Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
As I bid goodnight, may I just say how much I'm enjoying the (impending) Tory Civil War? Let's hope it lasts at least a couple of years.
If they were in Opposition, I might share your hopes.
But they're not.
For the good of country it needs to be sorted in a fortnight.
To hell with the members in other words.
My hunch is that the fact that the members will make the final choice will be what loses them the next election.
Of the last 3 general election majority winners, Blair, Cameron and Johnson, all 3 were picked by Labour or Tory members.
Tory MPs alone however picked general election losers Hague and Howard and May who lost her majority in 2017. Labour MPs alone meanwhile picked Gordon Brown who lost Labour its majority in 2010
That is somewhat unfair in 2016. May was one of the last two and was about to be in a Tory membership vote, but Leadsome pulled out, so a membership election would have been a waste of time.
It's interesting to think what would have happened if Leadsom hadn't pulled out. I think May would probably still have won but we would have seen some of May's weaknesses come out earlier and perhaps avoided the later disaster of the GE campaign.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
Nevertheless the polite thing nowadays is to keep your delusions to yourself.
These Sunday Papers already looking brutal for a few candidates 😟 how long has some of this stuff been sat on by papers, or now leaked by someone else sitting on it?
What stuff?
As the Independent piece puts it:
There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Mr Zahawi, a popular and respected figure among Tory MPs.
Don't start out by believing crapulous tabloid newspapers . TSE is just teasing.
Are red wall MPs really going to get behind cuts to corporation tax? They are surely a substantial part of the MP electorate.
The redwall is probably mostly lost back to Labour anyway post Boris and now Brexit is done.
Best Tories can hope for is a 1992 or 2015 style scraped majority
The red wall may not be lost if someone actually did some levelling up, stuff like reinstating HS2 to Manchester and Leeds, moving jobs from London northwards, apart from the ones being moved from the Treasury to Rishi’s neighbouring constituency.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
Are red wall MPs really going to get behind cuts to corporation tax? They are surely a substantial part of the MP electorate.
The redwall is probably mostly lost back to Labour anyway post Boris and now Brexit is done.
Best Tories can hope for is a 1992 or 2015 style scraped majority
The red wall may not be lost if someone actually did some levelling up, stuff like reinstating HS2 to Manchester and Leeds, moving jobs from London northwards, apart from the ones being moved from the Treasury to Rishi’s neighbouring constituency.
Except much of that loses the blue wall too, workers there don't want to move north
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
The hottest temperature I've experienced was 37ºC in Florida in 1999. The most in the UK was about 33ºC.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
Not much irrigation round our ways, but a week of 40C+ is not at all unheard of, without a big impact on environment nor agriculture (but we do have AC). But I guess it depends where crops are in the growing cycle - and how long it stays about above 30C - as to how much crop damage is done (assuming all crops in the UK are C3 plants).
Are you talking temperatures in the sun?
Shade temperatures.
And let’s just look at the last 4 years shall we:
2018: joint hottest summer for the UK on record. Max temperature 35.3C
2019: hottest 850hPa temperature ever recorded in June (same time France smashed its all time heat record), then all time heat record set at 38.7C in Cambridge on 25th July
2020: 37.8C at Heathrow on 31st July, which would have beaten the old all time record pre-2003 and the all time July record pre-2015; 36.4C on 7th August, and 6 consecutive days above 34C, the first time ever
2021: a disappointing summer and the worst in a few years but Northern Ireland still managed to break its all time temperature record 3 days in a row. Also of course the year Sicily recorded the all time hottest temperature in Europe.
So hitting the mid 30s and threatening records is very much a normal thing these days.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
I've experienced that level of heat in Egypt and it was ok because the humidity was zero. 45C plus humidity would knock me sideways
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
Nevertheless the polite thing nowadays is to keep your delusions to yourself.
Not if you are evangelical it isn't
Yes, it is. They are simply impolite, trying to thrust their nonsense where it isn’t welcome.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
Not much irrigation round our ways, but a week of 40C+ is not at all unheard of, without a big impact on environment nor agriculture (but we do have AC). But I guess it depends where crops are in the growing cycle - and how long it stays about above 30C - as to how much crop damage is done (assuming all crops in the UK are C3 plants).
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
The hottest temperature I've experienced was 37ºC in Florida in 1999. The most in the UK was about 33ºC.
Low 40s in the Sahara is mine, very dry heat, bearable 38 in Senegal with high humidity was fucking unbearable
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
I've experienced that level of heat in Egypt and it was ok because the humidity was zero. 45C plus humidity would knock me sideways
45C with humidity is actively dangerous. You can’t lose heat and you die of hyperthermia.
Johnson has nowhere to live after No 10 reports Telegraph.
His two former homes are rented out.
I am sure he can put up a tent in Hyde Park
As a general rule, I believe former PMs are allowed to use Chequers for a while to help with housing transition. That certainly used to be offered.
Maybe for a month or 2 but I am sure Rishi would kick him out as soon as he could.
Of course. But the offer has traditionally been made but only rarely taken up.
