Jump to content

Recommended Posts



Moral relativism is a brilliant concept. I would also like to take a nuanced view of the Holocaust, six million dead but the train service was top notch. The conquistadors in Latin America, millions dead from small pox but many now speak Spanish and where would they be without the church which justified slavery for the indigenous people.http://youtu.be/0S2NKlMW0vc

woodrot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> more idiots

>

> http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/60680000/jpg

> /_60680351_unionjackbowlerhat.jpg

>

> http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02238/

> BRITAIN-QUEEN_2238082k.jpg


Somehow I suspect you lie awake at night worrying that someone, somewhere is enjoying themselves.

Well Woody should worry about me then as I enjoy reading his somewhat OTT posts. As much as I find that I respect the Queen and quite like Phil, it's a bizarre world where people are born into a position of such authority and a lot of other people think it's great. It's actually just silly in my opinion. The royal family is really similar to an ongoing soap opera that people have grown attached to. That's about it.

Fabricio the Guido Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> Moral relativism is a brilliant concept. I would

> also like to take a nuanced view of the Holocaust,

> six million dead but the train service was top

> notch. The conquistadors in Latin America,

> millions dead from small pox but many now speak

> Spanish and where would they be without the church

> which justified slavery for the indigenous

> people.http://youtu.be/0S2NKlMW0vc


Try to be more nuanced in your responses please - this is pathetic.

woodrot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > RosieH Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Is it my imagination, or are people on here

> > > becoming more and more unhinged..?

> >

> > You want to pop over the the Guradian site and

> see

> > some of the mouth-frothing comments on there.

> The

> > 'republicanism is not dead' article is a

> > particularly wonderful collection of thoughts

> from

> > rationally challenged..

>

> TBF, if you want sense, then cat owning Guardian

> readers are probabaly not going to reap a

> bountiful harvest. Guardian readers are paper

> tigers.



Whereas you are a real tiger, are you tiger?

MM, does this count as a nuanced view? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100048709/the-history-of-british-india-will-serve-david-cameron-well-as-long-as-he-doesnt-talk-about-it/

It is from the Daily Telegraph after all


One of the links in the article is to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770. I won't insist that we consider this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 as there is still some dispute about the (British) administration's culpability.


I quote you:

"those of us capable of a more nuanced look at the world can see both the enormous benefits that came out of the Britsh Empire as well as the many negatives - tho' many of those negatives are only so in the light of today's mores and not, of themselves, absolutely wrong or evil."


and ask two questions

man-made famines - are these an example of what is no longer negative "in the light of today's mores and not, of themselves, absolutely wrong or evil."?

benefits of Empire - yes, of course there were/are many, but you seem to be using ends to justify means. Do I understand you correctly?


No longer so easy to defend Empire. Even the Queen's advisers suggest she lay it to rest http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/honours-list/9249069/Queen-should-take-the-Empire-out-of-our-honours-system-say-Lord-Lieutenants.html,

civilservant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> MM, does this count as a nuanced view?

> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/10004

> 8709/the-history-of-british-india-will-serve-david

> -cameron-well-as-long-as-he-doesnt-talk-about-it/

>

> It is from the Daily Telegraph after all

>

> One of the links in the article is to this -

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770

> . I won't insist that we consider this

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

> as there is still some dispute about the (British)

> administration's culpability.

>

> I quote you:

> "those of us capable of a more nuanced look at the

> world can see both the enormous benefits that came

> out of the Britsh Empire as well as the many

> negatives - tho' many of those negatives are only

> so in the light of today's mores and not, of

> themselves, absolutely wrong or evil."

>

> and ask two questions

> man-made famines - are these an example of what is

> no longer negative "in the light of today's mores

> and not, of themselves, absolutely wrong or

> evil."?

> benefits of Empire - yes, of course there were/are

> many, but you seem to be using ends to justify

> means. Do I understand you correctly?

>

> No longer so easy to defend Empire. Even the

> Queen's advisers suggest she lay it to rest

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/honours-lis

> t/9249069/Queen-should-take-the-Empire-out-of-our-

> honours-system-say-Lord-Lieutenants.html,



Marginally more nuanced but it appears you still wish to paint the British Empire and all its works as irredeemably a bad thing. It wasn't. You misunderstand me - I was not trying to defend the indefensible, but trying to point out to those, such as Woodrot, that the world cannot be divided into Good / Bad; Right / Wrong; Left; Right as he seems to believe.


I did not say that the wrongs you raise as examples are simply seen as wrong by today's standards. Indeed I was trying to make the point that at least in certain instances the British recognised that they were in the wrong and started to change matters.


Remember Britain disengaged from what was then known as the Empire in a remarkably democratic fashion, handing over power and authority to the citizens of the many countries that now make up the Commonwealth, itself a positive organisation that is both democratic and a force for good in this world. Britain's handover didn't work well everywhere - the partition of India was clearly badly judged and mishandled, many African states fell into corruption and dictatorships but Britain didn't try to defend the impossible as France and Belgium did.

Thank you, MM, "marginally more nuanced" - I'm sure that the Daily Telegraph would so love to hear your endoresment!

Lovely also to share your knowledge of British Imperial disengagement policy at its highest level.


France and particularly Belgium as baselines for reference... hmmmm... Given that we still have a lot of explaining to do about the opium trade, the Malaysian Emergency, the Mau Mau rebellion - just to take some top-of-head examples at random - I agree that they are the only way to ensure that Britain comes out ahead of its co-players in the Imperial game.


