In the news

Some of the change could come from the soil underneath the GPS stations becoming compacted by the water’s weight. But because some stations located on bedrock also experienced the depression, he believed that the key mechanism was crust deformation. It’s also possible, he elaborated, that some areas outside Houston were pushed up by the way the water squished the Houston crust.

O_0

Squishy crusts... So not necessarily the plate tipping or being pushed into the earth, but the crust itself being swished. And perhaps more capacity to be squashed because underlying aquifers have been drained. The bit about the The Gorges Dam causing local earthquakes is interesting/awesome/disturbing too.

Have we had this yet - Tories have tabled a motion to give them a majority on all HoC committees so they can get their legislation through despite having a minority;

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_59b1a514e4b0dfaafcf68a04

Put this alongside the massive transfer of power from the legislative to executive branch of government encapsulated in their EU Withdrawal Bill and we have, effectively, a silent coup in progress.

I urge everyone, irrespective of your political affiliation, to raise concerns about this with your MP. If this is taking back control then it is massively undemocratic.

My MP is DUP, FFS.

But let me waste some bits on it via the writetothem website.

Edit: Wrote my point is that the DUP can also be brushed aside then, and we lose what representation we have in Westminster. They are sneaky bastards the DUP, I give them that. So they may vote against for that reason.

Fascinating about Houston now being 2cm lower because of the water weight. It's amazing how these natural events affect the actual planet. Kind of like how the 2004 earthquake/tsunami sped-up the earths rotation and made days slightly shorter...

Newlywed sister (as of Sunday) is on honeymoon in Mexico. Well done sis. Honeymoon is in Cancun so waiting to hear from them no injuries.

During a high tide its reported parts of the wirral rise by at least 6 cm.
University fact.

Rees-Mogg is weird, clever but weird. His views on abortion and gays are due to him being a Roman Catholic. If he were Islamic he would hold the same views, so are we being "prejudiced" or should we be more tolerant of his position on these subjects ?

I'd hazard a guess and say those views are more to do with him being a cunt. I'm not religious but know plenty of people who are, it's not an excuse.

http://road.cc/content/news/228969-reading-cyclist-died-after-pedestrian-stepped-out-front-him-finds-inquest

I'd like the manslaughter, and furious walking, charges please.

I'd say people are less prejudiced against him because he holds religious views; rather because they think that those views (were they held by anybody) are incompatible with the job he wants?

Also, he's not exactly the most attractive character to huge swathes of the population.

If he were Islamic he would hold the same views, so are we being "prejudiced" or should we be more tolerant of his position on these subjects ?

This whole "you're fine with Muslims being bigots, but not white people" augment that gets trotted out by the alt right is so basic.

So-called "liberals" don't think being a bigot is fine as long as your brown. They think that you shouldn't make mass (often false) generalisations and pejorative statements about a large group of people. Not all Muslims want to throw gay people off roofs. Lots of them drink, have premarital sex, and all sorts of other things that are prohibited depending on your particular beliefs and how much you think it's necessary to adhere to them... just like Jews or RCs.

... it's almost as if people aren't binary entities who all fall into one of two extremes.

Personally I don't have any issue with JRM holding views informed by his religious beliefs. It's a free country. The point I start objecting is when he uses them to inform his political actions. While it makes sense that his personal informs his political, once you move into the political you're open to criticism. It would be the same whatever denomination he was.

Equally I think it's important to understand that you can have a moral view that runs counter to your opinion on a policy one. For eg, personally I think it's hard to make a sound moral/philosophical case for abortion. However, from a legal and policy perspective I don't think that ranks as a decision factor. Therefore, were I in the position, it wouldn't effect my voting on a bill.

Also the starting point in any discussion is that you should be tolerant of peoples views. You should listen to them, weigh them up on their logic and any evidence available, then form a conclusion.

I've listened to lots of peoples' views on gay marriage and taken them on board. I've yet to hear a convincing one. I'd like to use a cullender analogy, but unfortunately that implies some sort of structure around the holes.

From my experience in NI, being tolerant towards people that are happy to vote against human rights (the abortion law in NI violates this)
and
against other people enjoying freedoms the state gives to others (LGBT marriage) is a bad idea.

