Home   Forum   Help Media Centre Search Calendar Shop Gallery Login Register   *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 19, 2017, 18:04:49

Login with username, password and session length
Recent
[Yesterday at 22:23:02]

[July 07, 2017, 13:48:54]

[July 07, 2017, 13:43:55]

[July 07, 2017, 13:30:03]

[July 07, 2017, 13:24:22]
Twitter
Permissions

Last 10 Shouts:
July 30, 2017, 18:36:43
DEFINITIVE NEW NAME CITIZENS!!!!
THE IMPERIAL KINGDOM OF THE FREE LOVELY LOVELAND!!! SHORTENED AS LOVELYLAND!!!
July 20, 2017, 18:51:10
(Freelove just didn't feel right.)
July 20, 2017, 18:50:37
(yeah new name...)
July 20, 2017, 18:50:18
HEIL LOVELAND!
July 20, 2017, 18:49:56
AS OF THE DENONYM IT SHALL BE LOVEDICS( NO BAD PUNS).
July 20, 2017, 18:48:59
THE CITIZEN WITH THE FUNNIEST/EPICEST/WTF-EST/POPULAREST( EXCUSE MY SO RUBBISH EXPRESSIONS) SHALL BE ELECTED GREAT COUNT, ALL BY LOVELIANS/FREELANDICS!!
July 20, 2017, 18:47:04
I THEREBY SUGGEST THE COUNT AND DE FACTO RULER OF LOVELY/FREELAND SHALL BE CHOSEN BY LOVELIANS/FREELANDICS !
July 20, 2017, 18:44:58
OUR CONSTITUTION! MOTIVATED BY OUR GOODWILLED AND FRIENDLY VALUES SHALL ALWAYS PROTECTS POPULAR POWER!!
July 20, 2017, 18:43:32
WITH ABSOLUTELY NO GOVERNMENTAL INFLUENCE ON IT!
July 20, 2017, 18:42:46
OUR EMPIRE IS TRULY MONARCHIC YET DEMOCRATIC AND FREE! OUR COUNT SHALL BE ELECTED BY POPULAR POLLS!
Members
Total Members: 563
Latest: Allonsy182
Stats
Total Posts: 244580
Total Topics: 5053
Online Today: 16
Online Ever: 137
(July 20, 2014, 20:19:05)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 10
Total: 10
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
  Print  
Author Topic: To encourage the PHILOSOPHY part of this board...  (Read 11724 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Matt
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2207


View Profile WWW
« Reply #100 on: July 26, 2008, 19:39:06 »


 
Quote
Since I can't think of any legitimate reasons to discriminate against somebody on the grounds of their race, I won't agree with this proviso, as I deem it superfluous (not to mention equivocative).

And I will agree with YOU 100%.

Quote
In parts of the world where malaria IS prevelant (ie Africa), being a carrier of the allele is a significant advantage, and far outweighs the disadvantage of the increased risk to offspring of having sickle-cell anemia.


Thanks for the really informative bit about sickle-cell anemia.  If ever there was a sound (natural) argument for racial bigotry this should be it.  No wonder bigots believe "foreigners" should stay in their own country.  Natural selection proves that each "race" is adapted for their own environment and therefore emigration should be outlawed.  Especially before the British left England's shores for North America.

Quote
Which reminds me. I saw this word "vouchsafe", which I didn't know the meaning of, so I looked it up in one of those online dictionaries. It gave me a definition of "to condescend to GRANT". A perfect word to describe what I've been doing on Lovely for many months now!

This is indeed a Lovely word.  (I suppose it isn't necessary to point out that "grant" is used as a verb there.)  I know the word mainly (only) from the Anglican "Book of Common Prayer" where it is used in the phrase, "Vouchsafe, O Lord, to keep us this day without sin." which is from a Christian Hymn  "Te Deum Laudamus" written sometime before 414 AD.

Quote
Quote
Maybe TB among the Inuit, so they don't allow any whites to belong to the Inuit Forever Healthy organization. 
Looks like it's your turn to be condescending, because I don't have a clue what you're on about here.

Only that our First Nations people (Indians) and Inuit (Eskimos) were ready victims to TB (tuberculosis or "consumption) and other "white man's diseases" and when I was in the TB sanatorium "back in '55" many of the patients were Cree Indians and "Eskimos" from the James Bay/ Hudson Bay areas. 


Quote
Obviously.
You missed my "implication".  Why would anyone "choose" to be born a woman?  Actually, I read once that Jewish men, actually included in their prayer of thanksgiving "And thank you LORD that you did not make me a woman."

