No Fault Evictions

[Yorkieguy]

Eternal life or eternal damnation?

A central platform of Christianity is that if we live by the bible and do everything in this life on earth as God would expect of us, we will pass over and have eternal life in heaven. Conversely, if we transgress, we will burn in hell for an eternity. Think about that for a moment. Why would believers ever put a foot wrong in this brief life on earth, and not only put at risk eternal life in heaven but would incur the wrath of God and be confined to hell.

But they don’t believe that do they?

if they really and truly did believe it, as they claim to, they would behave in quite a different manner from the rest of us. And given that America has by far the highest level of ‘religiosity' in the developed world, it would stand out as the most law-abiding haven of peace, love and tranquillity - the ‘shining city of the hill’ that evangelical Christians believe that it is, and something we all should aspire to.

The reverse is true – America stands out as the most dysfunctional country in the developed world.

‘High Religiosity and Societal Dysfunction in the United States during the First Decade of the Twenty-First Century’.

A study by Gregory S. Paul's, a social scientist, provides independent empirical evidence that bears upon the truth or falsity of the relationships between levels of religiosity and societal dysfunction by findings, published in the Journal of Religion and Society (2005), Free Inquiry (2008), and Evolutionary Psychology (2009). It demonstrated that high degrees of theism in America are associated with high degrees of societal dysfunction.

Gregory Paul used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions. According to the research. belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems and can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.

The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

It compares the social performance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

The paper reports: “Many Americans believe that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

However, Paul's empirical inquiries have uncovered the country's exceptionalness in a much less flattering sense: It is unique among 17 prosperous Western industrialized democracies as being the most dysfunctional in terms of a wide variety of measures of societal health, including having the highest rates of homicide; incarceration; infant and juvenile mortality, teen pregnancies, STD infection rates, and abortions. Its population also evidences poorer physical health and shorter life expectancies than might be predicted on the basis of the country's enormous comparative wealth advantages as measured by its Gross Domestic Product.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491000800407

America is not really a 'Democracy' it's a 'Theocracy'.

Sure you could become president if you're young, (Kennedy, Clinton), if you're old (Trump, Biden), if you're black (Obama), maybe if you're female (Hilary Clinton), or possibly even black and female (Kamala Harris?). But if you were any of those and were an atheist - not a chance. You'd be considered Satan's spawn. (Notwithstanding that 1 in 4 Americans (80 million) believe that humans exist without God's involvement). The irony of calling an atheist 'Satan's spawn' is that to an atheist, it isn't an insult, because they no more believe in Satan, than in any other supernatural being, including God.

'Sunday Morning Christians':

 

[Billy_wizz]

Nobody proposes capping wealth.

The post I commented on does!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Nobody proposes capping wealth.

In Jacobs world no one would be able to accumulate wealth on which to place a cap.

 

[Jacob]

In Jacobs world no one would be able to accumulate wealth on which to place a cap.

You've completely missed the point as usual - wealth is not a problem, but poverty is, and in so many ways, starting with underfunded NHS for example.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...poverty-in-britain-desperation-in-plain-sight

 

[woodieallen]

Tim Harford in the FT has this to say about 'misinformation' and I think makes some very good points.

https://www.ft.com/content/4b2ee578-0085-465f-b112-e8ad9061f14b

 

[McAldo]

Tim Harford in the FT has this to say about 'misinformation' and I think makes some very good points.

https://www.ft.com/content/4b2ee578-0085-465f-b112-e8ad9061f14b

Thanks, that was interesting to read.

 

[Jacob]

Tim Harford in the FT has this to say about 'misinformation' and I think makes some very good points.

https://www.ft.com/content/4b2ee578-0085-465f-b112-e8ad9061f14b

Seems to be excusing "social media" from responsibility, which is OK up to a point as "social media" implies not experts. And in my opinion, opinions, however appalling, are better out than in.
And it blames "political elites.... mainstream news sources" which is much nearer the mark and should be a major concern.
But "social media", such as this thread, is one place where opinions from above can get a good kicking!

 

[Spectric]

The Tories will come back to unpick Starmer's mismanagement...as usual. It's been a cyclic event for some decades.

That is the cycle that must be broken if the UK is to even begin to put the brakes on it's decline to 3rd world status let alone claw it's way back up to something that at least resembles a civilised society where we are at least safe on our streets. Just like the NHS which is no longer the right model for our current demands then Parliament is also not fit to be a model to run the country, to fix the NHS we need to fix parliament which means a total change.

Rather than trying to prove the existance of a superior being or force such as god, try from the other direction and prove that everything that exist is just coincidental and there was no design intent. As so called intelligent beings we cannot create even a simple plant or flower which has a relatively simple cell structure let alone a mammal so think about how without any form of intelligence that a human could be created.

