La_Dolce_Vita

Why do you think it has something to do with the Council? If it's parking spaces, that's Government, as far as I know.

The sensible position with respect to a creator, if we don't have answers about how the Big Bang happened, is to say we don't know. It's not to plug a being in there to fix the gap in our understanding. We know so little about the beginning of the universe and to jump to it being a being and think this is true is irrational. It's better for people to believe things that are true and not believe those that are false or when there is poor evidence. If we are permissive about the idea of holding false beliefs and accepting of poor evidence then we get into all sorts of trouble and harms. Wars and conflict are the worst of it but it could be such simply things as people believing in homeopathy, praying for a good result (and giving less attention to what they need to do), attributing occurrences to forces outside of their control, accepting injustices because they are ordained, thinking it's right to part with money for a religious cause, thinking you're going to a better place when you die so not caring quite as much about this life and things done to others. I haven't said there is no God character. The problem is that there are millions who claim that there is and know that there is but they have nothing to show for it, yet to varying degrees it influences or directs their thinking and behaviour. The good thinking is not to be convinced on the basis of their poor evidence. That's not the same as saying their beliefs are false, although the abrahamic faiths are clearly man-made in my view.

The fact is that there is a great deal of fighting that has gone on and is still going on that is motivated by superstition. You can't explain the animosity between many Indians, for example, as something other than religion. If religion didn't exist then those problems wouldnt be there. And yes, much good has been done in the name of religion. Though first, let's recognise that up until recently most charitable people and organisations existed in a time where people were more religious and often had to be religious. And Christian organisations often had the monopoly on having the finances to fund charitable work. But there isn't anything in the way of good work that couldnt have been achieved without superstitions. In any case, I don't think this is all that important because the worth of religion and beliefs shouldnt be measured on what is done in their name but whether they're true or not.

I think what you're saying here is rather ignorant. Setting aside any logic, which isn't an important matter to consider, the important thing is whether the beliefs are true or not. If there is no good evidence for them then there isn't good reason to have them. The same is the case with religion. And religious beliefs are harmful. I think it does harm to think things are true without good reason and to live in a society where that is thought to be ok. If we have disrespect for poor thinking then it lets us cast a blind eye to all sorts that is thought and done for bad reasons. If people can believe in a being that created everything without good evidence then it is really isn't much a jump to claim other attributes, such as what it wants and wants for us. We all know the worst that religions can do. Some of the most far reaching are its general effects where people treat this life, to different extents, as somewhere to wipe their foot at before something better, which diminishes this one or it might result in 'believers' treating others less favourably on the basis of the poorly founded beliefs. The most important harm is that poor thinking when encouraged or thought benign allows it to permeate. Poor thinking is more likely to lead to poor decisions and actions. If someone says they belief in a God and they don't have anything to demonstrate why it exists or they have very poor evidence then we don't think they have lost their marbles but we recognise that they are being stupid in that one specific aspect of their thinking. The same is the case with conspiracy theory stuff. The claims and implications of that claim are extraordinary. If someone has good evidence then that's great but the very fact of something being conspiracy and few hundred, or whatever, reckoning they have the truth seems absurd on face because if the evidence was so compelling then it wouldn't be the belief of a few hundred.

You're hopping from COVID vaccinations to all vaccinations and now putting fluoride in the water. Why not come at this the other way and explain what you think is going on. What's the purpose? And is it the most effecrive or one of the most effective means to achieve that purpose? If not, why is it still happening? I think vaccinations work because there is little else to explain why so many diseases are now uncommon in Europe and the fewer people getting vaccinated today seems to account for the reported higher numbers of measles cases. And if vaccinations were not effective, the number of people who would have needed to collude in a secret or partial-secret would be so many to make the idea of a conspiracy or lie rather ridiculous. Additionally, the science behind vaccines isn't complicated and should make sense to anyone who can understand some basics of biology. As for fluoridation, I don't actually know whether it is definitive that fluoridation of water provides a clear-cut benefit. I hear and read that the thinking is that it does provide more benefits. But to lump it in with vaccinations seems strange. That points to you thinking there is a connection and, again, some form of conspiracy. I think you have to go to the root of things to understand the role and purpose of government and what is possible. But you began this thread with a strange anti-government video. It's strange because it point to Marxist thinking as the cause. It completely misunderstands Marxism. And the thought of all these people and organisations behind influenced by Marxism, especially when countries like the USA and UK as less socialist now in the last 80 years is really bizarre. It's the paranoia of a minority of ignorant and undereducated Americans. It's a type of capitalist propaganda.

