I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Of course the law can only deal with the law, but vicars, rabbis, registrars and imams for the most part are going to be following the law; and if they don't their ability to make legal marriage can be annulled by the state.
On a social level the thought for most people of marrying or having sex with one of their cousins must surely be a bit icky to put it mildly, if people really want to they can run off to another country or something - but banning it sends out a strong signal that it's not OK and sure if it's only once it's not a massive health risk but you're going to end up with a whole bunch of people with problems if it's done generation after generation.
It's unlikely to happen generation after generation as immigrant populations generally integrate and adopt the host population's marriage and fertility patterns.
That process assumes that there is a dominant host population and immigration is relatively low. It breaks down if you get a majority-minority situation.
Has anyone mentioned the very early adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-four currently available on BBC4 i-player? It's fascinating in many ways, not least the prelude and the interlude.
Unfortunately I am in my weekday digs and cannot access iPlayer, but I will be sure to watch it when I return home. I am watching the 1980s series "Big Deal" on YouTube about a gambler and perpetual loser who for some reason is considered attractive by a blond woman with excellent skin and teeth. The gambler is played by the man who did the voiceover for Mr Benn, which is messing in my head. It's a good guide to how Britain looked and felt in the early 80s - rubbish - and the bookies looks like a home for tramps. We have come a long way... ☹️
Has anyone mentioned the very early adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-four currently available on BBC4 i-player? It's fascinating in many ways, not least the prelude and the interlude.
I watched it a couple of months ago. Was it Peter Cushing as Winston? I’m struggling to remember and don’t want to look it up. Someone else famous was his neighbour/work colleague
We should be very clear that Trump is close to abandoning Ukraine. If Europe allows them to be defeated and occupied, Russia will eventually turn their military/industrial base against us.
Europe's needs a strategy for victory that doesn't rely on any US participation.
If Trump abandons Ukraine, he also abandons any right to stop Ukraine destroying the Russian hydrocarbons industry - with the inevitable impact on US gas prices.
Reportedly a refinery in Taganrog is ablaze tonight after a Ukrainian drone attack.
We've also seen a clutch of announcements about joint production of Ukrainian-designed drones from various European countries.
Perhaps a sign of Ukraine and its closest European allies moving on from hoping the US under Trump will help.
The Americans don't care about the Russian hydrocarbons industry. Or the Gulf hydrocarbons industry. They are now self-sufficient thanks to Canada, Fracking and the Gulf of Mexico. The US Navy is going home. Russia and China can't make destroyed distillation columns without the West. They cannot re-drill frozen wells because they relied on Western specialists. Russia doesn't have sufficient pipelines to feed China - hence the shadow tanker fleet. The pain from increased Oil and Gas prices will be felt by Europe, the Far East and other parts of the World - not the US.
I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Of course the law can only deal with the law, but vicars, rabbis, registrars and imams for the most part are going to be following the law; and if they don't their ability to make legal marriage can be annulled by the state.
On a social level the thought for most people of marrying or having sex with one of their cousins must surely be a bit icky to put it mildly, if people really want to they can run off to another country or something - but banning it sends out a strong signal that it's not OK and sure if it's only once it's not a massive health risk but you're going to end up with a whole bunch of people with problems if it's done generation after generation.
It's unlikely to happen generation after generation as immigrant populations generally integrate and adopt the host population's marriage and fertility patterns.
How's that integration of cousin-marriers into the host population going so far?
We should be very clear that Trump is close to abandoning Ukraine. If Europe allows them to be defeated and occupied, Russia will eventually turn their military/industrial base against us.
Europe's needs a strategy for victory that doesn't rely on any US participation.
If Trump abandons Ukraine, he also abandons any right to stop Ukraine destroying the Russian hydrocarbons industry - with the inevitable impact on US gas prices.
Reportedly a refinery in Taganrog is ablaze tonight after a Ukrainian drone attack.
We've also seen a clutch of announcements about joint production of Ukrainian-designed drones from various European countries.
Perhaps a sign of Ukraine and its closest European allies moving on from hoping the US under Trump will help.
The Americans don't care about the Russian hydrocarbons industry. Or the Gulf hydrocarbons industry. They are now self-sufficient thanks to Canada, Fracking and the Gulf of Mexico. The US Navy is going home. Russia and China can't make destroyed distillation columns without the West. They cannot re-drill frozen wells because they relied on Western specialists. Russia doesn't have sufficient pipelines to feed China - hence the shadow tanker fleet. The pain from increased Oil and Gas prices will be felt by Europe, the Far East and other parts of the World - not the US.
Oil and gas prices rise and fall around the world. Together. Many sage explanations about how X is immune to this have been made. They have always proved wrong.
A bit of a catch up for me. The air tanker repairs are looking expensive.
They sprayed paint *into* the engines, which I had not picked up on. That's potentially the engines trashed, and costs into the tens of millions.
If they are caught and prosecuted, the maximum Criminal Damage sentence is 10 years.
I'm still predicted that if caught these will be made an example of, and hardened aircraft shelters will be incoming - rapidly.
While repairs will no doubt be expensive, engines are pretty modular, and are also designed to deal with constant explosions, heat and pressure changes, etc. So I'd be very surprised if they required replacing. More likely they will need to be taken apart, and some parts will require replacing.
It'll cost tens of thousands per engine: but it won't be millions.
Has anyone mentioned the very early adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-four currently available on BBC4 i-player? It's fascinating in many ways, not least the prelude and the interlude.
I watched it a couple of months ago. Was it Peter Cushing as Winston? I’m struggling to remember and don’t want to look it up. Someone else famous was his neighbour/work colleague
I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Of course the law can only deal with the law, but vicars, rabbis, registrars and imams for the most part are going to be following the law; and if they don't their ability to make legal marriage can be annulled by the state.
On a social level the thought for most people of marrying or having sex with one of their cousins must surely be a bit icky to put it mildly, if people really want to they can run off to another country or something - but banning it sends out a strong signal that it's not OK and sure if it's only once it's not a massive health risk but you're going to end up with a whole bunch of people with problems if it's done generation after generation.
It's unlikely to happen generation after generation as immigrant populations generally integrate and adopt the host population's marriage and fertility patterns.
It took a good century and a half to integrate the Irish, and the Irish are about as unforeign as foreigners can be. Indeed, there are still separate schools for Catholics, and until fairly recently, Catholic (for which, in the North, read Irish heritage) would typically marry Catholic and fertility rates would typically be higher. And Irish surnames are still heavily overrepresented among the poorest Acorn groups. If that was the extent of our success in integrating our next door neighbours, we haven't a hope of success of integrating incomers from medieval societies in the Middle East and North Africa.
I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Of course the law can only deal with the law, but vicars, rabbis, registrars and imams for the most part are going to be following the law; and if they don't their ability to make legal marriage can be annulled by the state.
On a social level the thought for most people of marrying or having sex with one of their cousins must surely be a bit icky to put it mildly, if people really want to they can run off to another country or something - but banning it sends out a strong signal that it's not OK and sure if it's only once it's not a massive health risk but you're going to end up with a whole bunch of people with problems if it's done generation after generation.
It's unlikely to happen generation after generation as immigrant populations generally integrate and adopt the host population's marriage and fertility patterns.
It took a good century and a half to integrate the Irish, and the Irish are about as unforeign as foreigners can be. Indeed, there are still separate schools for Catholics, and until fairly recently, Catholic (for which, in the North, read Irish heritage) would typically marry Catholic and fertility rates would typically be higher. And Irish surnames are still heavily overrepresented among the poorest Acorn groups. If that was the extent of our success in integrating our next door neighbours, we haven't a hope of success of integrating incomers from medieval societies in the Middle East and North Africa.
Matthew Syed wrote an article on this subject in Sunday’s Times. I won’t link or discuss, but worth a read
What was so predictable about the ceasfire on-off-on, was that the Iranians were determined to fire the last shots. This is exactly what the couple of missiles about and exactly why Israel took an equally launched its symbolic shot back despite Trump's shouting.
The truth is that the Iranians needed a break and the Israelis had always felt they were starting to stretch the elastic a bit about 10 to 14 days in. Thus Trump was doing his talking to two parties that, for different reasons, were listening. The adminstration didnt have to drag them to this point.