 
Quote
Oh, that reminds me. Do you believe that people who are homosexual can be 'cured'? If so, then do you believe that you could be 'cured' of being heterosexual?
The answer in short is yes. But lets go one further.  AND the reason most homosexuals and heterosexuals are not cured is because neither of them WANT to be.  Which is to say, how much of what we give ourselves to is, in the end, OUR choice?  I am not raising issues of "sensitivities" or "conditioning" etc. (A la News item by what's his face and his being gay).  I have stated before the whole issue of Homosexuality and Heterosexuality would be much more honestly addressed if we just admitted that the issue is not what "orientation" one "has given in to" but rather to recognise that we are "sexual" beings, and giving in to uncontrolled urges and outside of the parameters that the Bible has set... For God's people.. is what the Bible calls sin.  And that uncontrolled "lust" applies equally to heterosexuals involved in fornication or adultery as it does to those giving in to attractions to same sex.  AND all is included in the same lists that name greed and lying etc. as sin. 
Whether or not any of the practices are "natural" or "unnatural" is simply of no significance.  All sin could be described as "natural".  The believer is called to live above the "natural", and not fulfill the "lusts of the flesh". 
Controlled appetite is expected.  Uncontrolled appetite is "sin".
So is "sin" curable?  Yes.  Is natural appetite curable? No. Will either be eradicated while we are in the body? NO!

Quote
Quote
To your explanation of why Jesus didn't condemn slavery: do not forget that Martin Luther King hung around with communists (who were presumably atheists), and that atheists and agnostics were also key in the protests against slavery. I'll concede that Christians fought against slavery if you'll concede that atheists, agnostics, deists and humanists fought alongside them.
Has anyone ever had a problem with conceding that.  We (I) have never said non Christians are not champions of Good.  (Only that the good has either been because of "residual moral sense" or for the "selfish" motivation of "survival".) 

Another quote:
In an important history of the [Civil Rights] movement, David L. Chappell demonstrates that it was not a political but primarily a religious and spiritual movement. White Northern liberals who were the allies of the African-American civil rights leaders were not proponents of civil disobedience or of a direct attack on segregation.  Because of their secular belief in the goodness of human nature, they thought that education and enlightenment would bring about inevitable social and racial progress.  Chappell argues that black leaders were much more rooted in the Biblical understanding of the sinfulness of the human heart and in the denunciation of injustice that they read in the Hebrew prophets. Chappell also shows how it was the vibrant faith of rank-and-file African-Americans that empowered them to insist on justice despite the violent opposition to their demands.  Thus Chappell says there is no way to understand what happened until you see the Civil Rights movement as a religious revival."
"[King]called white Christians to be more true to their own beliefs and to realize what the Bible really teaches.  He did not say 'Truth is relative and everyone is free to determine what is right or wrong for them.'  If  everything is relative, there would have been no incentive for white people in the South to give up their power.  Rather, Dr. King invoked the prophet Amos, who said, 'Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.' (Amos 5:24) The greatest champion of justice in our era knew the antidote to racism was not less Christianity, but a deeper and truer Christianity."


Quote
What gives one human have the right to own another?
Good points.  In the historical setting the "what" that gave one person (or people) the right to own another was I think twofold. One was "debt" and is what is dealt with when speaking of indentured slavery.  The other of course was war and being the "victor" and the alternative to "slavery" was death.  And it was applied equally (but without the OT limitations) by all nations.  And, the work expected of a 'slave' by those who had them, was no more difficult than the man without a slave would be subject to himself.  Humans did work like mules simply because, unless you were wealthy enough to hire the job done, there was no other way to get the work done.
Of course little epitaphs to SELF like the pyramids would not have been undertaken without Slave labour being available.

 
Logged

Why is there something instead of nothing?
steka
Earth goddess
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 69
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1447


Earth goddess


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: July 27, 2008, 16:22:14 »

Quote
And I will agree with YOU 100%.
eyepop Uh-oh. We've agreed with each other again. This is becoming a bad habit of ours ... yikes

Quote
If ever there was a sound (natural) argument for racial bigotry this should be it.  No wonder bigots believe "foreigners" should stay in their own country.
Says he who made the following post:

Prestons_Child

Who is the handsome dude from Facebook? Afro
Are you a black brother?

Quote
I suppose it isn't necessary to point out that "grant" is used as a verb there.
Gah! You've spoilt the effect of the play on words. Sad

Quote
I know the word mainly (only) from the Anglican "Book of Common Prayer" where it is used in the phrase, "Vouchsafe, O Lord, to keep us this day without sin." which is from a Christian Hymn  "Te Deum Laudamus" written sometime before 414 AD.
So God's condescending now, is he?