Anybody that can't separate their personal views and votes accordingly as he does is the thin end of the wedge. The Catholic PM of France that signed the abortion law or the Dutch Calvinist that signed off the euthanasia laws he ain't.

It's a bit simple to say Islamic people always hold those views...there are dominantly Muslim countries where abortion laws are more liberal than his views. Liberal Catholics also really don't agree with him, he's parroting only the stance of the RCC which can go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Anybody that can't separate their personal views and votes accordingly as he does is the thin end of the wedge.

I agree think this poses a problem.

One challenge people like JRM face when they claim their religious beliefs inform their moral and voting framework* is that others can then hold you to that.

I wasn't brought up an RC and don't have an in depth knowledge of their interpretation of the scriptures. However, from what I can see there are a number of areas of his life and voting record which are not consistent with what I would view as a christian lifestyle.

*assuming he's said this. As in fairness I haven't read the transcript so have no idea what he actually said in full in the interview that kicked it off.

Will he leave for the same reason as Tim Farron did? (personal religious views are a distraction to the politics, it's for the good of the party etc)

One can only hope.

I find him odd as he despises the EU and its meddlin' rules, but claims to put the rules of the Vatican before anything else. Which isn't an unelected bunch of Europeans issuing rules to honest John Bull.

As a male I will (probably) never be in the position of growing a new human inside me. Therefore I cannot consider nor expect my opinion/belief should be a deciding factor for anyone who is in that position.

Edit: Same stance as being not-gay.

It's irrelevant what scripture says, every religion makes it up as they go along.
Some people emphasize the socialist and tolerant bits of the Bible, some the authoritarian bits.

When we think what a Christian lifestyle is, we aren't even sure as the Bible is so conflicting. The nicene creed is the "sorta" official rule, but that only tells you that you need to accept and belief in God/Jesus not the details. You could perhaps argue he goes against the RCC rules with his stance on other things, but then I look at what the Vatican does and ermm...

But informally Christianity is linked with helping others/non-violence, which he's clearly not that bothered with...

TL:DR he's only in it for himself if you ask me

Heh. Very good point.

I think all but the most fundamentalist people who consider themselves religious do at least some degree of cherry-picking of what their religion tells them to think. Everyone can agree with "love thy neighbour", but I believe most people use their basic sense of human empathy to inform their moral outlook, and use it to trump the more abhorrent elements that are found in their Big Book. (My dad's a pretty liberal "practising" Catholic; I gave it up about the age of 12, when I decided that the stuff I was spouting in Mass was complete bollocks.)

How many Catholics genuinely believe that abortion should not be allowed, even in the case of rape? To hold on to this view, in my mind, strongly suggests a lack of human empathy. Or in other words, I firmly believe that regardless of his stated religious beliefs, JRM is basically a bit of a cunt.

I think we all cherry pick, otherwise life becomes unlivable.

It's the "I'm religious* so my views are immune to human rights/evidence and should have a special place in government" that annoys me.

*and if atheists go off on one on that, and want to ban religion I'm against it too. Funny enough though there's a stigma against being openly atheist in the UK in politics...and against being openly gay too.

Steady. That sounded dangerously reasonable.

We don't like reason round here.

His views are due to him being a bigot.
I am, personally, prejudiced against bigots.
However they wrap it up.

Moggs record on voting to help people less fortunate than himself is pretty dreadful. So it looks like he's picking and choosing the parts of his faith that also a line with being a general Tory cunt.

During a high tide its reported parts of the wirral rise by at least 6 cm.

Because rich, fat ex Scousers get the Ferry across the Mersey to Liverpool?

It's the "I'm religious* so my views are immune to human rights/evidence and should have a special place in government" that annoys me.

If you're interested in a well argued counter to your view* then give this a listen :

A Point of View - The Religion of Rights - @bbcradio4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b092gkks

Definitely not where I'd usually sit. But I'm trying harder to take on board differing views. The 100mph nutters that make up the right and inarticulate angry rants of *c*onservatives make it hard, so it's always good when you come across something more normal.

*or at least what I assume your views are