The Iranians will have their time with the Americans, even if it takes months or years.
Has anyone mentioned the very early adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-four currently available on BBC4 i-player? It's fascinating in many ways, not least the prelude and the interlude.
I watched it a couple of months ago. Was it Peter Cushing as Winston? I’m struggling to remember and don’t want to look it up. Someone else famous was his neighbour/work colleague
Wilfrid Brambell auditioning for Albert Steptoe, and Leonard Sachs as a demure but impoverished antiques dealer. And Donald Pleasence, needless to say...
"What a time to be alive with a POTUS dropping the F bomb so publicly."
I don't think sexual swearwords are the taboos they used to be. Taboos have changed.
In the Middle Ages, the worst curse-words were religious, because everyone was terrified that using them could send whole cities to burn in eternity. In the Victorian period the worst such words were sexual, because of social neuroses about sex. Now they are racial, because white Americans are crippled by guilt that a large part of their country was founded on slavery and all of it on the dispossession of its existing inhabitants (like every other state in history).
Had Trump dropped the N-bomb rather than the F-bomb, I imagine the reaction would have been much more explosive.
In fact of course having these hangups is hugely damaging - they prevent free discussion of different viewpoints. In the Middle Ages, people were burned at the stake for trivial religious differences. In the Victorian period, women were so terrified of appearing immodest that some would die rather than discuss medical symptoms with their doctors. Our over-sensitivity about racial matters has analogous, damaging effects today.
You'd think that no matter what time period you're living in it would be unacceptable to use strong sexual swear words in front of young children. Yet that's what I hear quite often these days.
Is that any worse than using sexually explicit non-swear words?
I'm not quite convinced.
The point is that the reason we don't want kids hearing the f-word is because their minds shouldn't be troubled thinking about sex before they can understand it, when it's all confusing enough even for adults.
Whereas when it comes to racial epithets, few people are worried about using mild words to describe other races - calling someone Chinese or black is no big deal, and you'd happily do it in front of kids, while calling them racial epithets is, and you certainly shouldn't.
And it's also a relatively new thing, incidentally, in this country. I was reading the diaries of Winston Churchil''s private secretary, and he goes to South Africa for pilot training and calls the blacks there n---rs, but there's no sense that it's perjorative. But since we imported our own black population, and the toxic racial politics of the US, our taboos have changed.
"What a time to be alive with a POTUS dropping the F bomb so publicly."
I don't think sexual swearwords are the taboos they used to be. Taboos have changed.
In the Middle Ages, the worst curse-words were religious, because everyone was terrified that using them could send whole cities to burn in eternity. In the Victorian period the worst such words were sexual, because of social neuroses about sex. Now they are racial, because white Americans are crippled by guilt that a large part of their country was founded on slavery and all of it on the dispossession of its existing inhabitants (like every other state in history).
Had Trump dropped the N-bomb rather than the F-bomb, I imagine the reaction would have been much more explosive.
In fact of course having these hangups is hugely damaging - they prevent free discussion of different viewpoints. In the Middle Ages, people were burned at the stake for trivial religious differences. In the Victorian period, women were so terrified of appearing immodest that some would die rather than discuss medical symptoms with their doctors. Our over-sensitivity about racial matters has analogous, damaging effects today.
You'd think that no matter what time period you're living in it would be unacceptable to use strong sexual swear words in front of young children. Yet that's what I hear quite often these days.
So, some on PB want to ban cousin marriages, pregnancy if you're 40+ and bad language in front of children. It seems a bit authoritarian!
Who was suggesting pregnancies over 40 should be banned? Ridiculous.
Has anyone mentioned the very early adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-four currently available on BBC4 i-player? It's fascinating in many ways, not least the prelude and the interlude.
I watched it a couple of months ago. Was it Peter Cushing as Winston? I’m struggling to remember and don’t want to look it up. Someone else famous was his neighbour/work colleague
Wilfrid Brambell auditioning for Albert Steptoe, and Leonard Sachs as a demure but impoverished antiques dealer. And Donald Pleasence, needless to say...
This gives me an excuse to mention (again) one of the old 'Armchair Theatre' episodes :
Ben Duckett played exceptionally well today, and Crawley supported him superbly
I can’t remember such a strong fourth innings start
There was a famous West Indian victory in the 80s in England which I think outdoes it. Test Match Special made the commentary available on their podcast recently when they were celebrating their anniversary.
You can watch a huge amount of vintage cricket matches on DM Mordecai's YouTube Channel, including the 1984 England v West Indies series.
Robelinda had a great YouTube channel for classic cricket too.
True, although it's a shame he's stopped posting videos, about a year ago.
I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Of course the law can only deal with the law, but vicars, rabbis, registrars and imams for the most part are going to be following the law; and if they don't their ability to make legal marriage can be annulled by the state.
On a social level the thought for most people of marrying or having sex with one of their cousins must surely be a bit icky to put it mildly, if people really want to they can run off to another country or something - but banning it sends out a strong signal that it's not OK and sure if it's only once it's not a massive health risk but you're going to end up with a whole bunch of people with problems if it's done generation after generation.
It's unlikely to happen generation after generation as immigrant populations generally integrate and adopt the host population's marriage and fertility patterns.
It took a good century and a half to integrate the Irish, and the Irish are about as unforeign as foreigners can be. Indeed, there are still separate schools for Catholics, and until fairly recently, Catholic (for which, in the North, read Irish heritage) would typically marry Catholic and fertility rates would typically be higher. And Irish surnames are still heavily overrepresented among the poorest Acorn groups. If that was the extent of our success in integrating our next door neighbours, we haven't a hope of success of integrating incomers from medieval societies in the Middle East and North Africa.
Has anyone mentioned the very early adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-four currently available on BBC4 i-player? It's fascinating in many ways, not least the prelude and the interlude.
There is a quite good BBC radio version of "We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin which was a big influence on 1984 (and also Brave New World thought Huxley had a somewhat more... 'shy' influence).
It's on youtube, which I assume as google is 100% on-board of copyright, means it's a-ok to link to it :
Has anyone watched the 1984 film version of 1984 starring John Hurt? It's supposed to be pretty good.
It's alright. It's a bit staid and suffers in comparison to "Brazil", which came out about the same time but had more energy. The cast is awesome in theory, but the alcoholic and heavy smoker Richard Burton had aged badly and it affected his performance: he coped by adopting an air of quiet menace which he was very good at, but it sapped the energy. John Hurt was outstanding. A good film, but not as good as it could have been.
What was so predictable about the ceasfire on-off-on, was that the Iranians were determined to fire the last shots. This is exactly what the couple of missiles about and exactly why Israel took an equally launched its symbolic shot back despite Trump's shouting.
The truth is that the Iranians needed a break and the Israelis had always felt they were starting to stretch the elastic a bit about 10 to 14 days in. Thus Trump was doing his talking to two parties that, for different reasons, were listening. The adminstration didnt have to drag them to this point.
The Iranians will have their time with the Americans, even if it takes months or years.
Yes. The Iranians were sending just a couple a time to ensure the last kill was from their attack. Meanwhile Trump was telling Netanyahu “you’re not firing back under my fucking ceasefire, you are not having the fucking last shot.” To which the Israeli PM replied, yes we are, we have to.
Is there any particular reason why having last attack is important? Or is it just fucking juvenile?
In a grown up world you’d think the one from last was the superior position, as you shrugged off provocation.
A bit of a catch up for me. The air tanker repairs are looking expensive.
They sprayed paint *into* the engines, which I had not picked up on. That's potentially the engines trashed, and costs into the tens of millions.
If they are caught and prosecuted, the maximum Criminal Damage sentence is 10 years.
I'm still predicted that if caught these will be made an example of, and hardened aircraft shelters will be incoming - rapidly.
Startling to think that Banksy could take out the RAF overnight...
Try that on a US base in the UK and you'd probably get shot. We need to start doing security again.
Was base security provided by the RAF Regiment or by a security contractor? If the latter then end the contract. If the former, court martial the commanding officer and update the rules of engagement,
In the UK it would be MPGS not RAFR if the MoD were doing security but Serco runs Brize and it's not exactly clear (as is often and intentionally the way with these things) were the final responsibility for perimeter security lays.