There will be a crony who can take the four of them in (plus the dog)
Rishi has no need of slumming it at Chequers every weekend when he has his own Georgian manor which by some quirk of fate is very near the new HMRC HQ at Darlington.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
Nevertheless the polite thing nowadays is to keep your delusions to yourself.
Not if you are evangelical it isn't
Yes, it is. They are simply impolite, trying to thrust their nonsense where it isn’t welcome.
They are trying to save you for eternal life with the Lord, try stopping them!
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
The hottest temperature I've experienced was 37ºC in Florida in 1999. The most in the UK was about 33ºC.
I remember 37ºC in the UK, 2003 from memory. It was really horrible.
Obviously, I’m now in an air conditioned apartment, which makes a massive difference to the daily comfort, even if you can only live for a minute or two at a time outside.
If you think we are “hollowed out” then there is sone structural inefficiency compared to what we have done in living memory.
I think there is a huge amount of spending that just happens because someone once thought it was a good idea and it is hard to challenge
We have spent the last 50 years selling off anything of value to any foreign company who will buy it and used that to close the spending / earning gap. It does not work forever.
So Javid, Badenoch and - by implication Hunt - are all committed to swingeing cuts to an already hollowed out public sector.
This is quite crazy stuff, guaranteed to immiserate the country and lose an election besides.
As far as I can tell the only “sane” candidate now standing is Tom Tugendhat. Mordaunt yet to announce of course.
There is no continuity Boris candidate. So they are stuck with rehashing the old failed Cameronite formula. So, they will hand back lots of the red wall, and carry on losing seats in the blue wall to the lib dems; due to the legacy of a massive strategic blunder on planning reform which will not be resolved in this parliament; there isn't enough time. The loss of Gove from DLUHC is bad news on this front, because he was doing respectable work sorting this problem out.
Boris single handedly reinvented the party in 2019. The candidates are queuing up to undo this reinvention, to go back to an old failed formula, the exact formula that led to Brexit. The departure of Boris could save the labour party. It could look in future like an act of collective madness.
So - what would continuity Boris look like policy wise?
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
Not much irrigation round our ways, but a week of 40C+ is not at all unheard of, without a big impact on environment nor agriculture (but we do have AC). But I guess it depends where crops are in the growing cycle - and how long it stays about above 30C - as to how much crop damage is done (assuming all crops in the UK are C3 plants).
Are you talking temperatures in the sun?
Nope. Air temps.
Currently modelled 8 days away... It will be a hot spell. I think 35 is likely somewhere. 40 deg plus - not a chance. It’s summer. This is what happens.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
I've experienced that level of heat in Egypt and it was ok because the humidity was zero. 45C plus humidity would knock me sideways
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
I've experienced that level of heat in Egypt and it was ok because the humidity was zero. 45C plus humidity would knock me sideways
The worst I’ve had was 42 degrees in northern India. It sucked all the energy out of you as soon as you tried to get up and do anything. Had to change sleeping habits to avoid the worst of it.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
Nevertheless the polite thing nowadays is to keep your delusions to yourself.
Not if you are evangelical it isn't
Yes, it is. They are simply impolite, trying to thrust their nonsense where it isn’t welcome.
Perhaps I could start the non-religion of Evangelical Atheism?
As I bid goodnight, may I just say how much I'm enjoying the (impending) Tory Civil War? Let's hope it lasts at least a couple of years.
If they were in Opposition, I might share your hopes.
But they're not.
For the good of country it needs to be sorted in a fortnight.
To hell with the members in other words.
My hunch is that the fact that the members will make the final choice will be what loses them the next election.
Of the last 3 general election majority winners, Blair, Cameron and Johnson, all 3 were picked by Labour or Tory members.
Tory MPs alone however picked general election losers Hague and Howard and May who lost her majority in 2017. Labour MPs alone meanwhile picked Gordon Brown who lost Labour its majority in 2010
None of which proves anything, all the circumstances were entirely different.
Currently the Tories are behind in all the polls, they face a torrid couple of years economically so if they are going to survive the 2024 GE they are going to need a candidate with wide appeal but the members will go for the candidate that puts their own narrow financial and ideological interests first.
As I bid goodnight, may I just say how much I'm enjoying the (impending) Tory Civil War? Let's hope it lasts at least a couple of years.
If they were in Opposition, I might share your hopes.
But they're not.
For the good of country it needs to be sorted in a fortnight.
To hell with the members in other words.
My hunch is that the fact that the members will make the final choice will be what loses them the next election.
Of the last 3 general election majority winners, Blair, Cameron and Johnson, all 3 were picked by Labour or Tory members.
Tory MPs alone however picked general election losers Hague and Howard and May who lost her majority in 2017. Labour MPs alone meanwhile picked Gordon Brown who lost Labour its majority in 2010
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
You first paragraph is my point really. This will moderate, it almost always does. It’s not about a statistical bias, it’s more that prediction/model at 8;days plus, even using ensembles, is still not that accurate. I think you triggered me a bit by posting the GFS pub run.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
🔥🔥🔥
I'm ignorant about these things, but why does this differ so much from the usual 14-day forecasts, which show temperatures up to 34 max next Sunday (bad enough!)?
