[Siderite]

Northumbiron wrote:

You are missing the point, because you still haven’t answered my question.

Is it to be a trade off of working towards zero emissions versus continuing as before?

I take it you’ll be going for the latter.

Also, one would think airports are a new invention given Bucks’ latest post. While the UHI is a thing and does partially explain some accelerated temperatures, it doesn’t explain the amplitude of that heatwave.

My local weather station, not near an airport, beat the local record by 3 Celsius, but the usual suspects will continue to leap to half-answers, which don’t explain the full picture, and play the know-it-all for their own agenda. All while jumping on weather = climate falsehoods. Probability of weather events occurring due to climate change does not equal this weather event was caused by climate change.

[Siderite]

Paris overtaking London on the stock market isn’t someone’s opinion.

[Siderite]

I don’t think the Scunny Bunny would be too happy with that! :-)

[Siderite]

More project fear lies:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/paris-london-stock-market-bloomberg-b2224731.html

[Siderite]

bartonscorpion wrote:

Siderite wrote:

How do they work together when there are fundamental disagreements with the path forward? Labour won’t be able to criticise how the Tories have run if they have a foot in their plan? The same would be said of the reverse. Also, the Tories would say it all went wrong because of Labour sabotage. The incentives aren’t there and they never will be for something like this.

The only time it’s possible is during an external threat, like in WWII.

So what you are saying siderite is, let things just carry on like the present

I am saying that this is not a workable solution and Labour aren’t going to be as daft as sign their name to Tory policies then take the blame. If you think Labour would do a better job on the economy, well that’s one reason to vote them in next time.

[Siderite]

[Siderite]

How do they work together when there are fundamental disagreements with the path forward? Labour won’t be able to criticise how the Tories have run if they have a foot in their plan? The same would be said of the reverse. Also, the Tories would say it all went wrong because of Labour sabotage. The incentives aren’t there and they never will be for something like this.

The only time it’s possible is during an external threat, like in WWII.

[Siderite]

Norman Baker is a conspiracy theorist who thinks the British Secret Services were involved in the death of David Kelly, or they covered up an Iraqi hit team, based on nothing. I would take anything said by him with a huge pinch of salt.

[Siderite]

Yes, I would. He’s a self-admitted Calvinist, which can be a very fundamentalist sect.

[Siderite]

For the fundamentalists, sure. I am reluctant to say all Christians are like that. The comfort religion gives cannot be underestimated.

My issue is when thy say stuff like above, as in it’s a necessity to have a Christian founding for morality. Can Christianity apply a moral code for some? Sure, but it’s not a necessity. An atheist or anyone can easily form an argument for why murder is wrong without God. It would be worrying if you can’t, because it displays a lack of empathy and understanding of how actions impact others. This is the basis of most moral systems, dating back longer than 2000 years. I have nothing against people basing their life around the Bible; I do when they claim it’s a necessity for others and make out that it’s the only thing needed, and without it we’d be murderers.

The point in this is that bpg often makes out Christian belief is a necessity for morality, yet can’t see how referring to people as invaders or undertaking an invasion could be considered a harmful take, which violates another’s moral system. It’s a bit rich to say that atheists cannot comprehend how murder could be wrong without Christianity while refusing to understand why an atheist might consider it wrong to refer to people in such a manner. Obviously the former is of a worse magnitude, but that’s not the point.

[Siderite]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

…” how morality is meaningless without Christianity.”
No,you’ve got it wrong!
Objective Morality proves that there is a Creator (God),not that it’s meaningless without Christianity.
You have to “steal “ from a Creator(God) worldview to make sense of your life.
If there is no God all morality is subjective ,murder might be “wrong” in your eyes but “right” in another persons , who decides in an atheistic worldview?
Objective morality proves there is a Creator ( God) and Christianity is true because of Christ proving He was God in human form .
YOU can’t live a truly atheistic lifestyle,you have to “steal” from the Christian worldview to make sense of your life. Think about it.

More lectures, which is my point really when your superior Christian morality fails to identify a moral problem, in my opinion.