Quote
Why would anyone "choose" to be born a woman?
I don't know. You tell me!

Quote
Actually, I read once that Jewish men, actually included in their prayer of thanksgiving "And thank you LORD that you did not make me a woman."
I heard that too. Apparently all Jews have to thank the Lord that they were not made a Gentile, and the female Jew must thank the Lord for making her the way she is (or something like that). Ah, religion.

Quote
The answer in short is yes.
So you reckon that, with sufficient electroshock therapy or whatever they're using nowadays to 'cure' the 'disease' of homosexuality, you could be 'cured' of loving your wife, and could be made to love (sexual rather than Christian meaning, before you go on about loving the bloke next door "as your neighbour" anyway) the bloke next door instead? (I hope that's planted some obscene pictures in your mind! devilsmiley )

Quote
Which is to say, how much of what we give ourselves to is, in the end, OUR choice?
So, tell me, when did you choose to be striaght (or a bi, if there's something about you which I don't know)?

Quote
A la News item by what's his face and his being gay.
I didn't catch that. What page was it on? I cba to trawl through all the pages of the news storied thread to find that one story.

Quote
Controlled appetite is expected.  Uncontrolled appetite is "sin".
What makes a homosexual relationship a display of indulgence in "uncontrolled appetite"?

Quote
So is "sin" curable?  Yes.  Is natural appetite curable? No. Will either be eradicated while we are in the body? NO!
So God made us sick, then expected us to be well, eh? I think I've just thought a new sig!

Yes, I agree with you that the religious' role in fighting against slavery was a crucial one. They were essential, because the people who they were fighting against were equally religious, so would listen only to Bible verses (which caused a lot of problems in itself, what with the Bible condoning slavery and all).
« Last Edit: August 10, 2008, 16:42:58 by steka » Logged
Sub in a Hat
Wrapped in Foil
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 53
Offline Offline

Posts: 1334



View Profile
« Reply #102 on: August 22, 2008, 01:36:05 »

Sorry to but in on your conversation here; just thought I'd comment on the heterosexual/homosexual/lust/indulgence topic. I''m not particularly religious, I've flitted between Hinduism, Buddhism and Atheism a lot but nowadays I do consider myself a Christian. That's in the sense that, while I used to believe that there was no place for a God, I've now broadened my mind to accept that he is there, you just have to look for him. I know that sounds stupid, a year ago I would never have envisioned myself saying that but miracles do occur, even in the darkest of times. Anyway, even the most hardcore atheists could (and maybe should) accept that religion can play a positive part in people's lives. I've read the bible through; it's a surprisingly good read. I love reading ancient books; the Odyssey is a favourite of mine. The fact that you're reading something that was written thousands of years ago is amazing; it's the greatest achievement of Western civilisation (that is to say, the preservation of knowledge, wisdom and culture). Anyway, people find fulfillment in many ways, one of which is a Christian lifestyle (I don't pretend to live one myself because I still have no idea what I actually believe), but the bible does have good morals. Yes the OT is a bit of a bloodbath, but I think the trials and tribulations of the Hebrews are an excellent metaphor for life itself. Yes, they massacred people but... God forgave them because they were still the chosen people. What the NT brings to this is the realisation that everyone is "chosen" and no matter how much you sin and transgress against God, he will still love you.

I'm massively digressing here. One of the most important aspects of the Bible is that it teaches temperance; what this means sexually is that we should live chastely; that is to say, engaging only in sexual activity which is wholesome. While the rules seem very strict in our modern-day laissez-faire society, they're real purpose is to save us from ourselves. Nothing in the bible is to be taken at face value; when God tells the Hebrews not to worship idols, it doesn't just mean don't worship any God except the "right one". What it means is that we shouldn't allow anything earthly to consume our lives and become our "idol". There is a place for a measured ammount of all indulgence in Christianity. Food is to be savoured and enjoyed, but not to the extent of excess because then it becomes an addiction and an idol. The same can be said for sex. I can't say I lived a very chaste life up until now and for the large part it was lots of fun. But I do now believe that no relationship should be built on sex, it is taking it to excess and is essentially an artificial bond; it isn't a real connection. I do also think it's a shame that sex is becoming a part of children's lives at distressingly young ages. The establishment is obsessed with teaching kids all the whys and wherefores at ages where, by all rights, children should be considered innocent. The corruption of innocence is one of the greatest evils of our age and it certainly doesn't just apply to poontang. Violence is shoved down kids' throats from the moment they can turn on a television but they're never given Violence Education lessons. Surely, if ten-year-olds are going to be told to use protection then surely they should be told not to stab each other.