I would be very interested to hear your explanation of why "many African states fell into corruption and dictatorships" - I'm really looking forward to it.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can try to make a moral claim for the Empire. Is Colonisation ever a good thing? Maybe for the colonisers but rarely will it be for the colonised. Hence, my comment about relativism,but I see that I should have just referenced the Telegraph rather than mention abstract concepts.


Britain didn't try and defend the indefensible : so what about Britain's support for Rhodesia and South Africa?

Imagine a world where Hiter or Stalin or Mao's Grankids still headed the show in their countries- there would be justifiable outrage.


Mass murderers offsping & desendents should not be allowed to profit from their relatives genocidal bent. Usually anyway.


The Royals are living off the proceeds of murder, rape and pillage on a global scale.


You welcome their contined presence, you are sneering at the slaughter of millions - both at home and overseas


Enjoy your celebrations.I hope you can wash the blood off your hands when its all over.

woodrot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Imagine a world where Hiter or Stalin or Mao's

> Grankids still headed the show in their countries-

> there would be justifiable outrage.

>

> Mass murderers offsping & desendents should not be

> allowed to profit from their relatives genocidal

> bent. Usually anyway.

>

> The Royals are living off the proceeds of murder,

> rape and pillage on a global scale.

>

> You welcome their contined presence, you are

> sneering at the slaughter of millions - both at

> home and overseas

>

> Enjoy your celebrations.I hope you can wash the

> blood off your hands when its all over.



Thanks having a wonderful time so far, long may it continue.

God Save The Queen

The Fascist Regime,

They Made You A Moron

A Potential H-Bomb.


God Save The Queen

She Ain't No Human Being.

There Is No Future

In England's Dreaming


Don't Be Told What You Want

Don't Be Told What You Need.

There's No Future

There's No Future

There's No Future For You


God Save The Queen

We Mean It Man

We Love Our Queen

God Saves


God Save The Queen

'Cos Tourists Are Money

And Our Figurehead

Is Not What She Seems


Oh God Save History

God Save Your Mad Parade

Oh Lord God Have Mercy

All Crimes Are Paid.


When There's No Future

How Can There Be Sin

We're The Flowers

In The Dustbin

We're The Poison

In Your Human Machine

We're The Future

You're Future


God Save The Queen

We Mean It Man

We Love Our Queen

God Saves



God Save The Queen

We Mean It Man

There Is No Future

In England's Dreaming


No Future

No Future For You

No Fufure For Me

file.php?20,file=52038


Real Republicans must be weary of the cynicism of Woodrot and his small following. Republicanism as a political theory posits that a Monarchy is not necessary because the wisdom and common sense of the citizens of any country can make a better stab at governing their country. Woodrot appear to turn that idea upside down - in his view it is the foolishness, naivety and sheeplike devotion to an outdated concept of British citizens (subjects?) that maintains the Monarchy. So rather than trusting the British people, Woodrot despises, insults and diminishes them.


His stance also ignores the evolution of the British Constitution - where the Monarchy has given up true power and authority to the democratically elected government in return for a its continuance as a symbol of continuity and history.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah, yes...

>

> 1977 - writing punk songs against the Queen and

> the establishment

>

> 2012 - advertising butter.

>

> They all come around in the end, don't they?


Well Loz it may surprise you that he made royalties (awful word :-)) in 77 and had a bank account. He must have sold out before he revolted!

He also used the NHS and roads paid for by road tax. You can still disagree with society even if you have to join in to survive. Next you will say the Syrian people have sold out because they go to government hospitals after being shot by the Army.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hi if anyone has one pm me cheers 
    • You can always check when they registered on the forum, if you are suspicious. But I recommended Aria, and it certainly wasn't my only post on here, and it was a genuine recommendation. ETA: And he didn't ask me to make it, to the best of my recollection. But even if he had, many local tradespeople ask people to post on here if they are happy with the work that has been done.
    • I am not a patient at this practice, but surely it is more sensible to have an initial  phone discussion, as often the GP wouldn't need to see someone face to face unless they actually needed to physically examine them? This then leaves the available face to face appointments for patients who need them. And if during  the phone call the GP felt you needed examining, then arrangements could be made for a face to face. If you feel your ailment is such that you will definitely need to be physically examined, can you not explain that to the receptionist?
    • Give Labour a chance, they've only been in government for a short time, and they inherited a mess! As regards the notice boards, to the best of my recollection they were originally intended as community notice boards, and certainly not for advertising local businesses (who would decide which businesses  should have the limited space on the boards, anyway?) East Dulwich may have become more gentrified since the boards were first introduced, but that surely doesn't mean they should now be completely  taken over for the benefit of  the "middle classes", to the exclusion of everybody else? As  NewWave says, surely these people have other ways to find out about groups and events of interest to them, which the "non middle classes" may not have access to, and even if they did may not be able to afford them. Several people including myself have complained to councillors about the state of the noticeboards in the past.  I think one of the issues is that they were originally maintained by local volunteers, who may have either moved out of the area or lost interest - or given up in despair when the boards were flypostered and/or vandalised. I completely  agree that the boards should be used for information about not for profit organisations in the area, but if regular maintenance can't be provided and/or they continue to be vandalised, then I think it would be better if they were removed altogether.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...