It’s easy to identify why murder is wrong without Christianity. We don’t need a God to tell us how our actions impact others and base a moral system around that. These moral systems predate Christianity. I am not borrowing from it and my point was really that you’re forever telling us about morality requiring your god, yet the subject here has seen me take a different moral standpoint to Christianity’s finest representative on this forum.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights

[Siderite]

Going by his displayed goalkeeping skills, as evident in that Sidemen match, I think he’s already ruined. :-)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Or because it dehumanises people? Surely we can use more suitable language?

It’s funny how you love to lecture others on how morality is meaningless without Christianity, yet here is a moral position of mine which differs from what is your Christian position of dehumanising people and making out they’re some invading horde. Obviously, because it’s illegal, their humanity could be discarded by the Christian moral system of yours.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights

[Siderite]

You’re being optimistic if you think people on here will have a clue as to who he or the Sidemen are. :-)

[Siderite]

You didn’t say it, yet you just quoted yourself saying invasion.

[Siderite]

You We cannot say it would have been taken as “tongue in the cheek British humour” because we don’t know it was such, and it is not positive to dismiss overt xenophobia as just a joke.

“The agenda in our neo- Marxist critical theory times is too declare everyone a victim ,then intersectionality from that and so on.”

Does this include the Tories and the “are you here legally” comedians whose precious feelings can’t handle being called out for something which might create an issue with others? From this thread I gather from you that it’s ok to make xenophobic comments to foreign waiters, because this is corking humour, and any attempts against this is some insidious agenda. Yet it’s wrong to be mean to Tories. I mean, I am not against being mean to Tories, but it seems hypocritical. For some reason, them complaining about others being nasty is not ‘playing the victim’ or part of some conspiratorial wibble about neo-Marxism.

“When I say “ the invasion of thousands of people illegally” are you saying I say this with malice!!”

lol. Yeah, the people saying that there is an invasion of migrants and these are invaders mean it from the goodness of their own hearts.

[Siderite]

“I will not accept tongue in cheek British humour”

Where is the evidence for this being tongue in cheek outside of your own interpretation of an event you were not present for? It may be tongue in cheek, but I am sceptical. You have decided that there can be no other interpretation based on nothing. Your argument would hold stack if I made such comments when we were both present for a joke. It doesn’t when neither of us were, so we cannot say it was a joke with any accuracy.

You can’t be seriously claiming that terms like the “British invasion” for music in the 60s is like this. The former was not said with malice, for one, while this is.

Then you moan about my ‘agenda’. Yours is obvious.

[Siderite]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

“Are you defending that person?”
No,what I asked was “ If you hadn’t been a coward and you up for an embarrassing scene,what would you have said to her?”
The question was not answered.
Maybe it was“tongue in cheek” British humour ( with the current state of the invasion of illegal immigrants- especially from Albania)

I think this interpretation is too generous.

Regardless of what we think of the migrant and refugee situation we should remember they are human too, so terms like invasion and attacking foreign waiters is not on.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Daws isn’t a manager. The problem is who else would come with the situation as it is? Maybe with new owners, but when is that going to happen?

1 user thanked author for this post.

ironking

[Siderite]

Good to see Kherson return to Ukrainian hands. The Russians are really embarrassing themselves in this war. A bigger humiliation than the winter war. Hopefully this boosts support for Ukraine, as they reclaim everything wrongfully taken from them for some perverse Russian nationalist agenda.

https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1591048091209121792

On a side note, it’s interesting that the pro-Ukrainian sovereignty and freedom Ukrainians associate this with the EU. I am not begrudging complaints about rules of such; I am aware there are reasonable criticisms of this. However, it would be nice if Brexiters stop with the EU is tyranny hyperbole. For those whose freedoms are genuinely threatened by autocracy it is clearly seen as not being such.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66, Iron-awe

[Siderite]

A new owner.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Sharp_Shooter24

[Siderite]

Never said it was that much. I was just making a sardonic response to it.

[Siderite]

The basics are clear, yet you made an obvious error in understanding. Ok.

In internet speak capitals are shouting or people trying to make out these points mean anything. It says as little capitalised or not.