The main problem with western society is no respect; no respect for elders, no respect childhood and no respect for the old culture which is being eroded by capitalism and socialism. I have come to believe that sex for the pleasure of it is not a healthy activity in the same way that picking fights with strangers isn't in any way acceptable behaviour. In a perfect society, children would be taught that food is good, but not greed, that honour is good, but not savagery and that love is good, but not lust.

Anyway, yet more enormous digressions. Now I come to the matter in hand (sorry, couldn't resist); the matter being homosexuality or, in biblical terms, sodomy. The bible says that all forms of fornication, including sodomy, are sinful and I've got to say that I agree. But don't get me wrong; I see nothing wrong with a man falling in love with a man or women likewise. My problem is with these inately physical terms viz. "heterosexual" and "homosexual". A true heterosexual would not be attracted to the opposite gender in any way except sexual attraction; the same applies with homosexuals and their own gender.

So, what I think we need are new words. I'm going to use "heteroamorous" and "homoamorous"; that is spiritually attracted to the gender in question. I say spiritually attracted but what I mean is platonically attracted. Plato said that spiritual love is a bond between two souls and he saw nothing wrong with those souls being encased in bodies of the same gender. In greek mythology, Eros, the God of love fell in love with psyche whose name is analogous with the greek understanding of the soul. So what I am referring to is an entirely non-physical attraction; an attraction of that nature may, by all means, exist but it is not the talking point here.

And so, should a homoamorous man fall in true, spiritual love with another man; then any sexual activity they engage in can be considered wholesome, the same with homoamorous women and heteroamorous individuals (there must certainly be bi-amorousity but that would just complicate matters here). Of course, this system is entirely open to abuse and so marriage exists. In marriage, two individuals vow to be joined forever by God. Few people who are not in love would marry the object of their affections. Now I know that christianity thinks that it is largely opposed to gay marriage but what it is really opposed to is "homosexual" marriage. The ancients recognised the distinctions; while Plato absolutely condemns the pederasty which was somewhat pervasive in Hellenic Greece, he does say that men can fall in love. The God Zeus, was said to have fallen in love with a Trojan warrior; Ganymede who was taken up to Heaven to be Zeus' bride.

Anyway, my point is that Christianity should be opposed to both "homo-" and "heterosexual" marriages; the only marriages that it should condone would be, quintessentially, non-sexual; their foundation being a spiritual one rather than a physical one.


Anyhoo, I'm not sure how much (if any) Christian dogma I actually believe, but I grew up with this stuff and it is insightful and anyone who respects wisdom; theist, deist or atheist, would be doing themselves a disfavour to deny themselves the bible.



Now, I've given my two cents on sexuality so now it's time for race and immigration; I'll keep this one short. Now, before I start I'm taking it as read that no-one here is racist in any sense whatsoever and so we can engage in a mature coversation about the subject without that particular accusation floating about in the ether.

I, personally, believe that the nation is an important expression of a citizen or subject's identity and visa versa. I also believe that it is every nation's right to exist and to defend itself against aggressors. Now, I think it's pretty obvious that there's too many people in the world. I applaud China for doing something about it, although they are a large part of the problem. Diseases and epidemics are not the threats that they used to be and there doesn't seem to be any impending nuclear war unless I've misjudged the Russia-Georgia situation. As a result, there's nothing to take the world population down and it's just going to keep going. Now, I would not suggest that it's fair that many people have to live in more deprived or less productive regions; however, this is not just a geographical question, it is also both political and cultural. The UK has, in my opinion, already got too many people. The government has a habit of handing out passports like sweets at a time when we really don't need any more immigrants. Shortly following the Second World War; that was the time when we needed immigrants and the caribbeans were perfectly integrated society bringing a hard work ethic and ska (for which I am eternally grateful). However, there are such large ammounts of first- and second-generation immigrants in the country that two major problems arise:

1. They are not culturally integrated. A large number of Middle-eastern and North-African immigrants live in little enclaves, secluded away from actual British society. There's no obligation on them to learn English and so they don't bother. Now, this is, of course, entirely the government's fault. Their open-doors multicultural system has holes all over it. Yes, by all means they should accept reasonable ammounts of immgrants but only ones which can bring particular necessary skills to the country and are not, by leaving, depriving their own country of the service that the provide. There has been a lot of poaching of doctors from north-Africa in recent years, but the countries they come from need all the doctors they can get. Also, it should be necessary to learn english before you're even considered for immigration. If I wanted to move to, say, France, I would be expected to learn French so why not the other way round (probably a bad example but it doesn't matter). As well as this, the government fails all schoolchildren in not teaching them to be proud of their country. In fact, history modules which strike me as particularly irrelevant to our actual history and which I have yet had to learn over the last few years include:

The Holocaust (an important subject, yes, but one for scholars to study not twelve-year-olds)
Black peoples of America (I have no problem with them being black, just with them being American)
The Civil Rights Movement (American history, not British.)

