Christ couldn't be sinless and fully human. So deciding that Jesus was fully human he must have had sin in which case how could he be also God who is without sin.
"Published: 15 May 2014 14:450 comments POLICE have stepped in to investigate an allegation of electoral fraud after a resident claimed a Labour candidate intimidated her into filling out a postal vote.
In a signed statement, seen by The Observer, the resident says she felt under pressure to vote after inviting in Fatima Mansoor, Labour candidate for the Elliman ward. She alleges Mrs Mansoor ‘put the ballot paper in front of her and asked her to tick candidates’ before the candidate sealed the envelope and took her postal vote."
[Is there any more morally objectionable concept than that of Original Sin?]
Wow - this is heavy going for an afternoon.
All I will add is what I've learnt from the guardian letters page. The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary - not Jesus.
Ah yes the convolution of dogma that says that Christ couldn't have been born sinless if Mary was with sin. However they then ignore the fact that sinfulness is a human characteristic so therefore Christ couldn't be sinless and fully human. So deciding that Jesus was fully human he must have had sin in which case how could he be also God who is without sin.
Given that we've had nearly two thousand years to get used to these sorts of ideas it's a wonder that we still have problems with quantum mechanics.
"Published: 15 May 2014 14:450 comments POLICE have stepped in to investigate an allegation of electoral fraud after a resident claimed a Labour candidate intimidated her into filling out a postal vote.
In a signed statement, seen by The Observer, the resident says she felt under pressure to vote after inviting in Fatima Mansoor, Labour candidate for the Elliman ward. She alleges Mrs Mansoor ‘put the ballot paper in front of her and asked her to tick candidates’ before the candidate sealed the envelope and took her postal vote."
If that is true I hope that she is suspended from Labour.
The "Immaculate Conception" (or variations) is a recurring theme in several religions, In fact, if you study enough of them, you start to realise they all seem to form an intersecting Venn diagram. We kill each other over details, and the teachings of people who should be locked in a padded cell and allowed only wax crayons .
"Published: 15 May 2014 14:450 comments POLICE have stepped in to investigate an allegation of electoral fraud after a resident claimed a Labour candidate intimidated her into filling out a postal vote.
In a signed statement, seen by The Observer, the resident says she felt under pressure to vote after inviting in Fatima Mansoor, Labour candidate for the Elliman ward. She alleges Mrs Mansoor ‘put the ballot paper in front of her and asked her to tick candidates’ before the candidate sealed the envelope and took her postal vote."
If that is true I hope that she is suspended from Labour.
If it is true and if it can be proved to be true beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law then I hope that she spends a considerable time behind bars to consider the error of her ways.
The Labour party can do what it likes for all the difference it will make to me.
Interesting how it's okay to say something like "I could murder a beer" but doing the same sort of thing with the word "rape" is not acceptable in polite company.
The argument goes something along the lines of: "Rape is a unique crime in that it is, at heart, a violent and degading assertion of power over another. It is also [primarily] a crime against women committed by men, and as such it's casual use by men is doubly offensive." Now I'm reasonably sympathetic to that view, and to me it distinguishes it from murder (and to a lesser extent "torture"). However it was clear yesterday that many (most?) on here disagree, although I perceived that most of those objecting were male and over 50. The accuracy and relevance of that perception are uncertain...
In any event, I'm not going to champion the view given above; there are a multitude of destinations on teh interwebs where you can discuss it all day long.
Same reason we have murder 'who done its ' by the dozen as entertainment but yet to see a 'who raped somebody ' as a programme
[Is there any more morally objectionable concept than that of Original Sin?]
Wow - this is heavy going for an afternoon.
All I will add is what I've learnt from the guardian letters page. The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary - not Jesus.
Ah yes the convolution of dogma that says that Christ couldn't have been born sinless if Mary was with sin. However they then ignore the fact that sinfulness is a human characteristic so therefore Christ couldn't be sinless and fully human. So deciding that Jesus was fully human he must have had sin in which case how could he be also God who is without sin.
Given that we've had nearly two thousand years to get used to these sorts of ideas it's a wonder that we still have problems with quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics has the advantage if being observed and hence proved unless it isn't
The "Immaculate Conception" (or variations) is a recurring theme in several religions, In fact, if you study enough of them, you start to realise they all seem to form an intersecting Venn diagram. We kill each other over details, and the teachings of people who should be locked in a padded cell and allowed only wax crayons .