Any way, Bravo Zulu to Palestine Action. More of this sort of thing please.
What was so predictable about the ceasfire on-off-on, was that the Iranians were determined to fire the last shots. This is exactly what the couple of missiles about and exactly why Israel took an equally launched its symbolic shot back despite Trump's shouting.
The truth is that the Iranians needed a break and the Israelis had always felt they were starting to stretch the elastic a bit about 10 to 14 days in. Thus Trump was doing his talking to two parties that, for different reasons, were listening. The adminstration didnt have to drag them to this point.
The Iranians will have their time with the Americans, even if it takes months or years.
Yes. The Iranians were sending just a couple a time to ensure the last kill was from their attack. Meanwhile Trump was telling Netanyahu “you’re not firing back under my fucking ceasefire, you are not having the fucking last shot.” To which the Israeli PM replied, yes we are, we have to.
Is there any particular reason why having last attack is important? Or is it just fucking juvenile?
In a grown up world you’d think the one from last was the superior position, as you shrugged off provocation.
It was for the Iranians. Once talk of the ceasefire was shown to be of substance, the Iranians, who feel they are the aggrieved party, couldnt be seen to go meekly along with what would have been seen as US & Israeli imposed ceasefire terms & timelines. In fact, Iran's initial reaction was they hadnt accepted any US brokered ceasefire, they just were not going to fire soon after Israel stopped.
A bit of a catch up for me. The air tanker repairs are looking expensive.
They sprayed paint *into* the engines, which I had not picked up on. That's potentially the engines trashed, and costs into the tens of millions.
If they are caught and prosecuted, the maximum Criminal Damage sentence is 10 years.
I'm still predicted that if caught these will be made an example of, and hardened aircraft shelters will be incoming - rapidly.
While repairs will no doubt be expensive, engines are pretty modular, and are also designed to deal with constant explosions, heat and pressure changes, etc. So I'd be very surprised if they required replacing. More likely they will need to be taken apart, and some parts will require replacing.
It'll cost tens of thousands per engine: but it won't be millions.
More like hundreds of thousands at least. A normal Pegasus overhaul was well over 100 grand in the 90s and that's when the bits weren't covered in paint. A further complication is that those Trent 700s are actually owned by AirTanker but managed by Rolls Royce. There is going to be a lot of wrangling among all parties and their insurers to decide who is going to pay for it all before a bolt is turned.
In other defence news, that F-35 is still broken in India while we wait for permission, which may or may not be forthcoming, from Lockheed Martin to repair it in an unsecure location. Plan B is bring it back to the UK in bits via C-17.
Tip: if you arrive at Headingley cricket ground with a laptop, you can leave it at the nearby Boundary Hotel for £5. The ground doesn't allow laptops because they think you can place bets marginally faster than on a phone. Is this really true?!
Perhaps a grain of truth. Not due to the connectivity, but due to how shite mobile website design is.
More likely, they simply can't practically ban phones.
Could easily be true. Mate of mine (I know) specialises in detection software in particular people attend live events and place bets from court/pitchside.
It's hard to know what can possibly be improper as such about placing bets in real time at live events in a world where markets offer a trillion in play opportunities. There is no inside information not available to the market maker. What's the problem?
I assume it’s the media contracts - I believe that the “live feed” is a few seconds delayed so presumably someone streaming could be faster
I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Of course the law can only deal with the law, but vicars, rabbis, registrars and imams for the most part are going to be following the law; and if they don't their ability to make legal marriage can be annulled by the state.
On a social level the thought for most people of marrying or having sex with one of their cousins must surely be a bit icky to put it mildly, if people really want to they can run off to another country or something - but banning it sends out a strong signal that it's not OK and sure if it's only once it's not a massive health risk but you're going to end up with a whole bunch of people with problems if it's done generation after generation.
Cousin marriage used to be a lot more common in Britain. Charles Darwin married a cousin.
So how did it become less prevalent in Britain, and why would most people find the idea, "a bit icky"?
Because people started moving around a lot more. Easy as that, really.
Perhaps the easiest way to avoid cousin marriage is to marry someone from a different country and culture ...
(Mrs J and I have previously mused how far we would have to go back to get a familial connection. Quite a way, we think.)
A bit of a catch up for me. The air tanker repairs are looking expensive.
They sprayed paint *into* the engines, which I had not picked up on. That's potentially the engines trashed, and costs into the tens of millions.
If they are caught and prosecuted, the maximum Criminal Damage sentence is 10 years.
I'm still predicted that if caught these will be made an example of, and hardened aircraft shelters will be incoming - rapidly.
While repairs will no doubt be expensive, engines are pretty modular, and are also designed to deal with constant explosions, heat and pressure changes, etc. So I'd be very surprised if they required replacing. More likely they will need to be taken apart, and some parts will require replacing.
It'll cost tens of thousands per engine: but it won't be millions.
More like hundreds of thousands at least. A normal Pegasus overhaul was well over 100 grand in the 90s and that's when the bits weren't covered in paint. A further complication is that those Trent 700s are actually owned by AirTanker but managed by Rolls Royce. There is going to be a lot of wrangling among all parties and their insurers to decide who is going to pay for it all before a bolt is turned.
In other defence news, that F-35 is still broken in India while we wait for permission, which may or may not be forthcoming, from Lockheed Martin to repair it in an unsecure location. Plan B is bring it back to the UK in bits via C-17.
Who thought it was a good idea to buy such expensive equipment that can’t be repaired in the field?
I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Prohibition Is very often effective.
There are a small handful of examples where it has been noticeable ineffective, but a much larger set of situations where it has been so effective that it doesn't register.
Cousin marriage strikes me as something that shouldn't really be too controversial. There are reasonable arguments in favour of a ban and reasonable principles in favour of not creating a ban. Reasonable democracies have instituted a ban and other reasonable democracies do not.
If it were banned, I assume we're talking of banning first cousin marriages, and that still leaves second and third cousins. One of the things that's really surprised me about moving to rural Ireland is just how extensive people's knowledge about their extended families are here. I'd be surprised if that wasn't also the case for the communities where cousin marriage is more common in Britain, so it wouldn't necessarily be all that disruptive.
So it seems to be a low stakes change in the law. You'd make a modest contribution to reducing the risk of genetic defects, at the cost of a modest extension of the limitations that already exist on permitted marriages. Not much reason to get het up by anyone. Oh for a day when that would be the most contentious issue in our politics.
You can do like Iran: discourage cousin marriage and provide genetic testing for key conditions (like thalassaemia) for couples looking to marry/conceive. That will reduce the risk of genetic defects without having to control people's lives more.
People should be well informed about risks, able to control their fertility and have access to abortion. The state shouldn't be dictating who people can marry or have kids with. Eugenics was a bad thing.
Do you think it should be legal to marry your sister?
A bit of a catch up for me. The air tanker repairs are looking expensive.
They sprayed paint *into* the engines, which I had not picked up on. That's potentially the engines trashed, and costs into the tens of millions.
If they are caught and prosecuted, the maximum Criminal Damage sentence is 10 years.
I'm still predicted that if caught these will be made an example of, and hardened aircraft shelters will be incoming - rapidly.
While repairs will no doubt be expensive, engines are pretty modular, and are also designed to deal with constant explosions, heat and pressure changes, etc. So I'd be very surprised if they required replacing. More likely they will need to be taken apart, and some parts will require replacing.
It'll cost tens of thousands per engine: but it won't be millions.
More like hundreds of thousands at least. A normal Pegasus overhaul was well over 100 grand in the 90s and that's when the bits weren't covered in paint. A further complication is that those Trent 700s are actually owned by AirTanker but managed by Rolls Royce. There is going to be a lot of wrangling among all parties and their insurers to decide who is going to pay for it all before a bolt is turned.
In other defence news, that F-35 is still broken in India while we wait for permission, which may or may not be forthcoming, from Lockheed Martin to repair it in an unsecure location. Plan B is bring it back to the UK in bits via C-17.
Who thought it was a good idea to buy such expensive equipment that can’t be repaired in the field?
And can only be maintained with the continuing acquiescence of the US.*
We're just about to buy an extra arm of our nuclear deterrent which relies on the F35.
Seems not even sub optimal.