Recently, my sister had to create a holocaust-memorial as history homework. Fine in theory, but what that course is really about is making children feel apologetic about something they are not responsible for. I can understand German schoolkids in the '50s being asked to do the same thing but we've all pissed in a lot of rivers since then and, after all, us Brits did most of the work to end the nazi régime. As for slavery (which we learnt extensively about, and again, were told to feel sorry about), I see no reason for myself or my family to apologise for events which happened hundreds of years before we were born, it would be like asking the Vandals to apologise for sacking Rome; ie. entirely anachronous. Also, I find the whole theory in that area to be very flawed. We were told that they were enslaved because they were black when in fact, of course, they were enslaved because they were prisoners of war and were first enslaved by fellow Africans. There were also plenty of white, chinese, arab, you-name-it: slavery was a colour-blind institution when it was actually in existence. And never let us forget that it was the British Empire that first ended slavery.

My GCSE history subjects were much better, but even most of them had nothing to do with British History.

There was The Vietnam War (phat, we got to watch Full Metal Jacket, Platoon and Born on the 4th of July in class)
The assassination of JFK (fascinating, but does it actually have to do with us?)
And the History of Medicine which was, to be fair, full of Brits. What I did object to was the course concluding that the creation of the NHS (by, of course, the Labour Party) was the culmination of the history of medicine in Britain. What we weren't taught was that Aneurin Bevan, something of a hero from that era, was a member of Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts. Anyway, my history teacher was great and I saw no point in arguing with him; it was the system's fault, not his.

Still, I feel it would be much more appropriate for British students to study more Anglocentric subjects; the Boer Wars, for instance, would have been fascinating and so would the life of Winston Churchill or Cromwell or William of Orange...


Anyway, I've gone off on a massive tangent here.

My original, somewhat forgotten, point is that there are various reasons why Britain can't take any more people; be they the next indigenous generation or a new wave of immigration. Recent immigrants would have integrated much more if they were actually encouraged to consider themselves British and to mingle with British people. Also, more open celebration of British culture and achievements would have been good; whatever happened to the flags and the parades and the stiff-upper-lips? British civilisation and history is being treated with barefaced shame by our spineless government and they've let our glorious past and once-glorious future fall by the wayside. I know that countless Jamaican/Indian/Whatever immigrants would agree with me.

I see no reason for a white Briton to identify as white any more than I see a reason for a black Briton to identify as black. There is no more a white homeland than a black one (candidates for a white homeland would probably be either Rome, Greece or Persia and Ethiopia under Haille Sellassie was the closest there'll ever be to a black one) and such ideas are illusory. A Briton is a Briton whether they're black, white, yellow, red, or green with purple pinstripes. If there any so-called "subjects" out there that do not identify as British then they have been failled by this government in much the same way as they failled indigenous Britons by teaching them to feel ashamed of their past.

Anyway, that's my opinion. It may be a little incoherent, I haven't slept in a while and my thoughts aren't exactly razor-sharp
« Last Edit: August 22, 2008, 03:11:10 by The Gods of Lovely » Logged

Sort of Ernest Hemingway meets Boris Johnson.

"You should have asked for twelve inches of his finest sub of the day at the time, no point regretting not having some sublove now." Lady Reblet.

</img>

The superfluous image tag is staying. It is staying because I like it.
Zsu-Zsu
Frigging myself silly over Bo
Little Princess
National Treasure
***

Karma: 385
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 9848



View Profile
« Reply #103 on: August 22, 2008, 10:11:38 »

I'm not going to pretend that I've read all of Sub's previous post, but I've read the beginning and the end, and I'd just like to pick up on this one thing.

If there any so-called "subjects" out there that do not identify as British then they have been failled by this government in much the same way as they failled indigenous Britons by teaching them to feel ashamed of their past.


