Whatever we think of ed balls policy statements yesterday, the verdict from the left is nothing less than a weepin' and a wailin' and a gnashin' of teeth - that's if the many comments below Toynbee's latest article are anything to go by.
The hissy fit is such that our Poll has written two postscripts to clarify her position.
Whilst this is all extremely funny, I think there's a serious point about whether Labour will be able to galvanise its core vote, based on what it might be offering in 2015.
As Polly says, you can only go so far if you want to take the electorate with you. (a hilarious piece of code for: 'many voters are quite conservative, actually...').
I though the Nixon thing wasn't so much looks as the sweatiness and the vague sense of distrust he generated.
But that distrust was primarily a visual thing (hence the discrepancy between the TV and radio figures). It was also that Nixon looked as if he needed a shave. Quite how the factors played off we'll never no as it's impossible to do controlled exercises but their relative visual appearances - in the widest sense - clearly played a part and given how close the election was, perhaps a decisive one.
Miss Plato, didn't some of the archangels Fall from Heaven?
There's an interesting comparison between Lucifer and Prometheus, actually, and giving the gift of knowledge and the gift of fire (both can be considered metaphors for technology).
That's how my generation was judged at school and at university. I'm not against coursework, by any means, but to suggest that this form of examination is completely absurd is OTT. Whole generations of children were - and in other countries - still are tested in this way.
The danger, I'd have thought, is treating it all as either/or rather than realising that a mixture of both, depending on the subject etc / level etc, may be necessary.
That's how my generation was judged at school and at university. I'm not against coursework, by any means, but to suggest that this form of examination is completely absurd is OTT. Whole generations of children were - and in other countries - still are tested in this way.
The danger, I'd have thought, is treating it all as either/or rather than realising that a mixture of both, depending on the subject etc / level etc, may be necessary.
The phrase "judging a two year course on a three hour exam" comes from Tim below. Apologies. Something went wrong with my quoting.
Whatever we think of ed balls policy statements yesterday, the verdict from the left is nothing less than a weepin' and a wailin' and a gnashin' of teeth - that's if the many comments below Toynbee's latest article are anything to go by.
The hissy fit is such that our Poll has written two postscripts to clarify her position.
Whilst this is all extremely funny, I think there's a serious point about whether Labour will be able to galvanise its core vote, based on what it might be offering in 2015.
As Polly says, you can only go so far if you want to take the electorate with you. (a hilarious piece of code for: 'many voters are quite conservative, actually...').
There's a story in today's paper about Labour saying that free TV licences from pensioners will be going next.
Cameron vs Davis I suppose was a case of style over substance.
It may well be this was the case in the past, and it maybe so in the future, but I still think fashions change, and it is unwise to write off clever people who aren't that hot physically just because its happened before
A new study from Cornell reveals something rather disturbing: physically unattractive criminal defendants are 22 percent more likely to be convicted and hit with longer sentences than physically attractive defendants.
Michael Gove is certainly bright, can express himself with panache and espouses an intellectual right-wing Conservatism that tickles the Telegraph's G spot. But he looks like a constipated frog (this is extremely important, unfortunately), has no strategic vision and makes no attempt to reach out to those not already convinced by his arguments.
He would be a quite terrible choice for the Conservatives for their next leader and most Conservatives know it in their heart of hearts. Speculating that he might be the next leader is a bit like going to the pub and casually flirting with the barmaid - a way of expressing forbidden impulses in a way that's never going to get you into trouble.
How does the "Goves not good looking enough" theory sit alongside Ed Miliband being odds on to be next PM when he is supposedly a geek up against a smoother opponent? or the fact that Gordon Brown, who i voted for despite his lack of charisma/film star looks, wasnt enough of a deterrent to prevent a Tory majority?
I personally don't think Miliband is that geeky, but apparently that is the public perception.
I don't think Gove is that geeky either come to that.
I think that this theory is favoured by political nerds, who assume that because people less clever/interested in political details than them read tabloids and watch reality tv, they will only vote for 'good looking' politicians,
Although coincidence or not, the facts do tend to back up the theory, at least for the last 20 years. The original evidence - from the Kennedy v Nixon debate - also points that way: the radio listeners gave their verdict to Nixon; the TV viewers gave it to Kennedy.
I understand your point but am not wholly convinced... Maybe I'm letting personal view get in the way, but...
The Nixon/Kennedy example could just as easily be a comparison of the type of person who listens to the radio against someone who watches tv.