 

[woodieallen]

Seems to be excusing "social media" from responsibility, which is OK up to a point as "social media" implies not experts. And in my opinion, opinions, however appalling, are better out than in.
And it blames "political elites.... mainstream news sources" which is much nearer the mark and should be a major concern.
But "social media", such as this thread, is one place where opinions from above can get a good kicking!

Suggest you take the blinkers off, Jacob, and actually read what he says rather than what you think he said.

 

[Jacob]

Suggest you take the blinkers off, Jacob, and actually read what he says rather than what you think he said.

What is it you think he said?
Did you read the last paragraph?
"When it comes to misinformation, social media companies surely have a case to answer. But they are not the only ones who should be looking in the mirror."
Who else does he think "should be looking in the mirror"?

 

[woodieallen]

What is it you think he said?
Did you read the last paragraph?
"When it comes to misinformation, social media companies surely have a case to answer. But they are not the only ones who should be looking in the mirror."
Who else does he think "should be looking in the mirror"?

It's your poor understanding of English.

He said "When it comes to misinformation, social media companies surely have a case to answer.". You've even quoted it.

But in your earlier post you said ..."Seems to be excusing "social media" from responsibility,". He implied nothing of the sort.

You will, naturally, ignore what I've just written and go off on another red herring.

 

[Jacob]

It's your poor understanding of English.

He said "When it comes to misinformation, social media companies surely have a case to answer.". You've even quoted it.

But in your earlier post you said ..."Seems to be excusing "social media" from responsibility,". He implied nothing of the sort.

You will, naturally, ignore what I've just written and go off on another red herring.

OK I should have written something like; Seems to be excusing "social media" from full or sole responsibility,"
The point he is making is that "political elites.... mainstream news sources" bear responsibility too.
This was obviously the case with Johnson and the Brexit fiasco, which he references, and other examples spring to mind.
Brexit was brought about by Cameron, (mega rich).
Coincidence but today we have the verdict on Cameron's "bonfire of the regulations" (Grenfell Tower) and 72 deaths of the less well off.
The propaganda for brexit came from a small elite of mega rich gamblers - and their newspapers, not from the people.
And was implemented by another vested interest, wealthy right-wing journalist and second-rate politician (Johnson) on a populist roll.
The people were not given a vote on the deal. And so on.

 

[Spectric]

No one can say that Starmer has not been somewhat lacking in the upfront and honesty stakes but gets full marks for probably the easiest election win ever. With some luck the party will turn on him and evict him from number ten but with good reason unlike those tennants who get evicted for complaining about the bad conditions their rental property is in.

 

[woodieallen]

OK I should have written something like; Seems to be excusing "social media" from full or sole responsibility,"
The point he is making is that "political elites.... mainstream news sources" bear responsibility too.
This was obviously the case with Johnson and the Brexit fiasco, which he references, and other examples spring to mind.
Brexit was brought about by Cameron, (mega rich).
Coincidence but today we have the verdict on Cameron's "bonfire of the regulations" (Grenfell Tower) and 72 deaths of the less well off.
The propaganda for brexit came from a small elite of mega rich gamblers - and their newspapers, not from the people.
And was implemented by another vested interest, wealthy right-wing journalist and second-rate politician (Johnson) on a populist roll.
The people were not given a vote on the deal. And so on.

Wriggle. Wriggle. Wriggle. Having been caught out, as predicted you, you try and deflect your gaff.

Enough. You’ve joined the Russian troll on the Ignore list.

 

[ey_tony]

The logic is inescapable. Would a diagram help?
Do you think enforced longer hours would increase employment numbers?
Actually it's not that simple because studies show that shorter hours tends to increase productivity.

If a business relies upon a 6 or 7 day a week trading cycle which many do, with a work force currently on a five day week, how do you suppose bringing in a four day week for workers will transpose into better productivity assuming that those workers are not also allowed to pick and choose hours to suit themselves which also looks like being invoked through law by this lunatic Starmer?

No doubt a four day week will suit many public sector workers but it won't suit the private sector business owners who are the ones who produce the majority of wealth for this country and for the taxes with which to pay public sector worker's wages.

All actions have consequences and the consequences in this case would unquestionably lead to higher inflation or even businesses closing down due to being uncompetitive due to the added costs of hiring extra staff.
Over manning, was an issue pre-Thatcher which made British industries uncompetitive and effectively dinosaurs...reducing the working week to four instead of five days where a business is set up for five day weeks will require larger staffing and unless the wages for the extra staff can be paid for through increased sales it will only result in higher product prices and inflation.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

If a business relies upon a 6 or 7 day a week trading cycle which many do, with a work force currently on a five day week, how do you suppose bringing in a four day week for workers will transpose into better productivity assuming that those workers are not also allowed to pick and choose hours to suit themselves which also looks like being invoked through law by this lunatic Starmer?

No doubt a four day week will suit many public sector workers but it won't suit the private sector business owners who are the ones who produce the majority of wealth for this country and for the taxes with which to pay public sector worker's wages.