"Published: 15 May 2014 14:450 comments POLICE have stepped in to investigate an allegation of electoral fraud after a resident claimed a Labour candidate intimidated her into filling out a postal vote.
In a signed statement, seen by The Observer, the resident says she felt under pressure to vote after inviting in Fatima Mansoor, Labour candidate for the Elliman ward. She alleges Mrs Mansoor ‘put the ballot paper in front of her and asked her to tick candidates’ before the candidate sealed the envelope and took her postal vote."
If that is true I hope that she is suspended from Labour.
Wow, intimidation with postal votes! Who could ever have predicted such a thing might result from the end of the secret ballot? I certainly didn't!
"Published: 15 May 2014 14:450 comments POLICE have stepped in to investigate an allegation of electoral fraud after a resident claimed a Labour candidate intimidated her into filling out a postal vote.
In a signed statement, seen by The Observer, the resident says she felt under pressure to vote after inviting in Fatima Mansoor, Labour candidate for the Elliman ward. She alleges Mrs Mansoor ‘put the ballot paper in front of her and asked her to tick candidates’ before the candidate sealed the envelope and took her postal vote."
If that is true I hope that she is suspended from Labour.
Wow, intimidation with postal votes! Who could ever have predicted such a thing might result from the end of the secret ballot? I certainly didn't!
"Mrs Mansoor" ? she's Swedish I expect...
Automatic or recurring postal votes should be scrapped.
11-1 on Conservatives on Betfair being NIBBLED into:
Conservative 12 £1.57 £17.27
I would be really grateful if someone could answer a question re Betfair. If someone (e.g. me) offers £2 at 13/1 (i.e. 14) that Cons will get the most votes and then, before my bet is matched someone else comes along and dumps £12 on at the same odds does my bet take priority when it comes to matching or is it sorted on a pro rata basis?
I.e. if person c comes along and decides they want to lay £7 at the same odds does my bet get matched and then £5 of person b's £12 or does the matching bet get split pro rata- i.e £1 of my money gets matched and £6 of person b's?
I confess I do not, other than they are a Christian offshoot, have branches worldwide, believe (certainly in America) in spreading the word, and (I think) believe that redemption comes only through Jesus Christ and God. In which case, I stand by my points. if I am wrong, I shall study their belief more, to better understand it Many Quakers are inspired by the teachings of Jesus, but I've never heard one talk about redemption in the way that most other Christians would do. Crucially, Quakers have little in the way of a codified creed in the way that other religions do. It's not inconsistent for a Quaker not to believe in the resurrection of Christ, for example, because they're just not bothered in forcing their beliefs on other people.
Christopher Hill's "The world turned upside down" has an interesting chapter on the early history of the Quakers. They have clearly changed a lot since Naylor rode into Bristol on the Donkey..
I had a conversation with a couple of Mormons. I asked them if god could possibly be a female....this shocked them and they denied that it could be possible. To which the obvious question had to be asked.....Isn't your god Omnipotent then? I swear their elders send the new ones round to me as a sort of ritual baptism of fire.
Socrates - Surely it's the postal vote process that is the problem here?
The fact that any voter can be intimidated into registering a postal vote and then forced to fill it out in front of someone? Yes, that process should be changed. Postal votes should only exist for those that can not otherwise get to the polls.
He describes how people are going door to door asking Britons to blindly sign proxy forms for the upcoming elections, allowing someone else in the UK to vote on their behalf.
"They said I didn't have to fill in any details, just to sign my name at the bottom of the form," he says, smiling. "So I signed two."
He laughed as he told me he had no idea who was going to vote on his behalf, and whom they were going to vote for.
"I personally know 25 other people who did the same thing, lots of people just on this street, but everybody does it."
Labour democracy everybody. And the Tories are too afraid of being called racist to change it.
I would be really grateful if someone could answer a question re Betfair. If someone (e.g. me) offers £2 at 13/1 (i.e. 14) that Cons will get the most votes and then, before my bet is matched someone else comes along and dumps £12 on at the same odds does my bet take priority when it comes to matching or is it sorted on a pro rata basis?
Bets are matched in time order (for all bets at the same odds - obviously any better odds are matched first).