How do you explain Brown not getting hammered by Cameron? The Clegg factor maybe? How about Miliband being odds on for next PM despite supposed geekiness?
I don't think the public are as shallow when it comes to politics as people think..
Brown did get hammered - Labour won their fewest votes and smallest share since 1983. The Tories also mad more gains than at any other election since 1931. The Lib Dems however did make a difference, both to the dynamics of the 2010 election and also in providing a much bigger blocking number in the middle. The Conservatives were miles off winning in 2005; a fact disguised by Blair's relatively modest majority and thin vote share win.
The Tories also did very badly in Scotland, unlike Labour, in terms of turning votes into seats.
As for the odds on Miliband, I think they're reflecting money, not likely outcomes.
Miss Plato, didn't some of the archangels Fall from Heaven?
There's an interesting comparison between Lucifer and Prometheus, actually, and giving the gift of knowledge and the gift of fire (both can be considered metaphors for technology).
I thought Lucifer was the only one and it was Michael that stuffed him. And that left Raphael and Gabriel - and nowadays its mainly Gabriel that gets mentioned unless you're into Ninja Turtles. But I've no idea why the others don't get a mention.
Cameron vs Davis I suppose was a case of style over substance.
It may well be this was the case in the past, and it maybe so in the future, but I still think fashions change, and it is unwise to write off clever people who aren't that hot physically just because its happened before
You'd assume that someone as unprepossessing and diminutive as Francois Hollande would have to be very able in order to reach the French Presidency , but he's an imbecile.
wiki says the archangels thing is essentially a matter of editing.
Seven archangels are mentioned in one early text, but only two in the bible. The early church decided the former was not a proper scripture so five archangels got suppressed. A third angel (Raphael) squeezes in because he is mentioned in a further text that has been declared a proper scripture.
Whatever we think of ed balls policy statements yesterday, the verdict from the left is nothing less than a weepin' and a wailin' and a gnashin' of teeth - that's if the many comments below Toynbee's latest article are anything to go by.
The hissy fit is such that our Poll has written two postscripts to clarify her position.
Whilst this is all extremely funny, I think there's a serious point about whether Labour will be able to galvanise its core vote, based on what it might be offering in 2015.
As Polly says, you can only go so far if you want to take the electorate with you. (a hilarious piece of code for: 'many voters are quite conservative, actually...').
Polly is utterly ridiculous. I mean, we all knew this anyway, but her latest pronouncements take the biscuit.
Essentially it now appears her entire opposition to the coalitions economic policy is nothing more than the fact Labour isn't isn't in power. And that's it. For all the sound and fury it's just about one set of people being out of power and once set of people being in power. No more, no less.
Of course, that would be fine if she was honest about her opposition and didn't dress up her opposition as being something morally virtuous and part of some great political divide for the soul of the nation...
A new study from Cornell reveals something rather disturbing: physically unattractive criminal defendants are 22 percent more likely to be convicted and hit with longer sentences than physically attractive defendants.
Cameron vs Davis I suppose was a case of style over substance.
It may well be this was the case in the past, and it maybe so in the future, but I still think fashions change, and it is unwise to write off clever people who aren't that hot physically just because its happened before
As Davis has no substance but instead what appears to be an extraordinarily large sense of "me", I'm unconvinced.
Michael Gove is certainly bright, can express himself with panache and espouses an intellectual right-wing Conservatism that tickles the Telegraph's G spot. But he looks like a constipated frog (this is extremely important, unfortunately), has no strategic vision and makes no attempt to reach out to those not already convinced by his arguments.
He would be a quite terrible choice for the Conservatives for their next leader and most Conservatives know it in their heart of hearts. Speculating that he might be the next leader is a bit like going to the pub and casually flirting with the barmaid - a way of expressing forbidden impulses in a way that's never going to get you into trouble.
How does the "Goves not good looking enough" theory sit alongside Ed Miliband being odds on to be next PM when he is supposedly a geek up against a smoother opponent? or the fact that Gordon Brown, who i voted for despite his lack of charisma/film star looks, wasnt enough of a deterrent to prevent a Tory majority?
I personally don't think Miliband is that geeky, but apparently that is the public perception.
I don't think Gove is that geeky either come to that.
I think that this theory is favoured by political nerds, who assume that because people less clever/interested in political details than them read tabloids and watch reality tv, they will only vote for 'good looking' politicians,
Although coincidence or not, the facts do tend to back up the theory, at least for the last 20 years. The original evidence - from the Kennedy v Nixon debate - also points that way: the radio listeners gave their verdict to Nixon; the TV viewers gave it to Kennedy.