Mr Javid reels off the cost of each measure and says he would fund the package from a mixture of the £32 billion fiscal headroom forecast to be available by 2024-25, and an efficiency savings programme that would see 1 per cent cut from all Whitehall spending, including on the NHS.
"Efficiency savings". CALLED IT!
It's their version of 'bankers bonuses' funding everything.
As I bid goodnight, may I just say how much I'm enjoying the (impending) Tory Civil War? Let's hope it lasts at least a couple of years.
If they were in Opposition, I might share your hopes.
But they're not.
For the good of country it needs to be sorted in a fortnight.
To hell with the members in other words.
My hunch is that the fact that the members will make the final choice will be what loses them the next election.
Of the last 3 general election majority winners, Blair, Cameron and Johnson, all 3 were picked by Labour or Tory members.
Tory MPs alone however picked general election losers Hague and Howard and May who lost her majority in 2017. Labour MPs alone meanwhile picked Gordon Brown who lost Labour its majority in 2010
None of which proves anything, all the circumstances were entirely different.
Currently the Tories are behind in all the polls, they face a torrid couple of years economically so if they are going to survive the 2024 GE they are going to need a candidate with wide appeal but the members will go for the candidate that puts their own narrow financial and ideological interests first.
Well if Tory members prefer 2 or 3 years of dry as dust, hard right Conservatism to 6 or 7 years of wet soggy centrism that is their affair.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
I've experienced that level of heat in Egypt and it was ok because the humidity was zero. 45C plus humidity would knock me sideways
45C with humidity is actively dangerous. You can’t lose heat and you die of hyperthermia.
Correct. Always, always keep a gallon of drinking water and a shade in the car. You can be dead really quickly in the sun and humidity.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
Not much irrigation round our ways, but a week of 40C+ is not at all unheard of, without a big impact on environment nor agriculture (but we do have AC). But I guess it depends where crops are in the growing cycle - and how long it stays about above 30C - as to how much crop damage is done (assuming all crops in the UK are C3 plants).
Are you talking temperatures in the sun?
Nope. Air temps.
Currently modelled 8 days away... It will be a hot spell. I think 35 is likely somewhere. 40 deg plus - not a chance. It’s summer. This is what happens.
Its summer [in the 21st century], this is what happens [now].
I hope you’re right about 40C. It’s morbidly fascinating but not something we really want to be experiencing regularly.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
As I bid goodnight, may I just say how much I'm enjoying the (impending) Tory Civil War? Let's hope it lasts at least a couple of years.
If they were in Opposition, I might share your hopes.
But they're not.
For the good of country it needs to be sorted in a fortnight.
To hell with the members in other words.
My hunch is that the fact that the members will make the final choice will be what loses them the next election.
Of the last 3 general election majority winners, Blair, Cameron and Johnson, all 3 were picked by Labour or Tory members.
Tory MPs alone however picked general election losers Hague and Howard and May who lost her majority in 2017. Labour MPs alone meanwhile picked Gordon Brown who lost Labour its majority in 2010
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
I think we've been in the high 20s today here. My mate doing fencing for me certainly noticed.
That's high enough to be very difficult for me since it sends insulin doses haywire (may have to halve the dose compared to normal weather for the same effect, then it's into a hypo and guzzling orange juice if I call it wrongly), so tomorrow I'll be doing my house painting starting at 6am and paperwork in the middle of the day.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
It’s all right for you lot dahn sahf. We are still forecasted to have 16C. No wonder Covid’s so prevalent in the West of Scotland. It’s still too miserable to socialise outdoors.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
Not much irrigation round our ways, but a week of 40C+ is not at all unheard of, without a big impact on environment nor agriculture (but we do have AC). But I guess it depends where crops are in the growing cycle - and how long it stays about above 30C - as to how much crop damage is done (assuming all crops in the UK are C3 plants).
Are you talking temperatures in the sun?
Nope. Air temps.
Currently modelled 8 days away... It will be a hot spell. I think 35 is likely somewhere. 40 deg plus - not a chance. It’s summer. This is what happens.
Its summer [in the 21st century], this is what happens [now].
I hope you’re right about 40C. It’s morbidly fascinating but not something we really want to be experiencing regularly.
I expect to be right about the heat moderating as we get closer. I also think that our recent summers might have yielded hot spells, but have not been great overall.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
Clearly this is the candidates telling the 'selectorate' what they want to hear, which they will then disregard in the name of political expediency. Whoever takes over is just going to be stumbling along, managing decline until a near inevitable defeat in 2024.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
Nevertheless the polite thing nowadays is to keep your delusions to yourself.
Not if you are evangelical it isn't
Yes, it is. They are simply impolite, trying to thrust their nonsense where it isn’t welcome.
They are trying to save you for eternal life with the Lord, try stopping them!
If, as mooted, 20 backers will be required to enter the race, I can easily see only 8 making it onto the first round ballot, which means some already declared and most of the yet to declare will not make the start line.