I had a conversation with a couple of Mormons. I asked them if god could possibly be a female....this shocked them and they denied that it could be possible. To which the obvious question had to be asked.....Isn't your god Omnipotent then? I swear their elders send the new ones round to me as a sort of ritual baptism of fire.
you might enjoy Mark Twain's contemporary review of the Mormon Bible.
As the electrorate is different for the Euros as opposed to the GE (ie EU citizens can vote in one but not the other - except the Irish), I assume this is taken into account by the pollsters and are the numbers significant enough to make any measurable difference anyway? How many EU citizens are there in the UK (1 million? 1.5 million?), and how many vote here?
11-1 on Conservatives on Betfair being NIBBLED into:
Conservative 12 £1.57 £17.27
I would be really grateful if someone could answer a question re Betfair. If someone (e.g. me) offers £2 at 13/1 (i.e. 14) that Cons will get the most votes and then, before my bet is matched someone else comes along and dumps £12 on at the same odds does my bet take priority when it comes to matching or is it sorted on a pro rata basis?
I.e. if person c comes along and decides they want to lay £7 at the same odds does my bet get matched and then £5 of person b's £12 or does the matching bet get split pro rata- i.e £1 of my money gets matched and £6 of person b's?
I quite like the sound of this forced giving to charity, obviously there will have to be safe-guards built in as to what constitutes a charity, but that law desperately needs tightening anyway. Do you see the tax, sorry, enforced giving, being based on income for a year or total wealth? Either way the problem is not with the idea it is with enforcement.
What a great thread - engaging, varied and makes me want to meet everyone (i.e. come to the next PB gathering).
On that particular idea - it's a variant on the concept, common in Eastern Europe, of allowing taxpayers to nominate a charity to receive (part of) their taxes. I know of worthy organisations which get most of their income from that. The general problem is that there are some very attractive things that get wildly oversubscribed (e.g. cancer research probably attracts more money than it can sensibly spend, as I believe do donkey sanctuaries) while some unsexy things which most people would if pressed concede were important get nothing. Another snag is that the bodies competing for attention spend a lot of money on advertising themselves (I remember a long train journey in Poland with nothing to do except read all the rival ads for tax money), which seems a poor way to spend a chunk of the revenue.
Back after a nice few hours in Regents Park and found a leaflet through my letterbox from The Four Freedoms Party. Want to know what their logo is? It's "UK EPP". Now aint that strange.
This article, and the comments below it, really do expose the cracks in our society right now - Hmmn.
"Labour declared war on racial inequality today by pledging action to increase the number of black and Asian people in the police, the judiciary, company boardrooms and on TV.
In a policy-rich speech, shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan revealed that although unemployment is falling among the white population, it is rising in black and minority ethnic (BME) communities."
I suspect this is what gave him the idea, though he doesn't mention it - except that he was obviously in the right part of Edinburgh at about the right time
I honestly don't know what to make of it either, especially as I presume you know the author's background and track record in helping win elections for Labour in Scotland and Ms Gillard's party in Australia. Is he looking for a new job?
Mr. Taffys, that's the land we live in. Where 'euracism' is a thing, but the most right-on PC party advocates racial discrimination (so long as it's against whites).
As the electrorate is different for the Euros as opposed to the GE (ie EU citizens can vote in one but not the other - except the Irish), I assume this is taken into account by the pollsters and are the numbers significant enough to make any measurable difference anyway? How many EU citizens are there in the UK (1 million? 1.5 million?), and how many vote here?
The 2011 Census recorded about 2 million people in England and Wales with an EU passport. Add in a few for Scotland, etc and take away a few for children and you get to about the same.
The total size of the electorate for the general election in 2010 was 45 million, or so. Thus EU citizens in the UK make up roughly 4.3% of the electorate. I don't think the pollsters take any notice of this - trusting that people will know if they aren't eligible to vote when they ask them the question.
I quite like the sound of this forced giving to charity, obviously there will have to be safe-guards built in as to what constitutes a charity, but that law desperately needs tightening anyway. Do you see the tax, sorry, enforced giving, being based on income for a year or total wealth? Either way the problem is not with the idea it is with enforcement.
What a great thread - engaging, varied and makes me want to meet everyone (i.e. come to the next PB gathering).