I understand your point but am not wholly convinced... Maybe I'm letting personal view get in the way, but...
The Nixon/Kennedy example could just as easily be a comparison of the type of person who listens to the radio against someone who watches tv.
How do you explain Brown not getting hammered by Cameron? The Clegg factor maybe? How about Miliband being odds on for next PM despite supposed geekiness?
I don't think the public are as shallow when it comes to politics as people think..
Brown did get hammered - Labour won their fewest votes and smallest share since 1983. The Tories also mad more gains than at any other election since 1931. The Lib Dems however did make a difference, both to the dynamics of the 2010 election and also in providing a much bigger blocking number in the middle. The Conservatives were miles off winning in 2005; a fact disguised by Blair's relatively modest majority and thin vote share win.
The Tories also did very badly in Scotland, unlike Labour, in terms of turning votes into seats.
As for the odds on Miliband, I think they're reflecting money, not likely outcomes.
.
Brown was getting hammered regardless of the debates, did they make it worse? I thought Cameron was the one who suffered according to he figures in the debates despite his obvious physical advantage
Hodges takes a well deserved pop at Tory 'traditionalists':
Don’t sit there alongside side people who like to reminisce about the days when the word “nigger” echoed around the barrack room and try to tell us that you and your party aren’t in need of modernisation. Don’t make common cause with those who lash out at “aggressive gays” and then claim change is being forced upon you at too fast a pace.
And when someone you held up as the epitome of solid traditionalist values gets caught bang to rights selling questions for cash, and making derogatory remarks about “Jews”, don’t accuse the rest of us of peddling smears.
Instead, take a long hard look at yourselves.
If Patrick Mercer doesn’t represent Tory traditionalism, fine. Show us what does.
wiki says the archangels thing is essentially a matter of editing.
Seven archangels are mentioned in one early text, but only two in the bible. The early church decided the former was not a proper scripture so five archangels got suppressed. A third angel (Raphael) squeezes in because he is mentioned in a further text that has been declared a proper scripture.
What a bummer - to end up on the cutting room floor of Christianity! Not even a spin-off series to soften the blow...
Whatever we think of ed balls policy statements yesterday, the verdict from the left is nothing less than a weepin' and a wailin' and a gnashin' of teeth - that's if the many comments below Toynbee's latest article are anything to go by.
The hissy fit is such that our Poll has written two postscripts to clarify her position.
Whilst this is all extremely funny, I think there's a serious point about whether Labour will be able to galvanise its core vote, based on what it might be offering in 2015.
As Polly says, you can only go so far if you want to take the electorate with you. (a hilarious piece of code for: 'many voters are quite conservative, actually...').
There's a story in today's paper about Labour saying that free TV licences from pensioners will be going next.
A new study from Cornell reveals something rather disturbing: physically unattractive criminal defendants are 22 percent more likely to be convicted and hit with longer sentences than physically attractive defendants.
Isn't it possible that ugly people are just more likely to be criminals?
Certainly, the Ancients thought that physical beauty reflected inner moral worth. I don't know if it's a case of good-looking people faring better in court, per se, or whether it has to do with people having higher regard for people who take care of their appearance, than for those who don't. I don't doubt that if you appear neat and smart in Court, you're more likely to be taken seriously than if you don't.
One thing I have noticed is how many convicted paedophiles look exactly as you'd imagine them. Glaring, moronic, and extremely evil and repellent.
Gove could not be a leader, given his unpopularity with the general public.
You probably know the party better than I do, but the general public don't choose the leader - is unpopularity necessarily an issue? Maybe it only feels like this with the benefit of hindsight, but apart from Cameron it's not obvious that the party usually optimizes for popularity with the wider electorate.
Mr. F, one astoundingly beautiful woman in Athens (mentioned in Philip Matyszak's Classical Compendium) was found innocent after her lawyer stripped her in front of the jury and suggested that one so well-favoured was clearly a handmaiden of the gods.
Mr. Thoughts, I've read an interesting theory that Satan's the good guy. After all, he's the one who gave us knowledge, and in return God gave us punishments.
As I said, the knowledge Satan gave us is comparable to the fire Prometheus did, but the former's presented as evil and the latter as good (from humanity's perspective).