Of the 8, I rate the chances of getting on the ballot paper as follows:
Certain - Hunt, Sunak Quite likely with block backing - Braverman You'd think they ought, but could be tight - Javid, Zahawi Good chance of failing, but could attract a constituency - Tugendhat Likely to fail, but look out for a long shot chance of an audacious.out-Thatcherimg that puts jet lagged Truss's place in danger - Badenoch Not a cat in hell's chance - Shapps
Should be in, watch out for Badenoch - Truss Longer she waits, the more a shock non start could occur - Mordaumt Probably not - bar
As I bid goodnight, may I just say how much I'm enjoying the (impending) Tory Civil War? Let's hope it lasts at least a couple of years.
If they were in Opposition, I might share your hopes.
But they're not.
For the good of country it needs to be sorted in a fortnight.
To hell with the members in other words.
My hunch is that the fact that the members will make the final choice will be what loses them the next election.
Of the last 3 general election majority winners, Blair, Cameron and Johnson, all 3 were picked by Labour or Tory members.
Tory MPs alone however picked general election losers Hague and Howard and May who lost her majority in 2017. Labour MPs alone meanwhile picked Gordon Brown who lost Labour its majority in 2010
None of which proves anything, all the circumstances were entirely different.
Currently the Tories are behind in all the polls, they face a torrid couple of years economically so if they are going to survive the 2024 GE they are going to need a candidate with wide appeal but the members will go for the candidate that puts their own narrow financial and ideological interests first.
Well if Tory members prefer 2 or 3 years of dry as dust, hard right Conservatism to 6 or 7 years of wet soggy centrism that is their affair.
That would be a fair point if it were not for the fact that members will actually be choosing the Prime Minister of this country for the next 2 years and there is sod all 99.9% of us can do about it.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
You first paragraph is my point really. This will moderate, it almost always does. It’s not about a statistical bias, it’s more that prediction/model at 8;days plus, even using ensembles, is still not that accurate. I think you triggered me a bit by posting the GFS pub run.
Isn’t the pub run the 18z? Which is glitching currently and showing yesterday’s run, annoyingly.
EDIT: which is now working and has 38C on Saturday and 43C on Sunday.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
If, as mooted, 20 backers will be required to enter the race, I can easily see only 8 making it onto the first round ballot, which means some already declared and most of the yet to declare will not make the start line.
Of the 8, I rate the chances of getting on the ballot paper as follows:
Certain - Hunt, Sunak Quite likely with block backing - Braverman You'd think they ought, but could be tight - Javid, Zahawi Good chance of failing, but could attract a constituency - Tugendhat Likely to fail, but look out for a long shot chance of an audacious.out-Thatcherimg that puts jet lagged Truss's place in danger - Badenoch Not a cat in hell's chance - Shapps
Should be in, watch out for Badenoch - Truss Longer she waits, the more a shock non start could occur - Mordaumt Probably not - bar
I think Badenoch may prove more popular than Braverman over the next few days.
If, as mooted, 20 backers will be required to enter the race, I can easily see only 8 making it onto the first round ballot, which means some already declared and most of the yet to declare will not make the start line.
Of the 8, I rate the chances of getting on the ballot paper as follows:
Certain - Hunt, Sunak Quite likely with block backing - Braverman You'd think they ought, but could be tight - Javid, Zahawi Good chance of failing, but could attract a constituency - Tugendhat Likely to fail, but look out for a long shot chance of an audacious.out-Thatcherimg that puts jet lagged Truss's place in danger - Badenoch Not a cat in hell's chance - Shapps
Should be in, watch out for Badenoch - Truss Longer she waits, the more a shock non start could occur - Mordaumt Probably not - bar
Don't forget Priti who will announce on Wednesday with a platform of bringing back hanging, putting sharks in the Channel and slashing the tax take so much it could fit in her bathtub!
Are red wall MPs really going to get behind cuts to corporation tax? They are surely a substantial part of the MP electorate.
The redwall is probably mostly lost back to Labour anyway post Boris and now Brexit is done.
Best Tories can hope for is a 1992 or 2015 style scraped majority
The red wall may not be lost if someone actually did some levelling up, stuff like reinstating HS2 to Manchester and Leeds, moving jobs from London northwards, apart from the ones being moved from the Treasury to Rishi’s neighbouring constituency.
Except much of that loses the blue wall too, workers there don't want to move north
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
You first paragraph is my point really. This will moderate, it almost always does. It’s not about a statistical bias, it’s more that prediction/model at 8;days plus, even using ensembles, is still not that accurate. I think you triggered me a bit by posting the GFS pub run.
Isn’t the pub run the 18z? Which is glitching currently and showing yesterday’s run, annoyingly.
Its now coming out and looks slightly earlier and may get even hotter.........
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
Mathew's Gospel, though I sm not sure which translation.
Note though it is angels that do the dirty work, not humN followers.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
You first paragraph is my point really. This will moderate, it almost always does. It’s not about a statistical bias, it’s more that prediction/model at 8;days plus, even using ensembles, is still not that accurate. I think you triggered me a bit by posting the GFS pub run.
Isn’t the pub run the 18z? Which is glitching currently and showing yesterday’s run, annoyingly.
As I bid goodnight, may I just say how much I'm enjoying the (impending) Tory Civil War? Let's hope it lasts at least a couple of years.