On that particular idea - it's a variant on the concept, common in Eastern Europe, of allowing taxpayers to nominate a charity to receive (part of) their taxes. I know of worthy organisations which get most of their income from that. The general problem is that there are some very attractive things that get wildly oversubscribed (e.g. cancer research probably attracts more money than it can sensibly spend, as I believe do donkey sanctuaries) while some unsexy things which most people would if pressed concede were important get nothing. Another snag is that the bodies competing for attention spend a lot of money on advertising themselves (I remember a long train journey in Poland with nothing to do except read all the rival ads for tax money), which seems a poor way to spend a chunk of the revenue.
Some are indeed and I'm surprised at least one wasn't moderated (the most liked one). But what struck me is how absolutely polls apart the article and the posters are.
Back after a nice few hours in Regents Park and found a leaflet through my letterbox from The Four Freedoms Party. Want to know what their logo is? It's "UK EPP". Now aint that strange.
I wonder whether white people or East Asian people are more likely to be employed, to earn more or to live longer. Does Sadiq Khan say? Is this institutional racism against whites?
I suspect this is what gave him the idea, though he doesn't mention it - except that he was obviously in the right part of Edinburgh at about the right time
I honestly don't know what to make of it either, especially as I presume you know the author's background and track record in helping win elections for Labour in Scotland and Ms Gillard's party in Australia. Is he looking for a new job?
It may well be that Scottish Tories have special issues, but I know plenty of young Tories the length and breadth of the country. Indeed there were plenty of rather dishy young men in kilts at conference last year. It's the laughable prejudice that infects that article that amuses.
Some are indeed and I'm surprised at least one wasn't moderated (the most liked one). But what struck me is how absolutely polls apart the article and the posters are.
Sheesh.
Yes, but I wouldn't equate the posters as representative of much.
It's an interesting strategy that Labour have conducted: import millions and millions of unskilled people, and then be surprised when they are less likely to get good jobs.
Quelle surprise! What else is new from an unelected EU oligarchy and heads of government that have in fact if not in theory, abandoned their own national states for a so called utopian superstate of the future.
This detail confirms my suspicion that UKIP has replaced the Lib Dems as the anti-political party option. This was the source of much strength to the Lib Dems in the 1990s. It is perhaps ironic that on my ballot paper at least, UKIP are literally the "None of the above" option being the last of ten on the list from which the voter must make their choice.
As the electrorate is different for the Euros as opposed to the GE (ie EU citizens can vote in one but not the other - except the Irish), I assume this is taken into account by the pollsters and are the numbers significant enough to make any measurable difference anyway? How many EU citizens are there in the UK (1 million? 1.5 million?), and how many vote here?
The 2011 Census recorded about 2 million people in England and Wales with an EU passport. Add in a few for Scotland, etc and take away a few for children and you get to about the same.
The total size of the electorate for the general election in 2010 was 45 million, or so. Thus EU citizens in the UK make up roughly 4.3% of the electorate. I don't think the pollsters take any notice of this - trusting that people will know if they aren't eligible to vote when they ask them the question.
Thanks. So allowing for the Irish overlap there's probably a 3-4% difference in the electorates, and presumably too, a bias towards the younger end slightly.
Comments
So their "wickedness" is that they believe that for somebody to be moral, they need to act in accordance with their views on morality?
I'm pretty sure that's accurate for the vast majority of humanity. It's scraping the floor to say that makes them "wicked".
So I could live with it.
I understand Slough council decided to drop the 'of despond' some time ago for obvious reasons....
I can't say I have ever heard anyone saying "they could rape a beer"
I may need to investigate more bars
And no, they believe that FOR REDEMPTION they must act in accordance with their necessarily narrow view of morality. The wickedness is the happy way in which those of faith will assume their own redemption at the expense of those that do not meet their code.
The amount it disturbs me personally varies depending on the faith. Catholics, for example, I find particularly egregious. Unitarians are far less disturbing to me because they reject the notion of damnation, whilst retaining the necessity of morality as defined by them for redemption.
Ultimately, it is down to the individual what they choose to believe, and I would not condone the suppression of choice in this regard, however, I am explaining my belief, which is that all faith is born of lies, naively and is almost exclusively held at the cost of others eternal souls. Something I could never tolerate as a belief in myself.
Thanks all for some interesting chat, but now I must go and clean the floors before Herself gets home.
It implies murder is less serious than rape, which I don't think should be the situation.
The problem is there are some sorts of murder which some people don't take completely seriously — for example one gangster shooting dead another gangster. But with rape they're all of equal gravity. That seems to be why it's okay to use the word "murder" but not "rape" in phrases.