All actions have consequences and the consequences in this case would unquestionably lead to higher inflation or even businesses closing down due to being uncompetitive due to the added costs of hiring extra staff.
Over manning, was an issue pre-Thatcher which made British industries uncompetitive and effectively dinosaurs...reducing the working week to four instead of five days where a business is set up for five day weeks will require larger staffing and unless the wages for the extra staff can be paid for through increased sales it will only result in higher product prices and inflation.

The nature of employment and work has changed rapidly, particularly over the last 70 years.

Jobs that have largely or almost entirely disappeared due to automation and demand changes - miners, steel workers, manufacturing, typists, telephone exchange operators, agricultural workers, dock workers, etc.

This has not generated long term mass unemployment, despite short term spikes as the balance between jobs and skills available is temporarily disrupted. Currently unemployment is ~4% - a level broadly reflecting natural stresses and movement within the job market.

Jobs that have largely evolved since 1950 include IT, media, marketing, retail, distribution, NHS and health care, etc.

That industrialisation would render jobs scarce and consign vast swathes to poverty has been a concern since the industrial revolution 200 years ago. Concerns have proven ill founded

A failure to embrace change is likely to lead to more negative outcomes as the benefits change can bring are unnecessarily delayed, and later transition made more challenging.

Four day weeks - employment norms will change, other skills will likely increase in demand as AI is rolled out, home working and connectivity removes the need for a five day office based working week for many. Total working hours and holidays will flex somewhat. Bring it on.

 

[Ozi]

The nature of employment and work has changed rapidly, particularly over the last 70 years.

Jobs that have largely or almost entirely disappeared due to automation and demand changes - miners, steel workers, manufacturing, typists, telephone exchange operators, agricultural workers, dock workers, etc.

This has not generated long term mass unemployment, despite short term spikes as the balance between jobs and skills available is temporarily disrupted. Currently unemployment is ~4% - a level broadly reflecting natural stresses and movement within the job market.

Jobs that have largely evolved since 1950 include IT, media, marketing, retail, distribution, NHS and health care, etc.

That industrialisation would render jobs scarce and consign vast swathes to poverty has been a concern since the industrial revolution 200 years ago. Concerns have proven ill founded

A failure to embrace change is likely to lead to more negative outcomes as the benefits change can bring are unnecessarily delayed, and later transition made more challenging.

Four day weeks - employment norms will change, other skills will likely increase in demand as AI is rolled out, home working and connectivity removes the need for a five day office based working week for many. Total working hours and holidays will flex somewhat. Bring it on.

There are jobs being advertised currently with the 4 day on 4 day off shift pattern presumably to cover this, I think I would find four ten hour days the perfect week in my circumstances, obviously it would not suit or be practical for everyone.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Iit won't suit the private sector business owners who are the ones who produce the majority of wealth for this country and for the taxes with which to pay public sector worker's wages.

... all of the wealth ...

ftfy.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

There are jobs being advertised currently with the 4 day on 4 day off shift pattern presumably to cover this, I think I would find four ten hour days the perfect week in my circumstances, obviously it would not suit or be practical for everyone.

A four day shift pattern is fine, but I believe the intention is to allow the choice of which four days, which of course is arrant nonsense.
I was a night manager - I'd have much preferred to do the night job by day.

 

[woodieallen]

The nature of employment and work has changed rapidly, particularly over the last 70 years.

Jobs that have largely or almost entirely disappeared due to automation and demand changes - miners, steel workers, manufacturing, typists, telephone exchange operators, agricultural workers, dock workers, etc.

This has not generated long term mass unemployment, despite short term spikes as the balance between jobs and skills available is temporarily disrupted. Currently unemployment is ~4% - a level broadly reflecting natural stresses and movement within the job market.

Jobs that have largely evolved since 1950 include IT, media, marketing, retail, distribution, NHS and health care, etc.

That industrialisation would render jobs scarce and consign vast swathes to poverty has been a concern since the industrial revolution 200 years ago. Concerns have proven ill founded

A failure to embrace change is likely to lead to more negative outcomes as the benefits change can bring are unnecessarily delayed, and later transition made more challenging.

Four day weeks - employment norms will change, other skills will likely increase in demand as AI is rolled out, home working and connectivity removes the need for a five day office based working week for many. Total working hours and holidays will flex somewhat. Bring it on.

Unlike you to be so out of touch.
Agricultural jobs disappeared due to automation? I think not. Due to ‘demand’ change? Wrong again. Not many Brits want to work in the fields and orchards. No foreign pickers. Hence a lot of orchards, for example, being grubbed up.

‘Vast swathes of poverty’ proven to be ill-founded. Might be the case in sunny Taunton but suggest you spend some time up in the North East.

And lets not forget Kneeler and his gang getting ready to grind the country down further into the mire.