On forms and things, and officially and legally I am British, but I'd like to draw on the point that it's not a shame for a "subject" (this is one thing that I cannot abide about this country. I don't want to be a "subject", I want to be a "citizen") to not identify themselves as "British", because what difference does it make?
True, being brought up in one country over another will affect your culture, attitudes and maybe even your morality, but by the same token being brought up in one family over another may well do exactly the same thing.
I refuse to see being able to identify yourself as "British", and being proud to do so as anything worthy of note. I am just lucky enough to have been born into a rich country, with a decent economy (regardless of what people will say about the decline of the UK economy, it's still a damn sight better than a number of others in the world and I refuse to start thinking "oh woe is me and my country" when there are people in the world who are dying of starvation and disease because their country's government is too corrupt or poor to provide them with the basic provisions for life) that has provided for me as I've grown up. I'm just lucky. As such, what's the point in being proud of my country? - I haven't done anything to contribute to it, I just happen to have been lucky enough to be born here. I see very little sense in being proud of one's country.
Coming from this angle of course affects my attitude on immigration (and of course I'm a die-hard extreme Leftie, with a hell of a lot of Libertarianism thrown in to complete the package). I see very little sense in disallowing people from other countries access into ours. We were lucky enough to be born somewhere nice, and reasonably fair and uncorrupt (I say "reasonably", but I won't get into all of that here or now), and others weren't.
IT REALLY IS JUST THE LUCK OF THE DRAW. What right then do we have to deny access to people who have fled from war-torn, corrupt, oppressive environments simply because we don't want Britain to get "full" (and this is a phrase, invented by tabloid newspapers no doubt, that I absolutely abhor "Britain's full" - it fucking isn't, I can tell you that for free).

I, like many people in this country, have been failed by the couple of governments that have been in power during my lifetime in a lot of ways, but not being proud of calling myself "British" is not one of them.

And as for making us feel bad for your country's history, then damn fucking right. The UK's history is steeped in the oppression of others for our own gain, it's certainly not something that I'm proud of.
Logged

I know I'm not perfect,
But I'm so damn close it scares me
The Sundance Kid
Guest
« Reply #104 on: August 22, 2008, 11:15:31 »

And as for making us feel bad for your country's history, then damn fucking right. The UK's history is steeped in the oppression of others for our own gain, it's certainly not something that I'm proud of.

It's not that simple though. There's a revisionist angle on British history these days to make us ashamed of our history. the truth is a lot more complicated.
Logged
Sub in a Hat
Wrapped in Foil
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 53
Offline Offline

Posts: 1334



View Profile
« Reply #105 on: August 22, 2008, 21:58:02 »

Hi Zsu, politics is too much like religion for a debate to have any real positive outcome. All people have a different understanding of what is moral politically and I don't want to change your opinion any more than you want to change mine.

But I would ask a few questions. One of these is, do you think it's healthy for school-children to be taught to feel ashamed for things that they didn't do? In my opinion, getting us to feel sorry about slavery and the holocaust (especially when Britain helped bring down the Nazis) doesn't seem like a very sound way to bring up British kids unless the government want them t o grow up to be apologist pushovers (which, I believe, is exactly what the government want).

Also, I would suggest that the UK's history is no more bloody than that of any other major power in history and let us not forget the issue of zeitgeist. Certainly it now seems wrong to take control of foreign lands for the sake of improving trade, however people truly believed (and some still do) that the Empire was bringing peace and civilisation to savage lands. I wouldn't suggest that any of the colonies were ever run perfectly or unbiasedly but I do know that India would not be on it's way to becoming a superpower were it not for industrialisation under the British Raj. Staying on the subject of India, the British also brought greater social equality, curbing the power of the Maharaji over the lower castes.

Yes, it now seems like an tasteless idea that it's acceptable for a more developed culture to subjugate a less developed one for the sake of civilising it but that's a relatively modern development in morality.

My point about British history is that, although there's no doubt that we made some mistakes in the past, I see no reason for this to be the only country in the world that encourages it's children to be ashamed of the actions of their ancestors.


On the "full up" point, I'd like to point out that the only reason I agree that the country's full is that I don't believe it's right to go building on the green-belt to accomodate more people. But I think the whole world is over populated, I know that the more left-wing you are, the less you'll agree with that, but I don't say that because I have come kind of pathological hate for humanity but because this planet, like this country, contains only a finite ammount of habitable space.

I used to be very left-wing myself, I've mellowed out now and become a real centrist. I don't think capitalism is particularly great, but neither do I believe that socialism is the answer.
Logged

Sort of Ernest Hemingway meets Boris Johnson.

"You should have asked for twelve inches of his finest sub of the day at the time, no point regretting not having some sublove now." Lady Reblet.

</img>

The superfluous image tag is staying. It is staying because I like it.
Zsu-Zsu
Frigging myself silly over Bo
Little Princess
National Treasure
***

Karma: 385
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 9848



View Profile
« Reply #106 on: August 23, 2008, 08:18:25 »

But I would ask a few questions. One of these is, do you think it's healthy for school-children to be taught to feel ashamed for things that they didn't do? In my opinion, getting us to feel sorry about slavery and the holocaust (especially when Britain helped bring down the Nazis) doesn't seem like a very sound way to bring up British kids unless the government want them t o grow up to be apologist pushovers (which, I believe, is exactly what the government want).