*Also partly true of Trident - but in the case of the F35 it's much more constrained.
Also looks like Mamdani will win the NYC Democratic primary
Cuomo has just conceded
"It's Cuover."
Given the truckloads of unpleasant baggage he was hauling around it's not entirely surprising. But it wouldn't have happened had Mandani not been an excellent campaigner.
Whether he's going to be a success in office is less obvious. His success or failure will have some impact on the future of the Democratic left.
I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Prohibition Is very often effective.
There are a small handful of examples where it has been noticeable ineffective, but a much larger set of situations where it has been so effective that it doesn't register.
Cousin marriage strikes me as something that shouldn't really be too controversial. There are reasonable arguments in favour of a ban and reasonable principles in favour of not creating a ban. Reasonable democracies have instituted a ban and other reasonable democracies do not.
If it were banned, I assume we're talking of banning first cousin marriages, and that still leaves second and third cousins. One of the things that's really surprised me about moving to rural Ireland is just how extensive people's knowledge about their extended families are here. I'd be surprised if that wasn't also the case for the communities where cousin marriage is more common in Britain, so it wouldn't necessarily be all that disruptive.
So it seems to be a low stakes change in the law. You'd make a modest contribution to reducing the risk of genetic defects, at the cost of a modest extension of the limitations that already exist on permitted marriages. Not much reason to get het up by anyone. Oh for a day when that would be the most contentious issue in our politics.
You can do like Iran: discourage cousin marriage and provide genetic testing for key conditions (like thalassaemia) for couples looking to marry/conceive. That will reduce the risk of genetic defects without having to control people's lives more.
People should be well informed about risks, able to control their fertility and have access to abortion. The state shouldn't be dictating who people can marry or have kids with. Eugenics was a bad thing.
Do you think it should be legal to marry your sister?
The problem with marrying your sister is that she's from a bad family, and her brother's a git.
A bit of a catch up for me. The air tanker repairs are looking expensive.
They sprayed paint *into* the engines, which I had not picked up on. That's potentially the engines trashed, and costs into the tens of millions.
If they are caught and prosecuted, the maximum Criminal Damage sentence is 10 years.
I'm still predicted that if caught these will be made an example of, and hardened aircraft shelters will be incoming - rapidly.
While repairs will no doubt be expensive, engines are pretty modular, and are also designed to deal with constant explosions, heat and pressure changes, etc. So I'd be very surprised if they required replacing. More likely they will need to be taken apart, and some parts will require replacing.
It'll cost tens of thousands per engine: but it won't be millions.
More like hundreds of thousands at least. A normal Pegasus overhaul was well over 100 grand in the 90s and that's when the bits weren't covered in paint. A further complication is that those Trent 700s are actually owned by AirTanker but managed by Rolls Royce. There is going to be a lot of wrangling among all parties and their insurers to decide who is going to pay for it all before a bolt is turned.
In other defence news, that F-35 is still broken in India while we wait for permission, which may or may not be forthcoming, from Lockheed Martin to repair it in an unsecure location. Plan B is bring it back to the UK in bits via C-17.
Who thought it was a good idea to buy such expensive equipment that can’t be repaired in the field?
And can only be maintained with the continuing acquiescence of the US.*
We're just about to buy an extra arm of our nuclear deterrent which relies on the F35.
Seems not even sub optimal.
*Also partly true of Trident - but in the case of the F35 it's much more constrained.
It's limited range, and the paucity of our AAR capability (which is why the B became stranded in India) is also inadequate for an expensive nuclear capability.
Also looks like Mamdani will win the NYC Democratic primary
Cuomo has just conceded
"It's Cuover."
Given the truckloads of unpleasant baggage he was hauling around it's not entirely surprising. But it wouldn't have happened had Mandani not been an excellent campaigner.
Whether he's going to be a success in office is less obvious. His success or failure will have some impact on the future of the Democratic left.
One of the areas affected will be my borough, Newham, where presumably Councillor Rokhsana Fiaz, the current directly elected Mayor, will have to find a Ward to stand in next May if she wants to become leader of the new council though the number of enemies she has made within Newham Labour makes that far from certain.
Newham will revert to 66 councillors in 22 three member Wards.
From your link, it looks like it was drafted with tongue in cheek:-
McCaul: “I’ve been briefed on this plan in the past, and it was never meant to completely destroy the nuclear facilities, but rather cause significant damage. But it was always known to be a temporary setback.”
A bit of a catch up for me. The air tanker repairs are looking expensive.
They sprayed paint *into* the engines, which I had not picked up on. That's potentially the engines trashed, and costs into the tens of millions.
If they are caught and prosecuted, the maximum Criminal Damage sentence is 10 years.
I'm still predicted that if caught these will be made an example of, and hardened aircraft shelters will be incoming - rapidly.
While repairs will no doubt be expensive, engines are pretty modular, and are also designed to deal with constant explosions, heat and pressure changes, etc. So I'd be very surprised if they required replacing. More likely they will need to be taken apart, and some parts will require replacing.
It'll cost tens of thousands per engine: but it won't be millions.
More like hundreds of thousands at least. A normal Pegasus overhaul was well over 100 grand in the 90s and that's when the bits weren't covered in paint. A further complication is that those Trent 700s are actually owned by AirTanker but managed by Rolls Royce. There is going to be a lot of wrangling among all parties and their insurers to decide who is going to pay for it all before a bolt is turned.
In other defence news, that F-35 is still broken in India while we wait for permission, which may or may not be forthcoming, from Lockheed Martin to repair it in an unsecure location. Plan B is bring it back to the UK in bits via C-17.
Who thought it was a good idea to buy such expensive equipment that can’t be repaired in the field?
And can only be maintained with the continuing acquiescence of the US.*
We're just about to buy an extra arm of our nuclear deterrent which relies on the F35.
Seems not even sub optimal.
*Also partly true of Trident - but in the case of the F35 it's much more constrained.
I'd put that it could be an off-to-the-side quid pro quo for the trade deal.
A bit of a catch up for me. The air tanker repairs are looking expensive.
They sprayed paint *into* the engines, which I had not picked up on. That's potentially the engines trashed, and costs into the tens of millions.
If they are caught and prosecuted, the maximum Criminal Damage sentence is 10 years.
I'm still predicted that if caught these will be made an example of, and hardened aircraft shelters will be incoming - rapidly.
While repairs will no doubt be expensive, engines are pretty modular, and are also designed to deal with constant explosions, heat and pressure changes, etc. So I'd be very surprised if they required replacing. More likely they will need to be taken apart, and some parts will require replacing.
It'll cost tens of thousands per engine: but it won't be millions.
More like hundreds of thousands at least. A normal Pegasus overhaul was well over 100 grand in the 90s and that's when the bits weren't covered in paint. A further complication is that those Trent 700s are actually owned by AirTanker but managed by Rolls Royce. There is going to be a lot of wrangling among all parties and their insurers to decide who is going to pay for it all before a bolt is turned.
In other defence news, that F-35 is still broken in India while we wait for permission, which may or may not be forthcoming, from Lockheed Martin to repair it in an unsecure location. Plan B is bring it back to the UK in bits via C-17.
Who thought it was a good idea to buy such expensive equipment that can’t be repaired in the field?
And can only be maintained with the continuing acquiescence of the US.*
We're just about to buy an extra arm of our nuclear deterrent which relies on the F35.
Seems not even sub optimal.
*Also partly true of Trident - but in the case of the F35 it's much more constrained.
It's limited range, and the paucity of our AAR capability (which is why the B became stranded in India) is also inadequate for an expensive nuclear capability.
The F-35 is in India because of a hydraulic (probably actually fueldraulic) issue which will be why it couldn't land on the ship.
Flying it back to the UK would be a risky proposition, even with AAR because it would be a lengthy over water transit probably to Oman in a single engined a/c.
I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Prohibition Is very often effective.
There are a small handful of examples where it has been noticeable ineffective, but a much larger set of situations where it has been so effective that it doesn't register.
Cousin marriage strikes me as something that shouldn't really be too controversial. There are reasonable arguments in favour of a ban and reasonable principles in favour of not creating a ban. Reasonable democracies have instituted a ban and other reasonable democracies do not.