"One of the measures that we do want to bring forward, which doesn't apply to trade unions alone, is the way in which a number of campaign groups - and they can be trade unions, animal welfare groups, tactical voting groups, rural campaign groups, religious groups and individuals - spend money to determine the outcome of campaigns in particularly constituencies.
At the last election those major groups and individuals spent £3m, a full 10% of what the major parties spent. So what we want to do is make sure that this increasingly important type of campaigning is fully transparent and isn't allowed to distort the political process. That is what these proposals will do."
Mr. Thoughts, I've read an interesting theory that Satan's the good guy. After all, he's the one who gave us knowledge, and in return God gave us punishments.
As I said, the knowledge Satan gave us is comparable to the fire Prometheus did, but the former's presented as evil and the latter as good (from humanity's perspective).
How about God created hell and it is run by Lucifer, the archangel tasked with offering the final chance of redemption to sinners!
Mr. Thoughts, I've read an interesting theory that Satan's the good guy. After all, he's the one who gave us knowledge, and in return God gave us punishments.
As I said, the knowledge Satan gave us is comparable to the fire Prometheus did, but the former's presented as evil and the latter as good (from humanity's perspective).
Good point - its a very interesting subject. IIRC you've some theology quals but an atheist - was that tricky? I assume most theology students are rather keen on being religious.
Today's article by Polly Toynbee is one of her best, because unusually she has been able to look at Labour's current positioning with some detachment. Her addenda are also worth reading. Key points for me:
"Labour "overspending" has been successfully blamed for the size of the national debt, with the cost of the crash and bank bailouts blurred into the overspending story."
"Labour will be unafraid from now on to advocate borrowing for capital investment."
"But far tougher benefit questions are yet to be answered."
"Miliband looks likely to go for a benefit spending target spread over time; Labour's message will be that the right way to cut housing benefit is to build homes and reduce rents. The right way to cut the benefit bill is to get people into living-wage work. Can he illuminate a convincing Labour path to revive public trust in social security?"
"Ed Balls's brain was never in doubt... The problem is more serious: where is the overarching idea?"
"Learning from all Labour failed to do last time, the party needs a grander vision for re-ordering a deeply disordered status quo."
"But the great question is always the same - how far can you go, while still taking enough of the voters with you? Labour still badly lacks a galvanising radical vision to rally voters to its cause."
"As for "archetypal middle-class do-gooder", I find using myself as a test-bed useful: until I and my colleagues and friends feel anything like the shocking cuts inflicted on low-income families and disabled people, I know the choices this government has made stinks."
It's one of the articles of the year on Labour. Precisely because she has challenged rather than caressed her readers, they are up in arms. This reflects very poorly on Guardian readers.
One thing's for sure. Gove is vastly superior to anyone in Labour. Whenever I've seen him up against a Labouriste , he's reduced them to mince meat.
Even PB's uber leftoid tim didn't disagree with this when I pointed it out earlier - its not much of a metric though - so bereft of talent is the Labour front bench.
A new study from Cornell reveals something rather disturbing: physically unattractive criminal defendants are 22 percent more likely to be convicted and hit with longer sentences than physically attractive defendants.
Isn't it possible that ugly people are just more likely to be criminals?
Certainly, the Ancients thought that physical beauty reflected inner moral worth. I don't know if it's a case of good-looking people faring better in court, per se, or whether it has to do with people having higher regard for people who take care of their appearance, than for those who don't. I don't doubt that if you appear neat and smart in Court, you're more likely to be taken seriously than if you don't.
One thing I have noticed is how many convicted paedophiles look exactly as you'd imagine them. Glaring, moronic, and extremely evil and repellent.
It's pretty obvious that ugly people ARE more likely to be criminal. Facial symmetry (i.e. beauty) is an evolutionary indicator of good physical and mental health. This is the Darwinian function of beauty: it is the peacock's tail for humans.
If you are ugly it is more likely you will be stupid, retarded, poor - i.e. criminal.
The stereotypical stupid/thug crim has a regressive jaw-line, low forehead et al - I assume there is some anthropological explanation for this - as is the expression *chinless-wonder* for the aristos and in-breeding between wealthy family lines seeking to protect their assets.
ExaroNews @ExaroNews 8m Police investigate claims that News Corporation used industrial espionage to cripple competitor to #Sky.
That would result in some expensive lawsuits. Carlton and Granada will be watching that one I'd imagine.
The key word is, of course, claim. The police are, broadly, required to investigate if a report is made to them. In the circumstances they could not refuse to look even if they are of the view that the basis of the report is without foundation.
