|
I tried reading The Ancestor's Tale recently because the premise seemed interesting and it was covering something I wanted to know more about. But gently caress me, Dawkins can't give being his particular brand of smug atheist shitlord a rest for very long. You could picture him sitting there being all  and probably having a wank at how clever his checkmating of those pesky religionists was. Needless to say, I did not finish the book.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
ronya posted:demanding that Britain abandon meat and fruit is so far-fetched that I am not sure the argument that it is relevant to giving up the green belt Food independency isn't relevant either, but you brought that up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
ronya posted:yes it is - it would be an objective bad to try to scatter households all over England when UK manufacturing just doesn't need them any more to keep making more and more stuff. I think it is an objective bad to allow manufacturers to determine where people have to spend their lives, without any care for where people actually want to live, where their communities are, where the land is suitable, and so on. We should try to move the jobs, as well as people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Food independency isn't relevant either, but you brought that up. It was a reply to oh dear me
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
ronya posted:It was a reply to oh dear me It was an irrelevant reply to oh dear me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Zephro posted:I all kinds of don't get this, as a random diversion. It's always seemed strange that this forum is so full of defenders of organised religion. My best guess is that atheism/skepticism is in the ascendent culturally (at least among the young, educated Western people who make up most of the posters on SA) and so people want to kick back against it reflexively (which is really just a long-winded way of saying it's all about "gently caress you, Dad!"). But it's long struck me as really odd. I'm currently going through Zizek's Violence, and there's a really good bit in chapter 3 that takes a look at the ways in which science (or rather, SCIENCE, BITCHES!!  of reddit/imgur fame) is the new religion in the sense of offering the same sense of comfort and security that religion always used to, while religion (or Abrahmic ones at least) is the new place to be for doubters and those who question the world and the way it's going. (anecdotally, most of the more philosophical people I've met have either been clergy-in-training or regular churchgoers, though the fact of my living in the northwest may be introducing some skew)"Religion" in the opiate-of-the-masses sense, it turns out, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with contextualising one's life via god(s). You're probably right that the larger part of the goon response is just reactionary though. Renaissance Robot fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I think it is an objective bad to allow manufacturers to determine where people have to spend their lives, without any care for where people actually want to live, where their communities are, where the land is suitable, and so on. We should try to move the jobs, as well as people. may I remind you that your own argument was to sanctify the choices of manufacturers to determine where people have to spend their lives - not even existing manufacturers, but those of the past century, just because that's where their old housing stock was accumulated? We can certainly move jobs and people. We could move them to London, Birmingham, and Manchester (and Edinburgh, if they don't secede). That might get in the way of a certain green belt, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
There's also at least one atheist cult, which is its own special brand of hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
ronya posted:may I remind you that your own argument was to sanctify the choices of manufacturers to determine where people have to spend their lives - No it wasn't, do give over. I suggested that we should set a limit on our desire for housing and consider tackling its distribution, and that building on agricultural land is undesirable because we're going to need more food. None of that entails refusing ever to pull a house down and build one elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:No it wasn't, do give over. I suggested that we should set a limit on our desire for housing and consider tackling its distribution, and that building on agricultural land is undesirable because we're going to need more food. None of that entails refusing ever to pull a house down and build one elsewhere. Clearly you aren't seeing the true potential of the land: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyL5mAqFJds&t=33s
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Wolfsbane posted:There's also at least one atheist cult, which is its own special brand of hilarious. Oh poo poo, now I feel really bad for finding the first few chapters of Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality entertaining. Is there nothing the UKMT can't ruin?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:No it wasn't, do give over. I suggested that we should set a limit on our desire for housing and consider tackling its distribution, and that building on agricultural land is undesirable because we're going to need more food. None of that entails refusing ever to pull a house down and build one elsewhere. ... wait, why is the conversion of residential areas back to agricultural and agricultural areas to residential necessarily a process that must happen at the same time, to keep the quantity of housing conserved? This is a bizarre conclusion from an argument to value agricultural land in the future, which I trust was your point?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
ronya posted:This is a bizarre conclusion from an argument That was a bizarre conclusion to an argument. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
... NO U. Or something.