If it were banned, I assume we're talking of banning first cousin marriages, and that still leaves second and third cousins. One of the things that's really surprised me about moving to rural Ireland is just how extensive people's knowledge about their extended families are here. I'd be surprised if that wasn't also the case for the communities where cousin marriage is more common in Britain, so it wouldn't necessarily be all that disruptive.
So it seems to be a low stakes change in the law. You'd make a modest contribution to reducing the risk of genetic defects, at the cost of a modest extension of the limitations that already exist on permitted marriages. Not much reason to get het up by anyone. Oh for a day when that would be the most contentious issue in our politics.
You can do like Iran: discourage cousin marriage and provide genetic testing for key conditions (like thalassaemia) for couples looking to marry/conceive. That will reduce the risk of genetic defects without having to control people's lives more.
People should be well informed about risks, able to control their fertility and have access to abortion. The state shouldn't be dictating who people can marry or have kids with. Eugenics was a bad thing.
Do you think it should be legal to marry your sister?
It's a tough one, isn't it? Even God had trouble making up his mind about it.
Why did God allow incest in the Bible? It is important to distinguish between incestuous relationships prior to God commanding against them (Leviticus 18:6–18) and incest that occurred after God’s commands had been revealed. Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative. It is undeniable that God allowed “incest” in the early centuries of humanity. Since Adam and Eve were the only two human beings on earth, their sons and daughters had no choice but to marry and reproduce with their siblings and close relatives. The second generation had to marry their cousins, just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah had to intermarry amongst their cousins. One reason that incest is so strongly discouraged in the world today is the understanding that reproduction between closely related individuals has a much higher risk of causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to the fact that the human genetic code was relatively free of defects. https://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html
I love the last sentence. Unfortunately I couldn't find the page on "Why did God allow genetic defects?"
McCaul: “I’ve been briefed on this plan in the past, and it was never meant to completely destroy the nuclear facilities, but rather cause significant damage. But it was always known to be a temporary setback.”
The "get a mushroom on TV to redefine a fuck up as the original policy" gambit !
Which is why there should not be a ceasefire.
The bombings of Iran should continue until the facilities are destroyed and/or Iran surrenders and agrees to their demolition, supervised by the IAEA, and the transfer of the HEU to an authorised third party, and/or regime change.
Instead Trump TACOed out and worse he's making Bibi TACO too.
I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Prohibition Is very often effective.
There are a small handful of examples where it has been noticeable ineffective, but a much larger set of situations where it has been so effective that it doesn't register.
Cousin marriage strikes me as something that shouldn't really be too controversial. There are reasonable arguments in favour of a ban and reasonable principles in favour of not creating a ban. Reasonable democracies have instituted a ban and other reasonable democracies do not.
If it were banned, I assume we're talking of banning first cousin marriages, and that still leaves second and third cousins. One of the things that's really surprised me about moving to rural Ireland is just how extensive people's knowledge about their extended families are here. I'd be surprised if that wasn't also the case for the communities where cousin marriage is more common in Britain, so it wouldn't necessarily be all that disruptive.
So it seems to be a low stakes change in the law. You'd make a modest contribution to reducing the risk of genetic defects, at the cost of a modest extension of the limitations that already exist on permitted marriages. Not much reason to get het up by anyone. Oh for a day when that would be the most contentious issue in our politics.
You can do like Iran: discourage cousin marriage and provide genetic testing for key conditions (like thalassaemia) for couples looking to marry/conceive. That will reduce the risk of genetic defects without having to control people's lives more.
People should be well informed about risks, able to control their fertility and have access to abortion. The state shouldn't be dictating who people can marry or have kids with. Eugenics was a bad thing.
Do you think it should be legal to marry your sister?
It's a tough one, isn't it? Even God had trouble making up his mind about it.
Why did God allow incest in the Bible? It is important to distinguish between incestuous relationships prior to God commanding against them (Leviticus 18:6–18) and incest that occurred after God’s commands had been revealed. Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative. It is undeniable that God allowed “incest” in the early centuries of humanity. Since Adam and Eve were the only two human beings on earth, their sons and daughters had no choice but to marry and reproduce with their siblings and close relatives. The second generation had to marry their cousins, just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah had to intermarry amongst their cousins. One reason that incest is so strongly discouraged in the world today is the understanding that reproduction between closely related individuals has a much higher risk of causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to the fact that the human genetic code was relatively free of defects. https://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html
I love the last sentence. Unfortunately I couldn't find the page on "Why did God allow genetic defects?"
Good morning, everyone.
The earlier Greek myth of post-deluge mankind explains it rather better by having Deukalion and his wife toss pebbles over their shoulders, each growing to an adult man/woman as determined by the thrower.
I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Prohibition Is very often effective.
There are a small handful of examples where it has been noticeable ineffective, but a much larger set of situations where it has been so effective that it doesn't register.
Cousin marriage strikes me as something that shouldn't really be too controversial. There are reasonable arguments in favour of a ban and reasonable principles in favour of not creating a ban. Reasonable democracies have instituted a ban and other reasonable democracies do not.
If it were banned, I assume we're talking of banning first cousin marriages, and that still leaves second and third cousins. One of the things that's really surprised me about moving to rural Ireland is just how extensive people's knowledge about their extended families are here. I'd be surprised if that wasn't also the case for the communities where cousin marriage is more common in Britain, so it wouldn't necessarily be all that disruptive.
So it seems to be a low stakes change in the law. You'd make a modest contribution to reducing the risk of genetic defects, at the cost of a modest extension of the limitations that already exist on permitted marriages. Not much reason to get het up by anyone. Oh for a day when that would be the most contentious issue in our politics.
You can do like Iran: discourage cousin marriage and provide genetic testing for key conditions (like thalassaemia) for couples looking to marry/conceive. That will reduce the risk of genetic defects without having to control people's lives more.
People should be well informed about risks, able to control their fertility and have access to abortion. The state shouldn't be dictating who people can marry or have kids with. Eugenics was a bad thing.
Do you think it should be legal to marry your sister?
It's a tough one, isn't it? Even God had trouble making up his mind about it.
Why did God allow incest in the Bible? It is important to distinguish between incestuous relationships prior to God commanding against them (Leviticus 18:6–18) and incest that occurred after God’s commands had been revealed. Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative. It is undeniable that God allowed “incest” in the early centuries of humanity. Since Adam and Eve were the only two human beings on earth, their sons and daughters had no choice but to marry and reproduce with their siblings and close relatives. The second generation had to marry their cousins, just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah had to intermarry amongst their cousins. One reason that incest is so strongly discouraged in the world today is the understanding that reproduction between closely related individuals has a much higher risk of causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to the fact that the human genetic code was relatively free of defects. https://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html
I love the last sentence. Unfortunately I couldn't find the page on "Why did God allow genetic defects?"
For God read evolution - the explanation would be exactly the same.
I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Prohibition Is very often effective.
There are a small handful of examples where it has been noticeable ineffective, but a much larger set of situations where it has been so effective that it doesn't register.
Cousin marriage strikes me as something that shouldn't really be too controversial. There are reasonable arguments in favour of a ban and reasonable principles in favour of not creating a ban. Reasonable democracies have instituted a ban and other reasonable democracies do not.
If it were banned, I assume we're talking of banning first cousin marriages, and that still leaves second and third cousins. One of the things that's really surprised me about moving to rural Ireland is just how extensive people's knowledge about their extended families are here. I'd be surprised if that wasn't also the case for the communities where cousin marriage is more common in Britain, so it wouldn't necessarily be all that disruptive.
So it seems to be a low stakes change in the law. You'd make a modest contribution to reducing the risk of genetic defects, at the cost of a modest extension of the limitations that already exist on permitted marriages. Not much reason to get het up by anyone. Oh for a day when that would be the most contentious issue in our politics.
You can do like Iran: discourage cousin marriage and provide genetic testing for key conditions (like thalassaemia) for couples looking to marry/conceive. That will reduce the risk of genetic defects without having to control people's lives more.
People should be well informed about risks, able to control their fertility and have access to abortion. The state shouldn't be dictating who people can marry or have kids with. Eugenics was a bad thing.
Do you think it should be legal to marry your sister?
It's a tough one, isn't it? Even God had trouble making up his mind about it.