An interesting thought experiment — what would feminists get more exercised about? A gangster murdering another gangster, or a gangster raping another gangster? (with females involved somehow)
Declaration: My paternal grandfather is a Quaker, as was his late wife, but my Dad is a devout Atheist. From what I've gathered in spending some time with Quakers and with Humanists there's really not much difference between them. I'd say that Quakerism is a bit like Christianity without all the rubbish bits. Myself? I simply lack belief.
In any event, I'm not going to champion the view given above; there are a multitude of destinations on teh interwebs where you can discuss it all day long.
Just kidding.
Though I did post sympathy for the Tory councilor who did the same
Not that I don't do the same, but let's be honest about it. I wonder about the nature of time, when time permits.
But given the nature of what we know being constrained by the reality that we exist within, wondering what is outside it is a bit pointless (imo)
The Worlds End is a pub on the Cannongate (at the bottom end of the Royal Mile) in Edinburgh (Note - other pubs may exist by the same name)
How the universe will end is a different question, but not one I think that is necessarily constrained by not knowing what exists outside of the universe.
But we are veering off topic ever so slightly here.
Modern Unitarians do not believe in "redemption" in the Biblical sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
I'm pretty sure Quakers don't either.
But it will take a while...
if I am wrong, I shall study their belief more, to better understand it
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/05/ed-miliband-needs-a-strategy-more-than-he-needs-a-makeover/
Laters all, cherish what you believe, and pay no heed to cynics like me should you not wish. Life is an exchange of views and we all share the same sun.
As for me, let's spend some more precious seconds in consciousness of the certainty that all I am will exist for all of existence. Comforting, and scientifically spot onl
I've seen one. It was probably channel 4
*pwned is internet for owned which is English for - yeah we/I won.
Conservative
12 £1.57
£17.27
"For somebody not criticising, you pass a lot of criticism."
If so, I was being hypocritical and I apologise. I meant pride in the sense that all men (and women) misuse it, and I'm guilty of that myself. So it should have been a general criticism rather than a specific one. After all, "all men are sinners" - I wonder who said that?
Lawn now cut, weather fine, and no unseemly thunderbolts have struck me. So a good day overall.
I also have never detected any sense from them that they are superior to non-believers in the way that one often hears from zealous adherents to other religions or some atheists.
I think you'd find it interesting to learn a bit more about them.
As an aside, I am amused by your use of the word wicked. When I was nine I broke my leg skiing, and my Grandad came out to spend a few weeks with me in hospital in Austria, so we had a lot of time to talk with each other, and he was intrigued by the more positive meaning that I then attached to the word...
Whilst we're on the subject of sinning/sinners... Is there any more morally objectionable concept than that of Original Sin?
Wow - this is heavy going for an afternoon.
All I will add is what I've learnt from the guardian letters page. The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary - not Jesus.
http://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/news/slough/articles/2014/05/15/100278-police-launch-election-fraud-probe-after-allegations-a-slough-labour-candidate-intimidated-a-resident-into-filling-out-her-postal-vote-/
"Published: 15 May 2014 14:450 comments
POLICE have stepped in to investigate an allegation of electoral fraud after a resident claimed a Labour candidate intimidated her into filling out a postal vote.
In a signed statement, seen by The Observer, the resident says she felt under pressure to vote after inviting in Fatima Mansoor, Labour candidate for the Elliman ward.
She alleges Mrs Mansoor ‘put the ballot paper in front of her and asked her to tick candidates’ before the candidate sealed the envelope and took her postal vote."
The "Immaculate Conception" (or variations) is a recurring theme in several religions,
In fact, if you study enough of them, you start to realise they all seem to form an intersecting Venn diagram.
We kill each other over details, and the teachings of people who should be locked in a padded cell and allowed only wax crayons .
http://www.electionleaflets.org/leaflets/full/02fa27d6-3f2b-4d9a-a813-af1e7c6df021/
The Labour party can do what it likes for all the difference it will make to me.
"Given that we've had nearly two thousand years to get used to these sorts of ideas it's a wonder that we still have problems with quantum mechanics."
So light is both fully a wave and yet fully a particle?
Smarmeron - I don't claim to be particularly well read - but I thought Buddhism was slightly different?
http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=22984504&server=vimeo.com&show_title=0&show_byline=0&show_portrait=0&color=00adef&fullscreen=1&autoplay=1&loop=0
Only short, but see if you can guess the ending.