It would be more helpful for you explain what you believe and think is probable and do this by starting at one point at a time. Easier to do that than offer up reading for other people, as the reader takes the risk of wasting their time. I think the best place to start is how people got sick in 2020. Why do you think it happened, who do you think was behind it, what organisations and people were behind it and what was their motivation.

There are few who would take an interest in these societies other than missionaries and anthropologists. Back in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, the gifts of European of culture, religions and scientific advancement were all largely incidental to the economic reasons for why the Europeans were there. I suppose these African countries have a lot running against them in allowing their nations to be viable.

If WW2 never happened then it's impossible to predict what the world would have looked like. Without a replacement of the League of Nations and without an European collective, Germany would quickly became the dominant European power. It would have wanted to be a greater international player. That would have conflicted with British and French desires so maybe a world war would have been inevitable. And the United States would have edged Britain and France out of the way as world policemen, despite American isolationism. Who knows. Maybe the United States and Britain could have gone to war. Who knows.

What do you mean by British standing being assured? Britain and France would have declined in power in any case. WW2 only accelerated the decline. Britain wouldn't have been able to hold on to it's empire much longer than it did, I think. Although it would have had more funds to fight againsr resistance to rule, the scope of resistance would only have increased as nationalism would have strengthened. The idea of a benign trading system is very radical. Even if Britain didn't colonise, Britain was not a benign power. Look at the Opium and Arrow Wars. A capitalist nation seeks to advance it's interests above all others with the interests of private power being paramount. Or if you mean that the so-called benevolence of an imperialist presence shouldn't have singular then the problem with that is that it is based upon a racist understanding of other cultures. All the European countries saw themselves as superior in how they lived and managed their affairs. There certainly were terrible injustices and practices in many regions around the world and many of these were made illegal but these regions didn't need to be 'lifted up'. Maybe you could say that Britain or another country could have imposed democracy and liberalism but then that would never have happened. And I think part of the reason why imperial possessions were abandoned wasn't just about the cost of armed forces and governance and fighting to retain governmental control but because it wasn't necessary. If you can control trade by having a compliant trading partner then that's the most important thing for your country.

I don't know the details of what sort of regulations were warranted following the 2008 financial crisis but my understanding was that more regulation was needed. Are the wrong things being regulated? Or has it gone too far?

It's already in existence. The problem is that different people are on different tenancy agreements. Is that fair?

I don't think COVID is a big subject in the way that you suggest. There is a difference with how COVID was responded to and how prepared nations were and the role pharmaceuticals play in profiting from it but focusing in on germ warfare stuff along the lines of conspiracy is not a big topic. And maybe my last point will help explain why... ...because millions of people are not waking up to the idea that leaders have their best interests at heart. Many people do think that that's the case but we tend to call those people foolish or uneducated. In the USA, many working class people are so uneducated and fed propaganda through the media they truly think that Donald Trump or Biden wants what's best for them. I doubt there are many who thinks Sunak has their interests at heart. These leaders are self-serving and serve private-business interests because that's where power lies and where influence can easily be wielded. But these leaders don't run government and don't themselves singularly or almost singularly decide on law and policy. It's all the other people who are self serving and can be influenced through lobbying etc. That's not conspiracy. That's how the world works. People have very little opportunity to exercise their views and effect change on their government, those in power are self serving and corporate power undermines the popular will. People are either educated about these facts or not. But chasing stuff about COVID is not useful. And it doesn't even make sense, except in one aspect. If there was a conspiracy to fabricate the disease in some way then the outcome of eroding civil liberties with lockdowns and making people used to that degree of government power could be seen to be a useful outcome. But the problem with that line of thinking is that government don't need to do that. People are so educarionally impoverished, especially in Britain, that people are slow to move to violently protest and threaten the government and private power if a government decides to remove civil liberties. We see this with the Tories tinkering about with laws relating to freedom of speech. I think your efforts are better concentrated at looking at the obvious and real threat from the government about what is actually says and does rather than wondering what secrets are hidden.