If they were in Opposition, I might share your hopes.
But they're not.
For the good of country it needs to be sorted in a fortnight.
To hell with the members in other words.
My hunch is that the fact that the members will make the final choice will be what loses them the next election.
Of the last 3 general election majority winners, Blair, Cameron and Johnson, all 3 were picked by Labour or Tory members.
Tory MPs alone however picked general election losers Hague and Howard and May who lost her majority in 2017. Labour MPs alone meanwhile picked Gordon Brown who lost Labour its majority in 2010
None of which proves anything, all the circumstances were entirely different.
Currently the Tories are behind in all the polls, they face a torrid couple of years economically so if they are going to survive the 2024 GE they are going to need a candidate with wide appeal but the members will go for the candidate that puts their own narrow financial and ideological interests first.
Well if Tory members prefer 2 or 3 years of dry as dust, hard right Conservatism to 6 or 7 years of wet soggy centrism that is their affair.
That would be a fair point if it were not for the fact that members will actually be choosing the Prime Minister of this country for the next 2 years and there is sod all 99.9% of us can do about it.
Well tough, that was the prize Tory members got when the party won a majority of 80 in 2019
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
Lucky UK! Some of us saw 45ºC today.
I've experienced that level of heat in Egypt and it was ok because the humidity was zero. 45C plus humidity would knock me sideways
45C with humidity is actively dangerous. You can’t lose heat and you die of hyperthermia.
We were in Lisbon in 2018 during a heatwave when it was 44C. The breeze, such as it was, was like the blast of hot air you get when you open the oven door. Under 40C is bearable in the shade if you don’t need to be active. Over 40C, not so much.
If, as mooted, 20 backers will be required to enter the race, I can easily see only 8 making it onto the first round ballot, which means some already declared and most of the yet to declare will not make the start line.
Of the 8, I rate the chances of getting on the ballot paper as follows:
Certain - Hunt, Sunak Quite likely with block backing - Braverman You'd think they ought, but could be tight - Javid, Zahawi Good chance of failing, but could attract a constituency - Tugendhat Likely to fail, but look out for a long shot chance of an audacious.out-Thatcherimg that puts jet lagged Truss's place in danger - Badenoch Not a cat in hell's chance - Shapps
Should be in, watch out for Badenoch - Truss Longer she waits, the more a shock non start could occur - Mordaumt Probably not - bar
I don't think Badenoch will have a problem reaching 20 nominations. Grant Shapps may do.
Grant Shapps is likely to be the first to be knocked out of the race IMO.
I would be amazed if all of them are able to get the necessary nominations.
Javid, Zahawi, Shapps and Badenoch seem the most in danger of this IMHO.
Depends how many nominations are needed. I thought it was 8 atm but they may change it.
From memory of the last time, the entry into the contest requires only a first and second nomination. There will be a threshold on the first vote, possibly as high as 15%, that will eliminate all but a handful of candidates, and the MPs will then need to redistribute their votes among the remaining candidates.
Grant Shapps is likely to be the first to be knocked out of the race IMO.
I would be amazed if all of them are able to get the necessary nominations.
Javid, Zahawi, Shapps and Badenoch seem the most in danger of this IMHO.
Depends how many nominations are needed. I thought it was 8 atm but they may change it.
From memory of the last time, the entry into the contest requires only a first and second nomination. There will be a threshold on the first vote, possibly as high as 15%, that will eliminate all but a handful of candidates, and the MPs will then need to redistribute their votes among the remaining candidates.
Last time they needed 8 nominations but only the proposer and seconder were made public
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
“Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions”. Yes.
And I agree with Tubbs, don’t think current record of about 38 will be broken.
By way of qualification I am a farmers daughter. 🚜 Jades Tractor Forecasts for rest of July
As I understand it the problem is short lived and very South East, as the coming weeks high retreats east next weekend, Thames, Humber, German Bight, and a low pushes north to South East across the country, the south east of UK could from the anticyclone (clockwise) older hotter high, pull the Spain France weather onto it. What is then supposed to happen, as cyclone follows away after old high, is a younger so not as hot high builds over us from the southwest, so rest of July should be nice but not much extreme heat. The last weekend 30th 31st wear a bra under t-shirt in case it rains. Hope this helps.
It’s that we have yet to have a forty, which is why even on low confidence models before it’s averages out, it newsworthy.
Grant Shapps is likely to be the first to be knocked out of the race IMO.
I would be amazed if all of them are able to get the necessary nominations.
Javid, Zahawi, Shapps and Badenoch seem the most in danger of this IMHO.
Depends how many nominations are needed. I thought it was 8 atm but they may change it.
Rumour is 20, which would help winnow out the time wasters.
Of course, they could go with a system of only needing 2, an a threshold for the first round as sandpit suggests, but requiring 20 would make the first round less pointless.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
Mathew's Gospel, though I sm not sure which translation.
Note though it is angels that do the dirty work, not humN followers.
NIV
It's really no leap at all for people to see themselves as having a duty to fulfil that role themselves. After all, "angel" means messenger, and evangelists = ev (good) angel (message) ist (doer) = bringer of good news. Evangelism is literally people doing the work of angels. And if sometimes angels throw the evil into the furnace then that is a job some people will happily do.