But there must also be a lot of ugly people who aren't stupid or retarded but because most people treat them as if they are stupid and retarded and don't give them a fair chance in life they end up becoming the sort of losers people assumed them to be in the first place.
Mr. Thoughts, I've read an interesting theory that Satan's the good guy. After all, he's the one who gave us knowledge, and in return God gave us punishments.
Satan is sometimes said to be the most sympathetic character in Paradise Lost, but then Puritan sensibilities would be quite different from ours...
A new study from Cornell reveals something rather disturbing: physically unattractive criminal defendants are 22 percent more likely to be convicted and hit with longer sentences than physically attractive defendants.
Isn't it possible that ugly people are just more likely to be criminals?
Certainly, the Ancients thought that physical beauty reflected inner moral worth. I don't know if it's a case of good-looking people faring better in court, per se, or whether it has to do with people having higher regard for people who take care of their appearance, than for those who don't. I don't doubt that if you appear neat and smart in Court, you're more likely to be taken seriously than if you don't.
One thing I have noticed is how many convicted paedophiles look exactly as you'd imagine them. Glaring, moronic, and extremely evil and repellent.
It's pretty obvious that ugly people ARE more likely to be criminal. Facial symmetry (i.e. beauty) is an evolutionary indicator of good physical and mental health. This is the Darwinian function of beauty: it is the peacock's tail for humans.
If you are ugly it is more likely you will be stupid, retarded, poor - i.e. criminal.
The stereotypical stupid/thug crim has a regressive jaw-line, low forehead et al - I assume there is some anthropological explanation for this - as is the expression *chinless-wonder* for the aristos and in-breeding between wealthy family lines seeking to protect their assets.
Socialism is messing with Darwin's survival of the fittest theory - the weak and sick at the back of the herd are given free food and protection. If it was Zebra's in the African plains they'd all be fat, lazy and eaten by lions. Just like we are becoming and being eaten by the Chinese economy.
One can link the rise of the British left with the decline of the Empire..
One thing's for sure. Gove is vastly superior to anyone in Labour. Whenever I've seen him up against a Labouriste , he's reduced them to mince meat.
Even PB's uber leftoid tim didn't disagree with this when I pointed it out earlier - its not much of a metric though - so bereft of talent is the Labour front bench.
The horrific truth for Labour is that Brown was the best they had while EdM is the best they have.
As the UK enjoys the June sunshine of Osborne's house-building led economic recovery, the dark clouds of despair are being blown across Citoyen Hollande's France.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has cut its 2013 and 2014 growth forecasts for France urging the Eurozone's second largest economy to forge ahead with its reforms and combat youth unemployment.
The IMF trimmed its forecasts for this year and next by 10 basis points to a contraction of 0.2% in 2013 and growth of 0.8% in 2014. The French government hasn't updated its own 2013 forecast for growth of 0.2% despite the fact that the European Commission estimates a 0.1% contraction.
Archangel Osborne in heaven. Satanic Hollande in denial.
Miss Plato, only an A-level, but it was fascinating (although my exams were mismarked. I deserved every other lacklustre grade I got, but was annoyed that obviously wrong marking distorted my Religious Studies result).
The teacher was a laypreacher who was very likeable and just about nobody in the class was religious. I think it helped, because everyone was quite willing to contest notions and we didn't have any nodding dogs. It was easily the most interesting and educational (both within and beyond the subject matter) class I took.
We did have a 'proper' Christian one year. He was very polite, but it was clear (because I asked) that he thought we'd all end up in Hell because, being atheists, we never asked forgiveness for our sins.
One thing's for sure. Gove is vastly superior to anyone in Labour. Whenever I've seen him up against a Labouriste , he's reduced them to mince meat.
Even PB's uber leftoid tim didn't disagree with this when I pointed it out earlier - its not much of a metric though - so bereft of talent is the Labour front bench.
I made the point that Gove's sub Boris act in the Telegraph will appeal to the sort of people who see Boris as a leader in waiting. ie you and people like you. But elections aren't fought among those who chortle at Telegraph blogs and think James Delingpole is witty and sane and in possession of "killer arguments"
Still not denying that Gove shredded rEd ? Your avoidance strategy with regards to rEd is providing some remarkable contortions.
Mr. Taffys, I did have a go at reading that, but found it a bit stodgy. Given my limited reading time I'd rather spend it on stuff that's more enjoyable (such as Journey to Altmortis, out now at all good e-book retailers).