The film and that sort of thinking starts with good values, such as freedom but quickly departs into the sort of superficial political and historical understanding that the current republican party wants to push on Americans. It's just like fox news except a little more extreme. When you look at the erosion of freedoms and problems with the economy then you look for what's obvious, which is where power lies. But because this sort of stuff in the film is made by people who have indoctrinated to think that capitalism is good then they don't look at corporate power and it's effects on government decision-making. And they don't realise that you don't have to be anti-capitalist to have a big problems with how corporate power is destroying democracy and eroding freedoms. To put it all down to communism and socialism, especially when the working class has so little education on working class politics, is completely ridiculous.

I don't know. Why are you asking me? If you're asking because of what I said about legality then I'm asking whether it is legal to tell a tenant that you do doing away with their contract and putting them on a means-tested one. If you can't just do that then it doesn't matter what you'd like in society, it's a legal matter.

Just wondering if that's legal actually. If the Housing Division says you have to move out to a nearby house because it is being renovated and then move back in, shouldn't they tenant be moved back in on the same terms as before? I don't know but that's how it is done anyway. I don't think there is any way of forcing existing open-ended tenancy holders onto a five-year tenancy or it is too politically confrontational to do so.

Public housing people are either on open-ended tenancy agreements or fixed term. Fixed term contracts came in about six years ago, I think, so income and occupancy is means tested. But the people on the older tenancy agreements are never means tested. Maybe there was an intention to put everyone on them from people moving out or people dying. Though when someone is told to move out to another property for renovation and where they move back to the home, the local authority ends their tenancy contract, gives them a new fixed term one for the short stay and then put them on another five year tenancy for once they are moving back into their old home. The same is true is someone wants to change their name. The local authority will only recognise the name change if a new contract term is agreed to. I dont know how long it will be until everyone has a fixed term tenancy. I think in many parts of the UK they did it for a while and then stopped.

It's not eye-opening. If you take the content of that film seriously then you're either uneducated on politics and history, a bit thick or maybe new to conspiracy or maybe a mix of those. The film starts off by seeming to say nothing outlandish or controversial except for some misunderstandings of socialism and fascism and then launches into a ridiculous presentation of communism and communism being behind globalism, gender questions, corporate social responsibility and protests about problems in society. The only thing emotionally moving about it is that many people are so uneducated in America that they might watch it and think it is true based on misconceptions they have about their society and political and economic system.

And that's all 3FM is. The news repeated constantly throughout the day and the same 50 songs played in a different order each day.

I think the starting point isn't about common purpose but rather a inclination to attribute sentience to the occurrence and manifestation of (powerful) natural phenomena. And this idea of sentience behind things has generally led to them being seen as Gods and having anthropomorphic qualities. I would assume that with the idea of there being beings that control and act in the world then follows the ideas people come to have of what these beings want, need or desire, e.g. how to placate them or keep them on their good side. And the other side to that is the assumption that if they control such powerful things then they must be so powerful to need worship. Possibly the hierarchical structure in human communities and societies bolsters this idea of something or some things that are at the apex. Once people start adding values and character to these magical creatures then you start getting into religions being formed. I think it's more of an aspect of our humanity in being prone to thinking about things poorly and then also to resist better thinking. But even in our society, we haven't yet got to a stage where we treat irrational beliefs with ridicule and rejection. I hope the bit about the limited liability company is entirely a joke.

Though it may successful, in the sense of how much it is used, I don't understand how its benefits outweigh the risks. Again, I don't see how it provides much of a benefit in comparison to the possibilities and likelihoods of a data breach. Maybe I am exaggerating the risks. Maybe they're not holding anything unique and more sensitive than the data held by many other companies where there have been and will be many breaches.