[Siderite]

I didn’t say that. You have history of mixing stuff like that with critique, along with referring to everyone else in vague terms, which could group anyone responding.

Like I said, I don’t know why you think I’ll respond to your capital letters of truth when you are unable to even grasp the basics, as demonstrated above, history of bad faith debating and raking over old coals to fuel your obsession and ego.

[Siderite]

Oh, so you admit it’s not about protests now. Your previous response suggested otherwise. I don’t think putting a journalist in custody was the right response.

[Siderite]

I did say I am not getting into the same old circular argument, so I don’t know why you think I’ll bother debating. I have already stated that it’s pointless debating with you, because there’s no chance I’ll be accurately represented. And, no, critiquing you here is not a personal attack. I am not obliged to think you are a good faith debater.

The evidence has been given time and time again, there is nothing to be gained from doing it once more. Suffice to say, if you’re conflating weather and climate there’s little hope of it ever being productive. If you can’t understand that, as you seemingly do not, then there’s no hope of me being able to have a representative debate. There is not a chance you will think about it and maybe understand why your comparison is balderdash, because then you’d be in error (which never happens).*

*Before the playground response that I am like this, I am often wrong and have admitted so previously.

[Siderite]

Criticising Bucks = personal attacks.

Bucks criticising others in the same manner = Valid criticism.

2 users thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights, Heath

[Siderite]

Bucksiron wrote:

Nobody has any issue with people protesting, in fact the complete opposite. But nobody has the right to stop people from carrying out their legitimate day-to-day life or business, which is what we’re seeing with the ‘Just Stop Oil’ protests.

And journalists don’t have a right to cover the situation? That is the situation being alluded to, not the protests.

[Siderite]

Well, those results do upset the narrative.

Of course it’s not ideal (from my perspective) that it’s close, especially given how I view the current Republicans to be a damaging party to democracy and women’s rights. However, these are the best midterms for a sitting president for quite some time and the losses are nowhere near as severe as the ‘very measured’ people were predicting based on their narrative about Dems losing touch with the salt of the Earth common man.

There have been some historic gains for the Democrats. Michigan’s state house is now in Democrat control for the first time in 40 years. Republicans have made very little progress in their promised red wave, from those ‘very measured’ pundits with their fingers on the pulse of what the ‘common man’ truly feels against the metropolitan liberal elite. Red wave? More like red puddle.

This is the second time they have got it wrong, they were assuring us that Biden would likely lose the presidency in 2020, they were assuring us that the Democrats would struggle more in the midterms because they are out of touch with woke issues and whatnot. The likely truth is that while this current mob of Republicans have some ardent fans, their conduct in democracy and on abortion has motivated many more to vote against them. They are significant in number and can’t be written off as some elitist fringe. They are enough for Democrats to do better than the self-assured pundits predict.

Moreover, with Trump and DeSantis potentially locked into battle for the 2024 Republican nomination, things could get ugly. DeSantis has some momentum and has carried votes in Florida, but doesn’t have the charisma or cultishness of Trump, who is unlikely to step aside without a fight. 2024 could (emphasis on could) be a bitter civil dispute between candidates, which could cause a huge rift. DeSantis is polling quite well and may be a harder opponent for Trump than his previous Republican opponents.

None of this means I think everything is rosy or foregone for the Democrats by a long stretch. However, with the narrative failing to come to fruition twice now for the ‘very measured’ pundits, I’d hope there’s some self-reflection and less of the simple interpretation of “Democrats need to win over the Trump supporters and nothing else needs to be done” narrative which has plagued US political discourse for too long. This should be an indicator to Republicans that they need to look at their own party to win over those motivated to vote against them.

Fat chance of this happening. The usual suspects will still groan on, as if it’s only the Democrats who need to address concerns, as if it’s only them with agency.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Huckleberry Hound, TwoWrights

[Siderite]

Jesus wasn’t a socialist; the ideology wasn’t present then. Christians would say they are following in Christ’s ideal through charity. They’d believe they’re helping through more capitalist means (not saying Jesus is a capitalist either), even if you think they’re mistaken.

[Author]

Posts