Reminds me a bit of the US president Warren G Harding. Apparently he was elected as president in 1920 (I think) because he looked and sounded like the most reliable, intelligent, wise person you could possibly imagine. Most historians now agree he was an utter nincompoop, and one of the most useless presidents of all time, although he was only in the White House or two years before dying in office.
It's pretty obvious that ugly people ARE more likely to be criminal. Facial symmetry (i.e. beauty) is an evolutionary indicator of good physical and mental health....
No, surely not! Some NatGeo/Discovery doco found/stated - and I cannot find a google link to prove it - that facial asymmetary is attractive.
From memeory the girl was a Canuck of Oirish and Asian genes. [As I am an English male it cannot be me.]
If you are ugly it is more likely you will be stupid, retarded, poor - i.e. criminal.
wiki says the archangels thing is essentially a matter of editing.
Seven archangels are mentioned in one early text, but only two in the bible. The early church decided the former was not a proper scripture so five archangels got suppressed. A third angel (Raphael) squeezes in because he is mentioned in a further text that has been declared a proper scripture.
I've always thought that the "sons of God" in Job 38:6-7 were a generic reference to angels:
"Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
Quite. Professor Niall Ferguson argues very persuasively that the British Empire was in fact destroyed by competing Empires - Germany, Japan, Russia and the US.
Indeed, the American price for helping us in WW2 was essentially that the British Empire be wound up - something that Churchill never really grasped.
Logically speaking, if it's illegal to discriminate against someone because of their race, gender or sexuality, it should also be illegal to discriminate against someone based on how attractive or unattractive they are, since a person cannot choose what they look like any more than they can choose their race, gender, etc.
I suspect the reason for the current illogical position is that people are able to feel sympathetic towards, say, a black, female or gay person being treated unfairly in a way they don't towards unattractive people.
Reminds me a bit of the US president Warren G Harding. Apparently he was elected as president in 1920 (I think) because he looked and sounded like the most reliable, intelligent, wise person you could possibly imagine. Most historians now agree he was an utter nincompoop, and one of the most useless presidents of all time, although he was only in the White House [f]or two years before dying in office.
His dying was a good career move: there was a growing corruption scandal surrounding the White House when he died and there's a strong chance he would have been impeached had he lived.
Miss Plato, only an A-level, but it was fascinating (although my exams were mismarked. I deserved every other lacklustre grade I got, but was annoyed that obviously wrong marking distorted my Religious Studies result).
The teacher was a laypreacher who was very likeable and just about nobody in the class was religious. I think it helped, because everyone was quite willing to contest notions and we didn't have any nodding dogs. It was easily the most interesting and educational (both within and beyond the subject matter) class I took.
We did have a 'proper' Christian one year. He was very polite, but it was clear (because I asked) that he thought we'd all end up in Hell because, being atheists, we never asked forgiveness for our sins.
That sounds fascinating - I find world religions most intriguing stuff and rather attracted to the Pagan/Hindu variants if I was of that bent, they seem a great deal less full of themselves. My mother used to tease people that she worshipped Odin [she was a quiet Dawkins of her day after suffering an ultra Catholic upbringing]
Many faiths are reflections of simple/Darwinian/Desmond Morris good neighbour/pack/tribe behaviour - if you haven't squeezed The Naked Ape into your reading list - its a must read if you're interested in human behaviour/anthropology.
It's pretty obvious that ugly people ARE more likely to be criminal. Facial symmetry (i.e. beauty) is an evolutionary indicator of good physical and mental health....
No, surely not! Some NatGeo/Discovery doco found/stated - and I cannot find a google link to prove it - that facial asymmetary is attractive.
From memeory the girl was a Canuck of Oirish and Asian genes. [As I am an English male it cannot be me.]
If you are ugly it is more likely you will be stupid, retarded, poor - i.e. criminal.
Oh, an "Ed is Crap" thread. Now I get it....
IIRC Jaclyn Smith of Charlie's Angels and Kelly Brooke are considered to be *perfect* specimens of this genetic lucky sperm club.
wiki says the archangels thing is essentially a matter of editing.
Seven archangels are mentioned in one early text, but only two in the bible. The early church decided the former was not a proper scripture so five archangels got suppressed. A third angel (Raphael) squeezes in because he is mentioned in a further text that has been declared a proper scripture.
I've always thought that the "sons of God" in Job 38:6-7 were a generic reference to angels:
"Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
Nice bit of language, that.