Hope it works OK.
Automatic or recurring postal votes should be scrapped.
I.e. if person c comes along and decides they want to lay £7 at the same odds does my bet get matched and then £5 of person b's £12 or does the matching bet get split pro rata- i.e £1 of my money gets matched and £6 of person b's?
if I am wrong, I shall study their belief more, to better understand it Many Quakers are inspired by the teachings of Jesus, but I've never heard one talk about redemption in the way that most other Christians would do. Crucially, Quakers have little in the way of a codified creed in the way that other religions do. It's not inconsistent for a Quaker not to believe in the resurrection of Christ, for example, because they're just not bothered in forcing their beliefs on other people.
Christopher Hill's "The world turned upside down" has an interesting chapter on the early history of the Quakers. They have clearly changed a lot since Naylor rode into Bristol on the Donkey..
I had a conversation with a couple of Mormons.
I asked them if god could possibly be a female....this shocked them and they denied that it could be possible. To which the obvious question had to be asked.....Isn't your god Omnipotent then?
I swear their elders send the new ones round to me as a sort of ritual baptism of fire.
Proxy votes too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8655697.stm
He describes how people are going door to door asking Britons to blindly sign proxy forms for the upcoming elections, allowing someone else in the UK to vote on their behalf.
"They said I didn't have to fill in any details, just to sign my name at the bottom of the form," he says, smiling. "So I signed two."
He laughed as he told me he had no idea who was going to vote on his behalf, and whom they were going to vote for.
"I personally know 25 other people who did the same thing, lots of people just on this street, but everybody does it."
Labour democracy everybody. And the Tories are too afraid of being called racist to change it.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/johnmcternan1/100271685/young-people-arent-joining-the-tories-heres-why/
As the electrorate is different for the Euros as opposed to the GE (ie EU citizens can vote in one but not the other - except the Irish), I assume this is taken into account by the pollsters and are the numbers significant enough to make any measurable difference anyway? How many EU citizens are there in the UK (1 million? 1.5 million?), and how many vote here?
This article, and the comments below it, really do expose the cracks in our society right now - Hmmn.
That one is always amusing.
On that particular idea - it's a variant on the concept, common in Eastern Europe, of allowing taxpayers to nominate a charity to receive (part of) their taxes. I know of worthy organisations which get most of their income from that. The general problem is that there are some very attractive things that get wildly oversubscribed (e.g. cancer research probably attracts more money than it can sensibly spend, as I believe do donkey sanctuaries) while some unsexy things which most people would if pressed concede were important get nothing. Another snag is that the bodies competing for attention spend a lot of money on advertising themselves (I remember a long train journey in Poland with nothing to do except read all the rival ads for tax money), which seems a poor way to spend a chunk of the revenue.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100027284/eu-officials-plotted-imf-attack-to-bring-rebellious-italy-to-its-knees/
In a policy-rich speech, shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan revealed that although unemployment is falling among the white population, it is rising in black and minority ethnic (BME) communities."
The dog whistling has started.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/next-generation-nowhere-to-be-found-as-scots-tory-youth-conference-is-scrap.24189427
I honestly don't know what to make of it either, especially as I presume you know the author's background and track record in helping win elections for Labour in Scotland and Ms Gillard's party in Australia. Is he looking for a new job?
Mr. Taffys, that's the land we live in. Where 'euracism' is a thing, but the most right-on PC party advocates racial discrimination (so long as it's against whites).
Mr. Jim, very interesting and unsurprising.
The total size of the electorate for the general election in 2010 was 45 million, or so. Thus EU citizens in the UK make up roughly 4.3% of the electorate. I don't think the pollsters take any notice of this - trusting that people will know if they aren't eligible to vote when they ask them the question.
Some are indeed and I'm surprised at least one wasn't moderated (the most liked one). But what struck me is how absolutely polls apart the article and the posters are.
Sheesh.
http://www.4freedomsparty.eu/
Edited extra bit: I do apologise. I'm slightly procrastinating. Although I do quite like the term 'sporran-forager'.
It must be a conspiracy.
Absolutely true, but Standard posters tend to be a pretty reasonable bunch, from what I have read in the past. That's why the posts shocked me.
Just shows threads are not generally indicative of public opinion on anything.