Why did God allow incest in the Bible? It is important to distinguish between incestuous relationships prior to God commanding against them (Leviticus 18:6–18) and incest that occurred after God’s commands had been revealed. Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative. It is undeniable that God allowed “incest” in the early centuries of humanity. Since Adam and Eve were the only two human beings on earth, their sons and daughters had no choice but to marry and reproduce with their siblings and close relatives. The second generation had to marry their cousins, just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah had to intermarry amongst their cousins. One reason that incest is so strongly discouraged in the world today is the understanding that reproduction between closely related individuals has a much higher risk of causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to the fact that the human genetic code was relatively free of defects. https://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html
I love the last sentence. Unfortunately I couldn't find the page on "Why did God allow genetic defects?"
For God read evolution - the explanation would be exactly the same.
Evolution used to allow incest but changed its mind?
McCaul: “I’ve been briefed on this plan in the past, and it was never meant to completely destroy the nuclear facilities, but rather cause significant damage. But it was always known to be a temporary setback.”
McCaul: “I’ve been briefed on this plan in the past, and it was never meant to completely destroy the nuclear facilities, but rather cause significant damage. But it was always known to be a temporary setback.”
The "get a mushroom on TV to redefine a fuck up as the original policy" gambit !
I don't really see how anything could be more than a 'temporary setback'. Whilst Iranians still exist, there's potential for an Iranian nuclear programme. Even if their ability to create their own is totally devastated, they could buy off the shelf.
I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Prohibition Is very often effective.
There are a small handful of examples where it has been noticeable ineffective, but a much larger set of situations where it has been so effective that it doesn't register.
Cousin marriage strikes me as something that shouldn't really be too controversial. There are reasonable arguments in favour of a ban and reasonable principles in favour of not creating a ban. Reasonable democracies have instituted a ban and other reasonable democracies do not.
If it were banned, I assume we're talking of banning first cousin marriages, and that still leaves second and third cousins. One of the things that's really surprised me about moving to rural Ireland is just how extensive people's knowledge about their extended families are here. I'd be surprised if that wasn't also the case for the communities where cousin marriage is more common in Britain, so it wouldn't necessarily be all that disruptive.
So it seems to be a low stakes change in the law. You'd make a modest contribution to reducing the risk of genetic defects, at the cost of a modest extension of the limitations that already exist on permitted marriages. Not much reason to get het up by anyone. Oh for a day when that would be the most contentious issue in our politics.
You can do like Iran: discourage cousin marriage and provide genetic testing for key conditions (like thalassaemia) for couples looking to marry/conceive. That will reduce the risk of genetic defects without having to control people's lives more.
People should be well informed about risks, able to control their fertility and have access to abortion. The state shouldn't be dictating who people can marry or have kids with. Eugenics was a bad thing.
Do you think it should be legal to marry your sister?
It's a tough one, isn't it? Even God had trouble making up his mind about it.
Why did God allow incest in the Bible? It is important to distinguish between incestuous relationships prior to God commanding against them (Leviticus 18:6–18) and incest that occurred after God’s commands had been revealed. Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative. It is undeniable that God allowed “incest” in the early centuries of humanity. Since Adam and Eve were the only two human beings on earth, their sons and daughters had no choice but to marry and reproduce with their siblings and close relatives. The second generation had to marry their cousins, just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah had to intermarry amongst their cousins. One reason that incest is so strongly discouraged in the world today is the understanding that reproduction between closely related individuals has a much higher risk of causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to the fact that the human genetic code was relatively free of defects. https://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html
I love the last sentence. Unfortunately I couldn't find the page on "Why did God allow genetic defects?"
For God read evolution - the explanation would be exactly the same.
Evolution used to allow incest but changed its mind?
Also looks like Mamdani will win the NYC Democratic primary
Cuomo has just conceded
"It's Cuover."
Given the truckloads of unpleasant baggage he was hauling around it's not entirely surprising. But it wouldn't have happened had Mandani not been an excellent campaigner.
Whether he's going to be a success in office is less obvious. His success or failure will have some impact on the future of the Democratic left.
I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Prohibition Is very often effective.
There are a small handful of examples where it has been noticeable ineffective, but a much larger set of situations where it has been so effective that it doesn't register.
Cousin marriage strikes me as something that shouldn't really be too controversial. There are reasonable arguments in favour of a ban and reasonable principles in favour of not creating a ban. Reasonable democracies have instituted a ban and other reasonable democracies do not.
If it were banned, I assume we're talking of banning first cousin marriages, and that still leaves second and third cousins. One of the things that's really surprised me about moving to rural Ireland is just how extensive people's knowledge about their extended families are here. I'd be surprised if that wasn't also the case for the communities where cousin marriage is more common in Britain, so it wouldn't necessarily be all that disruptive.
So it seems to be a low stakes change in the law. You'd make a modest contribution to reducing the risk of genetic defects, at the cost of a modest extension of the limitations that already exist on permitted marriages. Not much reason to get het up by anyone. Oh for a day when that would be the most contentious issue in our politics.
You can do like Iran: discourage cousin marriage and provide genetic testing for key conditions (like thalassaemia) for couples looking to marry/conceive. That will reduce the risk of genetic defects without having to control people's lives more.
People should be well informed about risks, able to control their fertility and have access to abortion. The state shouldn't be dictating who people can marry or have kids with. Eugenics was a bad thing.
Do you think it should be legal to marry your sister?
It's a tough one, isn't it? Even God had trouble making up his mind about it.
Why did God allow incest in the Bible? It is important to distinguish between incestuous relationships prior to God commanding against them (Leviticus 18:6–18) and incest that occurred after God’s commands had been revealed. Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative. It is undeniable that God allowed “incest” in the early centuries of humanity. Since Adam and Eve were the only two human beings on earth, their sons and daughters had no choice but to marry and reproduce with their siblings and close relatives. The second generation had to marry their cousins, just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah had to intermarry amongst their cousins. One reason that incest is so strongly discouraged in the world today is the understanding that reproduction between closely related individuals has a much higher risk of causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to the fact that the human genetic code was relatively free of defects. https://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html
I love the last sentence. Unfortunately I couldn't find the page on "Why did God allow genetic defects?"
For God read evolution - the explanation would be exactly the same.
Evolution used to allow incest but changed its mind?
A bit of a catch up for me. The air tanker repairs are looking expensive.
They sprayed paint *into* the engines, which I had not picked up on. That's potentially the engines trashed, and costs into the tens of millions.
If they are caught and prosecuted, the maximum Criminal Damage sentence is 10 years.
I'm still predicted that if caught these will be made an example of, and hardened aircraft shelters will be incoming - rapidly.
While repairs will no doubt be expensive, engines are pretty modular, and are also designed to deal with constant explosions, heat and pressure changes, etc. So I'd be very surprised if they required replacing. More likely they will need to be taken apart, and some parts will require replacing.
It'll cost tens of thousands per engine: but it won't be millions.
More like hundreds of thousands at least. A normal Pegasus overhaul was well over 100 grand in the 90s and that's when the bits weren't covered in paint. A further complication is that those Trent 700s are actually owned by AirTanker but managed by Rolls Royce. There is going to be a lot of wrangling among all parties and their insurers to decide who is going to pay for it all before a bolt is turned.
In other defence news, that F-35 is still broken in India while we wait for permission, which may or may not be forthcoming, from Lockheed Martin to repair it in an unsecure location. Plan B is bring it back to the UK in bits via C-17.
Who thought it was a good idea to buy such expensive equipment that can’t be repaired in the field?
And can only be maintained with the continuing acquiescence of the US.*
We're just about to buy an extra arm of our nuclear deterrent which relies on the F35.
Seems not even sub optimal.
*Also partly true of Trident - but in the case of the F35 it's much more constrained.
It's limited range, and the paucity of our AAR capability (which is why the B became stranded in India) is also inadequate for an expensive nuclear capability.
Starmer got told to buy them by Trump is my guess tbh
I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Prohibition Is very often effective.
There are a small handful of examples where it has been noticeable ineffective, but a much larger set of situations where it has been so effective that it doesn't register.
Cousin marriage strikes me as something that shouldn't really be too controversial. There are reasonable arguments in favour of a ban and reasonable principles in favour of not creating a ban. Reasonable democracies have instituted a ban and other reasonable democracies do not.