And the Bible is already replete with explicit sacrificial themes and tales. It's really quite psychotic when you get into it.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
“Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions”. Yes.
And I agree with Tubbs, don’t think current record of about 38 will be broken.
By way of qualification I am a farmers daughter. 🚜 Jades Tractor Forecasts for rest of July
As I understand it the problem is short lived and very South East, as the coming weeks high retreats east next weekend, Thames, Humber, German Bight, and a low pushes north to South East across the country, the south east of UK could from the anticyclone (clockwise) older hotter high, pull the Spain France weather onto it. What is then supposed to happen, as cyclone follows away after old high, is a younger so not as hot high builds over us from the southwest, so rest of July should be nice but not much extreme heat. The last weekend 30th 31st wear a bra under t-shirt in case it rains. Hope this helps.
It’s that we have yet to have a forty, which is why even on low confidence models before it’s averages out, it newsworthy.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
“Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions”. Yes.
And I agree with Tubbs, don’t think current record of about 38 will be broken.
By way of qualification I am a farmers daughter. 🚜 Jades Tractor Forecasts for rest of July
As I understand it the problem is short lived and very South East, as the coming weeks high retreats east next weekend, Thames, Humber, German Bight, and a low pushes north to South East across the country, the south east of UK could from the anticyclone (clockwise) older hotter high, pull the Spain France weather onto it. What is then supposed to happen, as cyclone follows away after old high, is a younger so not as hot high builds over us from the southwest, so rest of July should be nice but not much extreme heat. The last weekend 30th 31st wear a bra under t-shirt in case it rains. Hope this helps.
It’s that we have yet to have a forty, which is why even on low confidence models before it’s averages out, it newsworthy.
In your experience, do many farmers wear a bra under their t-shirt?
Grant Shapps is likely to be the first to be knocked out of the race IMO.
I would be amazed if all of them are able to get the necessary nominations.
Javid, Zahawi, Shapps and Badenoch seem the most in danger of this IMHO.
We don't know the threshold yet. But Shapps and Javid are certainly struggling already
Tugendhat seems to be losing momentum with only 1 new backer today
We have no real way of telling. There will be a lot of people who will only declare privately. And some who do that to multiple candidates....
If, as looks possible, we get nominations closing on Wednesday, it is going to be a frenzied couple of days
True but public backers help drive momentum. The fact that Javid only has 3 public backers is not going to help when a lot of other candidates are running on similar platforms.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
“Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions”. Yes.
And I agree with Tubbs, don’t think current record of about 38 will be broken.
By way of qualification I am a farmers daughter. 🚜 Jades Tractor Forecasts for rest of July
As I understand it the problem is short lived and very South East, as the coming weeks high retreats east next weekend, Thames, Humber, German Bight, and a low pushes north to South East across the country, the south east of UK could from the anticyclone (clockwise) older hotter high, pull the Spain France weather onto it. What is then supposed to happen, as cyclone follows away after old high, is a younger so not as hot high builds over us from the southwest, so rest of July should be nice but not much extreme heat. The last weekend 30th 31st wear a bra under t-shirt in case it rains. Hope this helps.
It’s that we have yet to have a forty, which is why even on low confidence models before it’s averages out, it newsworthy.
In your experience, do many farmers wear a bra under their t-shirt?
I always kept a couple in the glove/bra compartment of my landrover.
Been out so don’t know if we’ve already done the weather yet today, but it’s getting serious.
This is a week on Monday on this evening’s GFS run:
The previous Sunday hits 43C widely too. Midnight temperatures above 30C in between.
Freak? Maybe, it’s at the top of the ensembles but there are not dissimilar peaks showing up in the European model too. And peaks at 45-46C in Northern France.
Needless to say 40C, let alone 44, would be a catastrophe in our non air conditioned, sparsely irrigated country.
All good, but one model at at long range. It will moderate as we approach t=0. We are heading for a decent heat wave, but I doubt the U.K. will see anything approaching 40.
No no no. It’s not one model at long range. It’s 3 of the 4 major models (ECMWF, GFS, UKMO, the Canadian GEM is the only dissenting voice) and most of their ensemble members.
In the ECMWF ensemble of 50 members this evening the mean “peak day” across all runs is over 20C at 850hPa (that equates to 37-38C at the surface in full sunshine), and the median peak day is 21C.
Only 10 out of 50 have a peak below 18C (35C at the surface).
It’s perfectly possible it will moderate and dissipate as we get closer but not an iron law of physics. This is 7-8 days out - not long range by modern modelling standards.
If we’ve learned one thing in the last few years it’s that freakish and previously worst case scenarios (global pandemic, 50C in Canada, Russia mounting a full scale invasion of Ukraine etc) can and do happen.
7 days is still long range. I spend a lot of time on weather chats too. It’s a consistent pattern that extremes are moderated as we approach the time. This weekends heat is an example. Last weekend some were forecasting mid thirties which did not happen.