No, I don't, but I don't think that they are being taught to be apologist pushovers, so it's not an issue.
What they are being taught is compassion, and sympathy for the atrocities committed by previous generations and ancestors. When I was at school I certainly never felt like I was being blamed for the actions of people centuries before me, but what I was being taught was how awful it was that these terrible things were being done to people; and I certainly don't think that that is something we should be trying to stop in schools.
Admittedly, if I had the choice and the power to change things, everything at school would be taught independently, without any form of bias on any issue - however that just isn't feasible. It would take a teacher with a heart of stone to teach about the atrocities of the Holocaust without making it sound sad, and perhaps in a lot of ways children (particularly older children, once they're old enough to reason and rationalise things for themselves) should be challenged to stand up about things they disagree with.

Anyway, as Oscar Wilde said, "the only thing we owe history is to rewrite it", we don't need to teach children about their country's history, at least not in any great depth (and judging by the state of the history curriculum when I was at school, that's precisely what we're doing...), because all they need to know is what they believe is right and wrong, and use these ideas to put their own spin on things they learn about history.

And as for your comment about the British bringing down the Holocaust, I just have to pick up on the fact that for the majority of the war the British, and indeed many/all of the other countries fighting in the war, had no idea what was going on in Germany and Poland in terms of the Holocaust. They weren't initially fighting to save the Jewish people, they were fighting for their own reasons.

My point about British history is that, although there's no doubt that we made some mistakes in the past, I see no reason for this to be the only country in the world that encourages it's children to be ashamed of the actions of their ancestors.

We don't, and I'm sure we're not the only country. You can't seriously expect me to believe that, for example, schools in Germany don't teach the children that the Holocaust wasn't an awful point in their modern history, or that schools in Spain don't teach of the atrocities committed within their own country during the civil war.
Okay, admittedly I can imagine China skimming over certain details in their history... but that's China - they've got issues.
Why shouldn't we be ashamed of the actions of our ancestors? We're also taught to be proud of the positive and compassionate actions of some of our other ancestors. So why have one without the other? That's not being taught history, that's just sitting around and saying "Oh how wonderful we all are/were. How lovely. More tea?"

On the "full up" point, I'd like to point out that the only reason I agree that the country's full is that I don't believe it's right to go building on the green-belt to accomodate more people. But I think the whole world is over populated, I know that the more left-wing you are, the less you'll agree with that, but I don't say that because I have come kind of pathological hate for humanity but because this planet, like this country, contains only a finite ammount of habitable space.

I'll agree that the world is overpopulated. But that's not the fault of refugees, so why blame them? Because that's essentially what you're doing by denying them access to the UK. "Sorry, the world's overpopulated - you'll have to go back to the oppression and certain death you face in your own country 'cause there's just too many people in the world and, y'know, we've got to look after no.1"
Yes, the world is overpopulated, but the way to solve that is not to just allow genocide in the hope of clearing the Earth of a few million.
We shouldn't just disallow refuge to people who suffer so horribly in their own countries; we should allow it, and work towards solving the problems they have there.
Logged

I know I'm not perfect,
But I'm so damn close it scares me
Matt
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2207


View Profile WWW
« Reply #107 on: August 23, 2008, 10:15:17 »

I'm going to break in here and throw in a thought that some of you will moan about, or worse, but whether we want to admit it or not it is a reality that this generation may not have grasped.

In the olden days, when the nations recognised their biblical foundations of understanding humanity, one didn't have to convince children of the misdeeds of their ancestors to provoke shame OR compassion.  Rather we spoke of the sinful condition of the human heart and its propensity for satisfying SELF, and gave as the solution, the "higher" concept of repentance for personal sin, the acceptance of personal responsibility, AND an adoption of the principle of the golden rule. 

But rather than dismissing history as unimportant, the Biblical record (both Old and New Testament) emphasises the modern idiom, that "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."  The Biblical revelation never hid or denied either their misdeeds or their greatness but simply catalogued it as fact, and said, "Take warning: This is the (spiritual) condition of your hearts (individually and collectively) and when you stray from my precepts and holding me first place in your lives, this is what you are capable of, or will come to.)