If it were banned, I assume we're talking of banning first cousin marriages, and that still leaves second and third cousins. One of the things that's really surprised me about moving to rural Ireland is just how extensive people's knowledge about their extended families are here. I'd be surprised if that wasn't also the case for the communities where cousin marriage is more common in Britain, so it wouldn't necessarily be all that disruptive.
So it seems to be a low stakes change in the law. You'd make a modest contribution to reducing the risk of genetic defects, at the cost of a modest extension of the limitations that already exist on permitted marriages. Not much reason to get het up by anyone. Oh for a day when that would be the most contentious issue in our politics.
You can do like Iran: discourage cousin marriage and provide genetic testing for key conditions (like thalassaemia) for couples looking to marry/conceive. That will reduce the risk of genetic defects without having to control people's lives more.
People should be well informed about risks, able to control their fertility and have access to abortion. The state shouldn't be dictating who people can marry or have kids with. Eugenics was a bad thing.
Do you think it should be legal to marry your sister?
McCaul: “I’ve been briefed on this plan in the past, and it was never meant to completely destroy the nuclear facilities, but rather cause significant damage. But it was always known to be a temporary setback.”
The "get a mushroom on TV to redefine a fuck up as the original policy" gambit !
Which is why there should not be a ceasefire.
The bombings of Iran should continue until the facilities are destroyed and/or Iran surrenders and agrees to their demolition, supervised by the IAEA, and the transfer of the HEU to an authorised third party, and/or regime change.
Instead Trump TACOed out and worse he's making Bibi TACO too.
What an incompetent moron.
You should write to Bibi and complain. Make your feelings known as there is no-one here that can help you in your desire for more bloodshed.
Rather than write, you could always fill in their online form. Let us know what they say in reply.
I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Of course the law can only deal with the law, but vicars, rabbis, registrars and imams for the most part are going to be following the law; and if they don't their ability to make legal marriage can be annulled by the state.
On a social level the thought for most people of marrying or having sex with one of their cousins must surely be a bit icky to put it mildly, if people really want to they can run off to another country or something - but banning it sends out a strong signal that it's not OK and sure if it's only once it's not a massive health risk but you're going to end up with a whole bunch of people with problems if it's done generation after generation.
Cousin marriage used to be a lot more common in Britain. Charles Darwin married a cousin.
So how did it become less prevalent in Britain, and why would most people find the idea, "a bit icky"?
Because people started moving around a lot more. Easy as that, really.
Perhaps the easiest way to avoid cousin marriage is to marry someone from a different country and culture ...
(Mrs J and I have previously mused how far we would have to go back to get a familial connection. Quite a way, we think.)
Indeed. No risk of in-breeding in our case, either.
"What a time to be alive with a POTUS dropping the F bomb so publicly."
I don't think sexual swearwords are the taboos they used to be. Taboos have changed.
In the Middle Ages, the worst curse-words were religious, because everyone was terrified that using them could send whole cities to burn in eternity. In the Victorian period the worst such words were sexual, because of social neuroses about sex. Now they are racial, because white Americans are crippled by guilt that a large part of their country was founded on slavery and all of it on the dispossession of its existing inhabitants (like every other state in history).
Had Trump dropped the N-bomb rather than the F-bomb, I imagine the reaction would have been much more explosive.
In fact of course having these hangups is hugely damaging - they prevent free discussion of different viewpoints. In the Middle Ages, people were burned at the stake for trivial religious differences. In the Victorian period, women were so terrified of appearing immodest that some would die rather than discuss medical symptoms with their doctors. Our over-sensitivity about racial matters has analogous, damaging effects today.
You'd think that no matter what time period you're living in it would be unacceptable to use strong sexual swear words in front of young children. Yet that's what I hear quite often these days.
Is that any worse than using sexually explicit non-swear words?
I'm not quite convinced.
The point is that the reason we don't want kids hearing the f-word is because their minds shouldn't be troubled thinking about sex before they can understand it, when it's all confusing enough even for adults.
Whereas when it comes to racial epithets, few people are worried about using mild words to describe other races - calling someone Chinese or black is no big deal, and you'd happily do it in front of kids, while calling them racial epithets is, and you certainly shouldn't.
And it's also a relatively new thing, incidentally, in this country. I was reading the diaries of Winston Churchil''s private secretary, and he goes to South Africa for pilot training and calls the blacks there n---rs, but there's no sense that it's perjorative. But since we imported our own black population, and the toxic racial politics of the US, our taboos have changed.
Since we’d imported the n word directly from the US unsurprising that the UK would also take the politics associated with it. Did he mention Jews by any other (then non taboo) name?
"What a time to be alive with a POTUS dropping the F bomb so publicly."
I don't think sexual swearwords are the taboos they used to be. Taboos have changed.
In the Middle Ages, the worst curse-words were religious, because everyone was terrified that using them could send whole cities to burn in eternity. In the Victorian period the worst such words were sexual, because of social neuroses about sex. Now they are racial, because white Americans are crippled by guilt that a large part of their country was founded on slavery and all of it on the dispossession of its existing inhabitants (like every other state in history).
Had Trump dropped the N-bomb rather than the F-bomb, I imagine the reaction would have been much more explosive.
In fact of course having these hangups is hugely damaging - they prevent free discussion of different viewpoints. In the Middle Ages, people were burned at the stake for trivial religious differences. In the Victorian period, women were so terrified of appearing immodest that some would die rather than discuss medical symptoms with their doctors. Our over-sensitivity about racial matters has analogous, damaging effects today.
You'd think that no matter what time period you're living in it would be unacceptable to use strong sexual swear words in front of young children. Yet that's what I hear quite often these days.
Is that any worse than using sexually explicit non-swear words?
I'm not quite convinced.
The point is that the reason we don't want kids hearing the f-word is because their minds shouldn't be troubled thinking about sex before they can understand it, when it's all confusing enough even for adults.
Whereas when it comes to racial epithets, few people are worried about using mild words to describe other races - calling someone Chinese or black is no big deal, and you'd happily do it in front of kids, while calling them racial epithets is, and you certainly shouldn't.
And it's also a relatively new thing, incidentally, in this country. I was reading the diaries of Winston Churchil''s private secretary, and he goes to South Africa for pilot training and calls the blacks there n---rs, but there's no sense that it's perjorative. But since we imported our own black population, and the toxic racial politics of the US, our taboos have changed.
Since we’d imported the n word directly from the US unsurprising that the UK would also take the politics associated with it. Did he mention Jews by any other (then non taboo) name?
I am not really sure what point @Fishing is making. I am not that old and it was reasonably acceptable to use “gay” of “gaylord” as an insult when I was at school. That is obviously not the case now and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
I presume we all agree that it shouldn't be allowed..
It is contra-indicated for genetic health reasons, but I don't have the same visceral reaction to it as I do with sibling incest.
And if it was a same-sex marriage, or one of the two had been sterilised, there'd be nothing to worry about in health terms either.
Having a pregnancy at 40 is also contra-indicated. The risk is probably higher. We don't ban that.
It's easier to ban cousin marriage than pregnancy at age 40, though.
Not really. You can ban civil marriage but that doesn't stop people from having a marriage ceremony and subsequently having sex. Prohibition is rarely effective, and it strikes me as ludicrous to be advocating for another unenforceable law when the police lack the resources to enforce most of the laws already on the statute books. It's like the absurd "ban the burka" debate (let's set women free by telling them what they can wear) and comes from the same unpleasant motivation, IMHO.
Prohibition Is very often effective.
There are a small handful of examples where it has been noticeable ineffective, but a much larger set of situations where it has been so effective that it doesn't register.
Cousin marriage strikes me as something that shouldn't really be too controversial. There are reasonable arguments in favour of a ban and reasonable principles in favour of not creating a ban. Reasonable democracies have instituted a ban and other reasonable democracies do not.
If it were banned, I assume we're talking of banning first cousin marriages, and that still leaves second and third cousins. One of the things that's really surprised me about moving to rural Ireland is just how extensive people's knowledge about their extended families are here. I'd be surprised if that wasn't also the case for the communities where cousin marriage is more common in Britain, so it wouldn't necessarily be all that disruptive.