They move in both directions. Up and down. Granted the setup next weekend is currently a coming together of almost perfect conditions, so any move is probably mord likely to be down, but these have been modelled for a long time and down still potentiallynmeans high 30s.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
You first paragraph is my point really. This will moderate, it almost always does. It’s not about a statistical bias, it’s more that prediction/model at 8;days plus, even using ensembles, is still not that accurate. I think you triggered me a bit by posting the GFS pub run.
Isn’t the pub run the 18z? Which is glitching currently and showing yesterday’s run, annoyingly.
I assumed that was the 18z. Yes, 18z = pub
The 18z brings 38c Saturday, 43c on the Sunday widely! and high 30s SE corner only Monday as the heat is squeezed away
As I bid goodnight, may I just say how much I'm enjoying the (impending) Tory Civil War? Let's hope it lasts at least a couple of years.
If they were in Opposition, I might share your hopes.
But they're not.
For the good of country it needs to be sorted in a fortnight.
To hell with the members in other words.
My hunch is that the fact that the members will make the final choice will be what loses them the next election.
Of the last 3 general election majority winners, Blair, Cameron and Johnson, all 3 were picked by Labour or Tory members.
Tory MPs alone however picked general election losers Hague and Howard and May who lost her majority in 2017. Labour MPs alone meanwhile picked Gordon Brown who lost Labour its majority in 2010
None of which proves anything, all the circumstances were entirely different.
Currently the Tories are behind in all the polls, they face a torrid couple of years economically so if they are going to survive the 2024 GE they are going to need a candidate with wide appeal but the members will go for the candidate that puts their own narrow financial and ideological interests first.
Well if Tory members prefer 2 or 3 years of dry as dust, hard right Conservatism to 6 or 7 years of wet soggy centrism that is their affair.
That would be a fair point if it were not for the fact that members will actually be choosing the Prime Minister of this country for the next 2 years and there is sod all 99.9% of us can do about it.
Well tough, that was the prize Tory members got when the party won a majority of 80 in 2019
Non members: please don't vote Conservative. At least not for an election or two. People like HYUFD need a little humility in their lives.
Grant Shapps is likely to be the first to be knocked out of the race IMO.
I would be amazed if all of them are able to get the necessary nominations.
Javid, Zahawi, Shapps and Badenoch seem the most in danger of this IMHO.
Depends how many nominations are needed. I thought it was 8 atm but they may change it.
Rumour is 20, which would help winnow out the time wasters.
Of course, they could go with a system of only needing 2, an a threshold for the first round as sandpit suggests, but requiring 20 would make the first round less pointless.
Indeed, the first round would be a waste of time if the only point of it was to eliminate Grant Shapps.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
And that's where we get witch burnings from
Only if witches use their powers for Satanic works
If, as mooted, 20 backers will be required to enter the race, I can easily see only 8 making it onto the first round ballot, which means some already declared and most of the yet to declare will not make the start line.
Of the 8, I rate the chances of getting on the ballot paper as follows:
Certain - Hunt, Sunak Quite likely with block backing - Braverman You'd think they ought, but could be tight - Javid, Zahawi Good chance of failing, but could attract a constituency - Tugendhat Likely to fail, but look out for a long shot chance of an audacious.out-Thatcherimg that puts jet lagged Truss's place in danger - Badenoch Not a cat in hell's chance - Shapps
Should be in, watch out for Badenoch - Truss Longer she waits, the more a shock non start could occur - Mordaumt Probably not - bar
Don't forget Priti who will announce on Wednesday with a platform of bringing back hanging, putting sharks in the Channel and slashing the tax take so much it could fit in her bathtub!
As long as she doesn't get confused and start proposing putting sharks in murderers bathtubs.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
So what, you are able to say that now in the UK.
500 years ago we would be burning you at the stake!
Which merely shows the insane savagery of religion and why it deserves to be heavily constrained.
In your view, not mine.
For me the Christian message remains as strong as ever, Jesus himself never threatened stake burnings for non believers
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. ... 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one ... 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Where does Jesus say any of that? Though there is of course nothing wrong with sending Satan and his followers into the blazing furnace
Mathew's Gospel, though I sm not sure which translation.
Note though it is angels that do the dirty work, not humN followers.
NIV
It's really no leap at all for people to see themselves as having a duty to fulfil that role themselves. After all, "angel" means messenger, and evangelists = ev (good) angel (message) ist (doer) = bringer of good news. Evangelism is literally people doing the work of angels. And if sometimes angels throw the evil into the furnace then that is a job some people will happily do.
And the Bible is already replete with explicit sacrificial themes and tales. It's really quite psychotic when you get into it.
Well if you are not evil no need for you to worry then, if you are evil we will be after you however!
Comments
😺
#larry
There will be a crony who can take the four of them in (plus the dog)
Uk government spending as a % of gfp is 39% (2019 to avoid pandemic stuff)
That’s smack in the middle of the range of the last 50+ years and about where we were in 2007
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/government-spending-to-gdp
If you think we are “hollowed out” then there is sone structural inefficiency compared to what we have done in living memory.
I think there is a huge amount of spending that just happens because someone once thought it was a good idea and it is hard to challenge
As the Independent piece puts it:
There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Mr Zahawi, a popular and respected figure among Tory MPs.