But the problem.with morality in Christianity is that it is not a religion founded on good morals. It explicitly condones slavery and the stories of the Ark, Abraham and Isaac, Tower of Babel, the snake in the Garden, most or all of the commandments are things we wouldn't see as good when we think about them more. With L.H., from what I understand of Christianity, which is from reading that which is plainly stated in the Bible, things like homosexuality are stated as being immoral. I think the Living Hole is more scripturally conformist than many other churches around that we are more used to. When I hear of churches marrying gay couples or having women priests it all sounds rather bizarre to me. It's cherry-picking. And if people don't hold to the Bible then what is the foundation for their Christianity? More made-up shit on the personal and shared belief of assuming what the (fictional) God is really like. But how is this known without the Bible as the foundation. It becomes so inconsistent and contradictory then it seems even more adjectly ridiculous than being fundamentalist. If I knew someone was having problems with their church and their acceptance of their sexuality, my conversation wouldn't be about trying to help them work to change their church or find another church; it would be about trying to be more rational and look for the truth. We don't need religion and the idea that it is ok because it makes people happy is ignorant. It ignores that a person isn't choosing to believe. They have become convinced and are better becoming unconvinced of the fiction and look for happiness in what is real.

But it's not so much a problem for some people. It affects very many of us. I know several people who are CofE Christians, Methodists.and other churches. I don't necessarily think they have poor critical reasoning abilities as a whole but they all abandon critical reasoning when it comes to Christianity. It's the same when people come out with tripe about their belief being that they think there is 'something there' and can't say no more about this to back it up. Some incredibly intelligent people are religious. I can't remember his name but one renowned biologist believes in intelligent design. It's seems hard to think that someone educated and intelligent can beliefs in the Christian God but if these people have bad reasons behind their beliefs and want to keep them then they hold on to them. When we live in a society where so many people want to hold on these children's toys because others around them hold on them then it is very easy to hop from one collection of nonsense beliefs to another. It's all about what people want to feel and nothing about the truth. The problem is for us all to be more rational and care more about the truth. It's not just a problem of a minority's vulnerable minds. I think the appeal with LIving Hope for many is that it does offer community, which is a wonderful thing. And for those who have bad thinking and believe in a God, it's a fresh-seeming and more hip form of Christianity. It seems to pull in a lot of people who liked New Age woo-woo. And I think a lot of south Africans love it because they have had the 'big church' and charismatic presence in their country for longer.

I think it does harm to have your point of view, which is a point of view shared by very many people, unfortunately. It is this view that it is ok for people to have irrational beliefs. It's not ok because it really does matter for us as individuals or as a society as to what is true or not. I genuinely think that because these sort of beliefs have the Christian label on them then people mistakenly think that they arent that bad and that's again because of the mistaken view that Christianity is moral and (somehow) has some credibility. It's not good to have irrational beliefs because the poor thinking behind having them naturally becomes a pattern of poor thinking that is used for all sorts of things. This applies to homeopathy, ghosts, horoscopes, gambling luck and all sorts of things, as common examples. But religion is particularly bad because people are doing things in their life based on stupid thinking. What a fucking waste. Even the thoughts they give to their fictional God are a waste of time. And if they think they are going to a better place then it only diminishes the value of this life. The problem is these people are convinced (for bad reasons) about their God and what they should do. They don't really have easy choices or choices at all when it comes to tithing because it is expected if themselves or they're expectations from others. This particular church is even more harmful to plain old CofE nonsense because this sort of neo-charismatic nonsense includes irrational, supernatural stuff like the laying on of hands to heal. They also seem to talk of Jesus even more so as something alive and tangible, which is certainly not good for mental health in believing you have an invisible friend.

Are loans on offer? I thought new businesses could get a loan from the government.

Am I missing something here with this DigitalID thing because I don't see the problem? What is wrong with using a physical ID? Yes, it can get lost but then it can be replaced. An identity card or even a passport or driving license isn't a problem to carry around for the several years it might be needed. You're 'lugging around'. Stick it in a coat. I just get the sense that there is a push to make so many things electronic but some of it isn't a solution. It makes money for people and gives people jobs to do in creating it but aren't the costs greater? I'm only thinking that this is just yet another place for data to be breached. If we are all resigned to the reality that our personal data is at risk and that this is not going to change soon then that's fine but I'm assuming the general desire that breaches shouldn't happen and should be prevented from happening.