ronya fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
I think people were argung at cross purposes in the last page. Green belt does not mean agricultural land. Lots of it is quite simply waste ground.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
I agree that dawkins has become a bit embarrassing but we are shielded in england in every day life from most of the religious craziness. We are very lucky in that respect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Have they, though? I can think of a lot of left-leaning clerics and ministers over the last century - MLK and Desmond Tutu being two prime examples. Wilberforce was not at all left-leaning. For example, he was upset about women getting involved in abolitionism because he thought it was inappropriate (especially because most of these women were a lot more radical when it came to opposing slavery than him). Generally he was pretty drat conservative. this isnt really relevant edit: also I want to thank Something Awful for curing me of my embarrassing militant teenage atheism. I am so grateful, although nothing can cure me of the shame I feel for once having been a fan of Dawkins. Don't blame me, I was young and didn't know better. Not a Twat fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Jippa posted:I agree that dawkins has become a bit embarrassing but we are shielded in england in every day life from most of the religious craziness. We are very lucky in that respect. They just found 800 dead babies and children in the septic tank of one of the nun led homes for unwed mothers in Ireland, dating from between 1925 and 1961. I'm pretty sure there's posters in this thread born before 1961 - it's not a long time ago at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Dawkinschat:  http://i.imgur.com/oAct3v7.png
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:They just found 800 dead babies and children in the septic tank of one of the nun led homes for unwed mothers in Ireland, dating from between 1925 and 1961. I'm pretty sure there's posters in this thread born before 1961 - it's not a long time ago at all. Also, we just had a religiously driven PM that took us to war in a foreign country based purely on religious dogma (remember, it was blair that pushed bush to invade iraq, NOT the other way around)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Dawkinschat: If Steve Irwin had said that it'd be chuckles and back pats all round. Oh Steve, you so crazy for watching animals go at it 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:They just found 800 dead babies and children in the septic tank of one of the nun led homes for unwed mothers in Ireland, dating from between 1925 and 1961. I'm pretty sure there's posters in this thread born before 1961 - it's not a long time ago at all. I saw that as well but England is a different country to Ireland? How is that relevant?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:If Steve Irwin had said that it'd be chuckles and back pats all round. Oh Steve, you so crazy for watching animals go at it Wait, he's a biologist, why are we surprised he's observed fruit flies having sex?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
i have no idea what his intention was by saying that, but whatever it was, i intend to condemn him for it this circle ain't gonna jerk itself y'know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:They just found 800 dead babies and children in the septic tank of one of the nun led homes for unwed mothers in Ireland, dating from between 1925 and 1961. I'm pretty sure there's posters in this thread born before 1961 - it's not a long time ago at all. The skeletons in the septic tank were actually found in 1975. It's only news now because it took this long for a historian to go through the paperwork and put numbers to the unmarked dead from the Tuam orphanage. The reason it was ignored for so long is that literally no one local gave a poo poo about the orphanage children, because their mothers were poor unmarried women. Plus it's not like they had to give them decent burials, if they were unbaptised neonates then they couldn't be buried on consecrated ground anyway.  For added Catholic church horribleness in a non-British country, check out the Duplessis orphans! what the christ seriously I'm going to have to reaffirm that we've been lucky with religions in Britain, especially when it comes to non-conformist churches.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Wait, he's a biologist, why are we surprised he's observed fruit flies having sex? Not only that he's a biologist, but a significant part of his academic stuff is on flies, and Drosophila in particular.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
The funny part is the canine sixty-nine… sixty-canine?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:We need food, we are going to need lots more food, and we have a steadily diminishing amount of soil. Building on our agricultural land is a terrible idea. I have read Dorling's book, and found his emphasis on bedrooms per capita kind of jarring given his incessant ranting about the iniquities of the bedroom tax and these two points from his "how to fix things" section: quote:4. Spare bedrooms should not be taxed. Every family should be able to live in a home with a spare room for visitors. London currently has 1.01 bedrooms per person; even allowing for the fact that some people share bedrooms, it'd need a substantial housebuilding program to satisfy the goal of giving every family a home with a spare room, particularly given its ongoing population growth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Not a Twat posted:Wilberforce was not at all left-leaning. For example, he was upset about women getting involved in abolitionism because he thought it was inappropriate (especially because most of these women were a lot more radical when it came to opposing slavery than him). Generally he was pretty drat conservative. Fair enough - I meant to refer specifically to his abolitionism, which certainly was religiously motivated, but admittedly that wasn't the only facet of his worldview.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
TinTower posted:The funny part is the canine sixty-nine… sixty-canine? 483 in dog years LemonDrizzle posted:London currently has 1.01 bedrooms per person; even allowing for the fact that some people share bedrooms, it'd need a substantial housebuilding program to satisfy the goal of giving every family a home with a spare room, particularly given its ongoing population growth. Haven't read it or anything, but are you sure his point isn't that a family should be able to live in a house with a spare room, not that every family should have one? So more about covering that demand where it exists, and not penalising people for it baka kaba fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