Don't start out by believing crapulous tabloid newspapers
And let’s just look at the last 4 years shall we:
2018: joint hottest summer for the UK on record. Max temperature 35.3C
2019: hottest 850hPa temperature ever recorded in June (same time France smashed its all time heat record), then all time heat record set at 38.7C in Cambridge on 25th July
2020: 37.8C at Heathrow on 31st July, which would have beaten the old all time record pre-2003 and the all time July record pre-2015; 36.4C on 7th August, and 6 consecutive days above 34C, the first time ever
2021: a disappointing summer and the worst in a few years but Northern Ireland still managed to break its all time temperature record 3 days in a row. Also of course the year Sicily recorded the all time hottest temperature in Europe.
So hitting the mid 30s and threatening records is very much a normal thing these days.
38 in Senegal with high humidity was fucking unbearable
He and others are genuinely trying to claim everything is a bloody remainer plot, even when the people involved are and always have been leavers.
It's already infuriating, but if it works it is just plain depressing.
...
38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one
...
41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus is quite clear. He wants his followers to murder the infidel. The Bible is terrorist propaganda and you're being groomed.
Obviously, I’m now in an air conditioned apartment, which makes a massive difference to the daily comfort, even if you can only live for a minute or two at a time outside.
It will be a hot spell. I think 35 is likely somewhere.
40 deg plus - not a chance.
It’s summer. This is what happens.
I think long years of anticipation and disappointment (especially in winter) lead to people assuming it’s a one way street, but it really isn’t. None of the major models has a statistical bias either warm or cold.
Currently the Tories are behind in all the polls, they face a torrid couple of years economically so if they are going to survive the 2024 GE they are going to need a candidate with wide appeal but the members will go for the candidate that puts their own narrow financial and ideological interests first.
It’s not about a statistical bias, it’s more that prediction/model at 8;days plus, even using ensembles, is still not that accurate. I think you triggered me a bit by posting the GFS pub run.
Badenoch, Braverman, Hunt, Javid, Mordaunt, Shapps, Sunak, Truss, Tugendhat, Zahawi.
Grant Shapps is likely to be the first to be knocked out of the race IMO.
I hope you’re right about 40C. It’s morbidly fascinating but not something we really want to be experiencing regularly.
That's high enough to be very difficult for me since it sends insulin doses haywire (may have to halve the dose compared to normal weather for the same effect, then it's into a hypo and guzzling orange juice if I call it wrongly), so tomorrow I'll be doing my house painting starting at 6am and paperwork in the middle of the day.
Like for like we are probably at a 50 year low, and the candidates are proposing to slice further.
Javid, Zahawi, Shapps and Badenoch seem the most in danger of this IMHO.
Of the 8, I rate the chances of getting on the ballot paper as follows:
Certain - Hunt, Sunak
Quite likely with block backing - Braverman
You'd think they ought, but could be tight - Javid, Zahawi
Good chance of failing, but could attract a constituency - Tugendhat
Likely to fail, but look out for a long shot chance of an audacious.out-Thatcherimg that puts jet lagged Truss's place in danger - Badenoch
Not a cat in hell's chance - Shapps
Should be in, watch out for Badenoch - Truss
Longer she waits, the more a shock non start could occur - Mordaumt
Probably not - bar
EDIT: which is now working and has 38C on Saturday and 43C on Sunday.
Note though it is angels that do the dirty work, not humN followers.
And I agree with Tubbs, don’t think current record of about 38 will be broken.
By way of qualification I am a farmers daughter. 🚜 Jades Tractor Forecasts for rest of July
As I understand it the problem is short lived and very South East, as the coming weeks high retreats east next weekend, Thames, Humber, German Bight, and a low pushes north to South East across the country, the south east of UK could from the anticyclone (clockwise) older hotter high, pull the Spain France weather onto it. What is then supposed to happen, as cyclone follows away after old high, is a younger so not as hot high builds over us from the southwest, so rest of July should be nice but not much extreme heat. The last weekend 30th 31st wear a bra under t-shirt in case it rains. Hope this helps.
It’s that we have yet to have a forty, which is why even on low confidence models before it’s averages out, it newsworthy.
Of course, they could go with a system of only needing 2, an a threshold for the first round as sandpit suggests, but requiring 20 would make the first round less pointless.
It's really no leap at all for people to see themselves as having a duty to fulfil that role themselves. After all, "angel" means messenger, and evangelists = ev (good) angel (message) ist (doer) = bringer of good news. Evangelism is literally people doing the work of angels. And if sometimes angels throw the evil into the furnace then that is a job some people will happily do.
And the Bible is already replete with explicit sacrificial themes and tales. It's really quite psychotic when you get into it.
Pensioners now contribute for an extra 3 years before getting any state pensions, compared to 15-20 years ago.
Whilst life expectancy is up by 5 years or so since 1990.
Which sounds quite balanced.
If, as looks possible, we get nominations closing on Wednesday, it is going to be a frenzied couple of days
Look what that did for Labour
People like HYUFD need a little humility in their lives.