Yup - archangels are the Sons of God - and are his direct creation - rather than Jesus who was a bit by proxy. Why God didn't just stick Michael or AN Other on Earth instead is a puzzle.
Thankfully for me as an atheist - I can just enjoy the plotting rather than believe its true.
Comments
The hissy fit is such that our Poll has written two postscripts to clarify her position.
Whilst this is all extremely funny, I think there's a serious point about whether Labour will be able to galvanise its core vote, based on what it might be offering in 2015.
As Polly says, you can only go so far if you want to take the electorate with you. (a hilarious piece of code for: 'many voters are quite conservative, actually...').
There's an interesting comparison between Lucifer and Prometheus, actually, and giving the gift of knowledge and the gift of fire (both can be considered metaphors for technology).
- judging a two year course on a three hour exam
That's how my generation was judged at school and at university. I'm not against coursework, by any means, but to suggest that this form of examination is completely absurd is OTT. Whole generations of children were - and in other countries - still are tested in this way.
The danger, I'd have thought, is treating it all as either/or rather than realising that a mixture of both, depending on the subject etc / level etc, may be necessary.
That's how my generation was judged at school and at university. I'm not against coursework, by any means, but to suggest that this form of examination is completely absurd is OTT. Whole generations of children were - and in other countries - still are tested in this way.
The danger, I'd have thought, is treating it all as either/or rather than realising that a mixture of both, depending on the subject etc / level etc, may be necessary.
The phrase "judging a two year course on a three hour exam" comes from Tim below. Apologies. Something went wrong with my quoting.
It may well be this was the case in the past, and it maybe so in the future, but I still think fashions change, and it is unwise to write off clever people who aren't that hot physically just because its happened before
Ugly defendants 'more likely to be found guilty than attractive ones'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-443754/Ugly-defendants-likely-guilty-attractive-ones.html#ixzz2VFFsp9Sr
Edit: and a further link
A new study from Cornell reveals something rather disturbing: physically unattractive criminal defendants are 22 percent more likely to be convicted and hit with longer sentences than physically attractive defendants.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/05/17/u-g-l-y-you-might-have-an-alibi-but-youre-guilty-youre-guilty/
The Tories also did very badly in Scotland, unlike Labour, in terms of turning votes into seats.
As for the odds on Miliband, I think they're reflecting money, not likely outcomes.
Gove could not be a leader, given his unpopularity with the general public.
Seven archangels are mentioned in one early text, but only two in the bible. The early church decided the former was not a proper scripture so five archangels got suppressed. A third angel (Raphael) squeezes in because he is mentioned in a further text that has been declared a proper scripture.
Essentially it now appears her entire opposition to the coalitions economic policy is nothing more than the fact Labour isn't isn't in power. And that's it. For all the sound and fury it's just about one set of people being out of power and once set of people being in power. No more, no less.
Of course, that would be fine if she was honest about her opposition and didn't dress up her opposition as being something morally virtuous and part of some great political divide for the soul of the nation...
Brown was getting hammered regardless of the debates, did they make it worse? I thought Cameron was the one who suffered according to he figures in the debates despite his obvious physical advantage
Don’t sit there alongside side people who like to reminisce about the days when the word “nigger” echoed around the barrack room and try to tell us that you and your party aren’t in need of modernisation. Don’t make common cause with those who lash out at “aggressive gays” and then claim change is being forced upon you at too fast a pace.
And when someone you held up as the epitome of solid traditionalist values gets caught bang to rights selling questions for cash, and making derogatory remarks about “Jews”, don’t accuse the rest of us of peddling smears.
Instead, take a long hard look at yourselves.
If Patrick Mercer doesn’t represent Tory traditionalism, fine. Show us what does.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100220130/most-tory-traditionalists-arent-racist-but-most-tory-racists-are-traditionalists-what-is-the-right-going-to-do-about-its-patrick-mercers/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
That and the notion that Ed Balls' policies are just a flag of convenience. In power, labour would do something quite different.
One thing I have noticed is how many convicted paedophiles look exactly as you'd imagine them. Glaring, moronic, and extremely evil and repellent.
:just-asking:
http://www.thejc.com/news/israel-news/108250/touching-bottom-idf-girls-pose-underwear
Have to hand it to the religious text authors - they churned out some great plots and mini-series... :^O
As I said, the knowledge Satan gave us is comparable to the fire Prometheus did, but the former's presented as evil and the latter as good (from humanity's perspective).