TinTower posted:The funny part is the canine sixty-nine… sixty-canine? 60-K9 LemonDrizzle posted:I have read Dorling's book, and found his emphasis on bedrooms per capita kind of jarring given his incessant ranting about the iniquities of the bedroom tax and these two points from his "how to fix things" section: The other thing that should be noted as well though is that there is a huge tax break on new-build over renovation or refurbishment. This put a big damper on any development where there is an existing structurre which is already more expensive to deal with. In addition I don't think building houses in what would be zone 7 is an answer to people wanting or needing to work in London. Just commuting time and transport capacity wise you're starting to hit certain limits where it would be better to encourage new hubs rather than try to push the current one further.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
mfcrocker posted:First 32 people drawn at http://antlab.co.uk/sweepstake/c/b2ca35c6.html Any idea when the second lot will be drawn?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Fluo posted:Any idea when the second lot will be drawn? Group 2 is up to 21. I'll draw it Sunday night.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I'm in on the thing 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Cerv posted:I think people were argung at cross purposes in the last page. [citation needed] because by my very unscientific sampling most of the London green belt seems to be agricultural (dairy in Essex and Herts, arable in Kent and Surrey - the area between the M25 and the Medway is still some of the most productive agricultural land in Europe). It also tends to have lovely transport links so absent massive infrastructure works all you're going to do is send even more traffic into central London. And as I've said the people who want to build on green belt aren't looking to make loads of nice new starter homes for the working class, they want to make yet more endless suburbia for the upper-middle class to flee from the dark-skinned centre of town to. The housing shortage is enforced scarcity. There's room to build in London, absolutely shitloads of it. Here's a simple example - the area of Bromley-by-Bow between the A102 and Manor Road is basically wasteland, with a population of about a thousand, but is almost as large as the Isle of Dogs, population 50,000. But even with big incentives from Newham and Tower Hamlets councils, with the exception of a couple of really poorly-planned Olympic-area developments up at the north end, it's seen no development whatsoever in the last 40 years. It's served by the Jubilee and District lines and DLR, meaning it's at most twenty minutes from anywhere in central London or Canary Wharf. There's massively intensive development happening literally on its borders around Langdon Park, Bow, Stratford and Blackwall but Bromley is still basically scrap yards and self-storage places. Why doesn't anyone want to build there? Because it's not sexy. It's just that simple. Developers aren't putting houses where people need them, or where it would be cheap and easy to build, they're putting them where everyone else is putting them to chase the micro-bubbles as they appear (compare the north and south sides of Bow Road past the Bow flyover). It's almost as if relying on The Market to provide is what's causing everything that's wrong with the London housing market...
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
maybe nobody's building there because the whole triangle has already been slated for a future green corridor park which the area will need as it becomes denser and wealthier, anyway. You can't demand that everyone take the tube to central London just to get access to large public parks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
Can you really expect developers to put houses where people don't want them? Considering hundreds of the Olympic village houses are still empty it seems entirely unsurprising that companies are not lining up to build in Bromley and similar spaces. If suburban developments are what people are buying, why shouldn't we produce more?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
Tiran Dirth posted:Can you really expect developers to put houses where people don't want them? Considering hundreds of the Olympic village houses are still empty it seems entirely unsurprising that companies are not lining up to build in Bromley and similar spaces. If suburban developments are what people are buying, why shouldn't we produce more? because giving any time at all to concerns of "the market" is stupid as gently caress, and will always be stupid as gently caress, and we really should have figured out by now that we have to actually plan things and create affordable housing, even if it isn't the poo poo hot profit maker. ronya posted:maybe nobody's building there because the whole triangle has already been slated for a future green corridor park Let me cry sad, sad tears about the wealthy people having to get a tube to get to a park, going past affordable housing as they do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
How long has the lack of housing been going on? Someone posted election posters from the Thatcher era, I believe, which promised building 200k houses a year. Have we really been underbuilding since the 80s? Correct me if I'm wrong in this assessment but housing value is an albatross around the neck of the working class in the UK. Whilst the post war and Thatcher generations have done well out of them anyone from the mid 80s are getting bled monthly for the profit of rentiers and stare at 40 year mortages. If you're a property owner it's been the best investment around but has been a huge redistribution of wealth in the living costs of the working class to property owners. I've been through three houses in six years so I love the cost of it in the south 
Carecat fucked around with this message at 12:46 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
the road protests ended the Thatcher-era plan for housing, which was to make more suburbia and then put bigger and bigger roads to them. No highways, so no housing. In any case they were hardly attached to the idea as is, so when certain elements decided to try and hold highways hostage in order to bargain for social services funding, they happily shot the hostage and the funding (thirty years on, this strategy does not seem like one of Britain's best political choices). If neither cabinet nor the local governments are enthusiastic, nothing's going to happen. the modern plan for affordable housing has settled on a model of obliging developers to add on affordable units to projects. I think the political acceptability of this has a shelf-life, though. The legitimization of poor-and-rich adjacency is familiar to London, since scattering cheaply-built affordable housing is what local authorities have done over the past century so it's the status quo, but it's unfamiliar to American cities, which instead use intense rent ceilings and de facto abandonment of urban policing to enforce urban affordability. So it is almost certainly going to detonate across the pond in the next decade, and then the politics will flow back here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 12:52
|
|