In Canada our government has just "apologised" for the terrible treatment that our "first nations" received when we forceably took native children from their homes and put them into residential schools. That really did upset their cultural settings, and while there, some of them were abused.  We can be sorry that it happened, but to suggest that it is up to a people 5 generations later, to apologise is just plain stupid.  We don't hear of the many who admit that they would still be in poverty and ignorance, if it had not been for Sister so and so, or the school and discipline they learned.  Should we therefore demand that while the "government" apologise for the misdeeds, that the first nations should also have a national celebration and commendation on behalf of all those who prospered? 
And of course it is a matter of "revisionist" history when we try to impose our understanding and standards on people of a century or more ago. 
Just reading Dickens, or a modern writer of 50 years ago describing education practices should leave us appalled at how students were treated... But they were not treating the student any differently than they had been treated themselves.  (Maybe better.)
Personally, in hindsight I could look back on how I raised my son, and I could beat myself for not having said something, or count myself a failure because I put a particular discipline into place.  BUT, if I were  doing it over, (without the benefit of seeing or knowing the future) I would do exactly the same thing, because at the time I thought I was doing the right thing.  (Basing my decisions on my own experiences and understanding of what was required of me as a conscientous parent.)  When I made a mistake and knew I had I appologised then and sought forgiveness, and taught him that he could do the same thing.)

When one lives with the knowledge that they are sinners, and capable of great evil, one tends to walk more humbly before man and God.  And since we are taught to confess our sins and seek forgiveness of God and man, then we don't have major issues in decades to come trying to adjust or compensate for the sins of our fathers.  Nor do we expect any such (nonsense) from those who have "wronged us" or our ancestors.

Jesus knew what he was talking about when he included in the "Lord's Prayer", "Forgive us
our debts as we forgive those we imagine owe anything to us."

The parallels of history and what our forefathers did and the consequences with which we are stuck applies in Canada also. Of course as one of the Colonies, and our relationship to the US and the UK with Europe, has many similarities, and of course relates to the original question as to why do Canadians answer "Are you American?", with a "NO, we are Canadians."

Logged

Why is there something instead of nothing?
The Sundance Kid
Guest
« Reply #108 on: August 24, 2008, 10:26:34 »

I'll agree that the world is overpopulated. But that's not the fault of refugees, so why blame them? Because that's essentially what you're doing by denying them access to the UK. "Sorry, the world's overpopulated - you'll have to go back to the oppression and certain death you face in your own country 'cause there's just too many people in the world and, y'know, we've got to look after no.1"
Yes, the world is overpopulated, but the way to solve that is not to just allow genocide in the hope of clearing the Earth of a few million.
We shouldn't just disallow refuge to people who suffer so horribly in their own countries; we should allow it, and work towards solving the problems they have there.

If our society is much nicer than everywhere else, but we can't fit everybody into our country, then the logical course of action is to export our culture and sense of justice to less well off countries. Possibly by means of some sort of British Empire...
Logged
Zsu-Zsu
Frigging myself silly over Bo
Little Princess
National Treasure
***

Karma: 385
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 9848



View Profile
« Reply #109 on: August 24, 2008, 10:32:15 »

Ah, touché miseur Revolutionary
Logged

I know I'm not perfect,
But I'm so damn close it scares me
Sub in a Hat
Wrapped in Foil
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 53
Offline Offline

Posts: 1334



View Profile
« Reply #110 on: August 24, 2008, 11:53:23 »

I'll agree that the world is overpopulated. But that's not the fault of refugees, so why blame them? Because that's essentially what you're doing by denying them access to the UK. "Sorry, the world's overpopulated - you'll have to go back to the oppression and certain death you face in your own country 'cause there's just too many people in the world and, y'know, we've got to look after no.1"
Yes, the world is overpopulated, but the way to solve that is not to just allow genocide in the hope of clearing the Earth of a few million.
We shouldn't just disallow refuge to people who suffer so horribly in their own countries; we should allow it, and work towards solving the problems they have there.

If our society is much nicer than everywhere else, but we can't fit everybody into our country, then the logical course of action is to export our culture and sense of justice to less well off countries. Possibly by means of some sort of British Empire...

Lol, nice one Rev.
Logged

Sort of Ernest Hemingway meets Boris Johnson.

"You should have asked for twelve inches of his finest sub of the day at the time, no point regretting not having some sublove now." Lady Reblet.

</img>

The superfluous image tag is staying. It is staying because I like it.
Firiun
Firiun the not-so-brave
Citizen
**

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 12



View Profile
« Reply #111 on: February 12, 2009, 07:52:14 »

Surely, since Lovely is the size of a FLAT, and there are 100 CITIZENS, all of which are IMMIGRANTS, then we CAN't compaign.

Damn CAPS lock. stealth
Logged

I had a dream. In this dream, Adolf Hitler rose from the dead and killed all the Russians. It was a bit odd really.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.233 seconds with 29 queries.