So it seems to be a low stakes change in the law. You'd make a modest contribution to reducing the risk of genetic defects, at the cost of a modest extension of the limitations that already exist on permitted marriages. Not much reason to get het up by anyone. Oh for a day when that would be the most contentious issue in our politics.
You can do like Iran: discourage cousin marriage and provide genetic testing for key conditions (like thalassaemia) for couples looking to marry/conceive. That will reduce the risk of genetic defects without having to control people's lives more.
People should be well informed about risks, able to control their fertility and have access to abortion. The state shouldn't be dictating who people can marry or have kids with. Eugenics was a bad thing.
Do you think it should be legal to marry your sister?
It's a tough one, isn't it? Even God had trouble making up his mind about it.
Why did God allow incest in the Bible? It is important to distinguish between incestuous relationships prior to God commanding against them (Leviticus 18:6–18) and incest that occurred after God’s commands had been revealed. Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative. It is undeniable that God allowed “incest” in the early centuries of humanity. Since Adam and Eve were the only two human beings on earth, their sons and daughters had no choice but to marry and reproduce with their siblings and close relatives. The second generation had to marry their cousins, just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah had to intermarry amongst their cousins. One reason that incest is so strongly discouraged in the world today is the understanding that reproduction between closely related individuals has a much higher risk of causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to the fact that the human genetic code was relatively free of defects. https://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html
I love the last sentence. Unfortunately I couldn't find the page on "Why did God allow genetic defects?"
That's a weird analysis. It's through a lens that starts with the unspecified assumption that the early book of Old Testament as written are an historical account - Adam and Eve were the only 2 human beings on earth and so on. It's following Bishop Ussher (him of "creation was 4004 BC" fame determined by adding up the ages in the Old Testament and other hacks).
That's what I mean when I talk about modern literalism imposed on the Bible by many evangelicals. More learned types talk of the creation accounts as "myth" - of parables if you will.
If they had not fallen for this one many USA Evangelicals would be much less further up an anti-intellectual creek without a paddle, or be so fragile in their ideology.
Also looks like Mamdani will win the NYC Democratic primary
Cuomo has just conceded
"It's Cuover."
Given the truckloads of unpleasant baggage he was hauling around it's not entirely surprising. But it wouldn't have happened had Mandani not been an excellent campaigner.
Whether he's going to be a success in office is less obvious. His success or failure will have some impact on the future of the Democratic left.
Has anyone mentioned the very early adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-four currently available on BBC4 i-player? It's fascinating in many ways, not least the prelude and the interlude.
I watched it a couple of months ago. Was it Peter Cushing as Winston? I’m struggling to remember and don’t want to look it up. Someone else famous was his neighbour/work colleague
Wilfrid Brambell auditioning for Albert Steptoe, and Leonard Sachs as a demure but impoverished antiques dealer. And Donald Pleasence, needless to say...
This gives me an excuse to mention (again) one of the old 'Armchair Theatre' episodes :
Comments
How do we get from here to there?
It'll cost tens of thousands per engine: but it won't be millions.
If that was the extent of our success in integrating our next door neighbours, we haven't a hope of success of integrating incomers from medieval societies in the Middle East and North Africa.
The truth is that the Iranians needed a break and the Israelis had always felt they were starting to stretch the elastic a bit about 10 to 14 days in. Thus Trump was doing his talking to two parties that, for different reasons, were listening. The adminstration didnt have to drag them to this point.
The Iranians will have their time with the Americans, even if it takes months or years.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14473100/?ref_=fn_all_ttl_2
Wilfrid Brambell auditioning for Albert Steptoe, and Leonard Sachs as a demure but impoverished antiques dealer. And Donald Pleasence, needless to say...
I'm not quite convinced.
The point is that the reason we don't want kids hearing the f-word is because their minds shouldn't be troubled thinking about sex before they can understand it, when it's all confusing enough even for adults.
Whereas when it comes to racial epithets, few people are worried about using mild words to describe other races - calling someone Chinese or black is no big deal, and you'd happily do it in front of kids, while calling them racial epithets is, and you certainly shouldn't.
And it's also a relatively new thing, incidentally, in this country. I was reading the diaries of Winston Churchil''s private secretary, and he goes to South Africa for pilot training and calls the blacks there n---rs, but there's no sense that it's perjorative. But since we imported our own black population, and the toxic racial politics of the US, our taboos have changed.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216032/
"Night Conspirators
An elderly man is rescued from Iceland. Why would an elderly man need to escape from Iceland? Unless of course its [spoiler]."
Which sounds very on-the-nose, but it's performed much more subtly over the course of the play. And feels to me ever more relevant.
It's on youtube, which I assume as google is 100% on-board of copyright, means it's a-ok to link to it :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvazUkBnw6Q
Is there any particular reason why having last attack is important? Or is it just fucking juvenile?
In a grown up world you’d think the one from last was the superior position, as you shrugged off provocation.
Any way, Bravo Zulu to Palestine Action. More of this sort of thing please.
Semantics at work.
In other defence news, that F-35 is still broken in India while we wait for permission, which may or may not be forthcoming, from Lockheed Martin to repair it in an unsecure location. Plan B is bring it back to the UK in bits via C-17.
https://www.ft.com/content/5763d231-7487-4cd7-9557-a192adc1bad2
(Mrs J and I have previously mused how far we would have to go back to get a familial connection. Quite a way, we think.)
We're just about to buy an extra arm of our nuclear deterrent which relies on the F35.
Seems not even sub optimal.
*Also partly true of Trident - but in the case of the F35 it's much more constrained.
Given the truckloads of unpleasant baggage he was hauling around it's not entirely surprising.
But it wouldn't have happened had Mandani not been an excellent campaigner.
Whether he's going to be a success in office is less obvious. His success or failure will have some impact on the future of the Democratic left.
This change will provide clearer, more easily understood structures at a local level, improving efficiency and preventing authorities from wasting taxpayer funds on needless changes to systems of governance.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-06-24/hcws736
The "get a mushroom on TV to redefine a fuck up as the original policy" gambit !
Flying it back to the UK would be a risky proposition, even with AAR because it would be a lengthy over water transit probably to Oman in a single engined a/c.
Why did God allow incest in the Bible?
It is important to distinguish between incestuous relationships prior to God commanding against them (Leviticus 18:6–18) and incest that occurred after God’s commands had been revealed. Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative. It is undeniable that God allowed “incest” in the early centuries of humanity. Since Adam and Eve were the only two human beings on earth, their sons and daughters had no choice but to marry and reproduce with their siblings and close relatives. The second generation had to marry their cousins, just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah had to intermarry amongst their cousins. One reason that incest is so strongly discouraged in the world today is the understanding that reproduction between closely related individuals has a much higher risk of causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to the fact that the human genetic code was relatively free of defects.
https://www.gotquestions.org/incest-in-the-Bible.html
I love the last sentence. Unfortunately I couldn't find the page on "Why did God allow genetic defects?"
The bombings of Iran should continue until the facilities are destroyed and/or Iran surrenders and agrees to their demolition, supervised by the IAEA, and the transfer of the HEU to an authorised third party, and/or regime change.
Instead Trump TACOed out and worse he's making Bibi TACO too.
What an incompetent moron.
The earlier Greek myth of post-deluge mankind explains it rather better by having Deukalion and his wife toss pebbles over their shoulders, each growing to an adult man/woman as determined by the thrower.
How did we allow yesterday, the day of Dan Hannan's extraordinary Brexit prediction, to go unmarked?
Rather than write, you could always fill in their online form. Let us know what they say in reply.
https://www.likud.org.il/en/contact-us/contact-us
Did he mention Jews by any other (then non taboo) name?
NEW THREAD
I can see why the US want to pretend the Iranian nuclear programme is completely destroyed
I can see why Iran would go along with that pretense
WTF would Israel?
Criminalising cousin marriage to stop birth defects seems like closing the stable door long after the horse has bolted and ran to the next town.
That's what I mean when I talk about modern literalism imposed on the Bible by many evangelicals. More learned types talk of the creation accounts as "myth" - of parables if you will.
If they had not fallen for this one many USA Evangelicals would be much less further up an anti-intellectual creek without a paddle, or be so fragile in their ideology.