"One of the measures that we do want to bring forward, which doesn't apply to trade unions alone, is the way in which a number of campaign groups - and they can be trade unions, animal welfare groups, tactical voting groups, rural campaign groups, religious groups and individuals - spend money to determine the outcome of campaigns in particularly constituencies.
At the last election those major groups and individuals spent £3m, a full 10% of what the major parties spent. So what we want to do is make sure that this increasingly important type of campaigning is fully transparent and isn't allowed to distort the political process. That is what these proposals will do."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/jun/04/lords-gay-marriage-vote-live-blog#block-51adcd07e4b00a6ab14f1e4b
"Labour "overspending" has been successfully blamed for the size of the national debt, with the cost of the crash and bank bailouts blurred into the overspending story."
"Labour will be unafraid from now on to advocate borrowing for capital investment."
"But far tougher benefit questions are yet to be answered."
"Miliband looks likely to go for a benefit spending target spread over time; Labour's message will be that the right way to cut housing benefit is to build homes and reduce rents. The right way to cut the benefit bill is to get people into living-wage work. Can he illuminate a convincing Labour path to revive public trust in social security?"
"Ed Balls's brain was never in doubt... The problem is more serious: where is the overarching idea?"
"Learning from all Labour failed to do last time, the party needs a grander vision for re-ordering a deeply disordered status quo."
"But the great question is always the same - how far can you go, while still taking enough of the voters with you? Labour still badly lacks a galvanising radical vision to rally voters to its cause."
"As for "archetypal middle-class do-gooder", I find using myself as a test-bed useful: until I and my colleagues and friends feel anything like the shocking cuts inflicted on low-income families and disabled people, I know the choices this government has made stinks."
It's one of the articles of the year on Labour. Precisely because she has challenged rather than caressed her readers, they are up in arms. This reflects very poorly on Guardian readers.
But there must also be a lot of ugly people who aren't stupid or retarded but because most people treat them as if they are stupid and retarded and don't give them a fair chance in life they end up becoming the sort of losers people assumed them to be in the first place.
Satan is sometimes said to be the most sympathetic character in Paradise Lost, but then Puritan sensibilities would be quite different from ours...
One can link the rise of the British left with the decline of the Empire..
Straps on tin hat.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has cut its 2013 and 2014 growth forecasts for France urging the Eurozone's second largest economy to forge ahead with its reforms and combat youth unemployment.
The IMF trimmed its forecasts for this year and next by 10 basis points to a contraction of 0.2% in 2013 and growth of 0.8% in 2014. The French government hasn't updated its own 2013 forecast for growth of 0.2% despite the fact that the European Commission estimates a 0.1% contraction.
Archangel Osborne in heaven. Satanic Hollande in denial.
The teacher was a laypreacher who was very likeable and just about nobody in the class was religious. I think it helped, because everyone was quite willing to contest notions and we didn't have any nodding dogs. It was easily the most interesting and educational (both within and beyond the subject matter) class I took.
We did have a 'proper' Christian one year. He was very polite, but it was clear (because I asked) that he thought we'd all end up in Hell because, being atheists, we never asked forgiveness for our sins.
From memeory the girl was a Canuck of Oirish and Asian genes. [As I am an English male it cannot be me.] Oh, an "Ed is Crap" thread. Now I get it....
Edited to add: I understand you are confused. Now, as we all know, this guy gave us knowledge....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2YW9Ld6Jhk&list=PL8FF2A5CCB4CE5676
"Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
Nice bit of language, that.
Quite. Professor Niall Ferguson argues very persuasively that the British Empire was in fact destroyed by competing Empires - Germany, Japan, Russia and the US.
Indeed, the American price for helping us in WW2 was essentially that the British Empire be wound up - something that Churchill never really grasped.
I suspect the reason for the current illogical position is that people are able to feel sympathetic towards, say, a black, female or gay person being treated unfairly in a way they don't towards unattractive people.
Many faiths are reflections of simple/Darwinian/Desmond Morris good neighbour/pack/tribe behaviour - if you haven't squeezed The Naked Ape into your reading list - its a must read if you're interested in human behaviour/anthropology.
IIRC Jaclyn Smith of Charlie's Angels and Kelly Brooke are considered to be *perfect* specimens of this genetic lucky sperm club.
I can't recall the male equivalents - any ideas?
Thankfully for me as an atheist - I can just enjoy the plotting rather than believe its true.