Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jack Knave on October 10, 2015, 06:07:48 PM
-
At times I get the feeling that there are more troubles and wars in the world than there have been in the last few decades, and tensions are brewing across the globe. How do others feel about what's going on in the world?
-
What's normal?
-
What's normal?
Why do you think I wrote it as 'normal'? We tolerate a certain level of upset in the world and see this as just part of things but when it starts to escalate we often have the feeling that something is a foot.
So how do you feel about all the violence and wars in the world today?
-
I believe you are right.
"Scripture speaks of earthquakes, wars, and rumours of wars, and warns us with great urgency to prepare for the storms to come." Billy Graham
Well yes, ::)
I'm sure they said similar things about WWI and WWII and so on...
But generally do you think things have increased recently?
-
I believe you are right.
"Scripture speaks of earthquakes, wars, and rumours of wars, and warns us with great urgency to prepare for the storms to come." Billy Graham
Scripture says all sorts of stupid things, Johnny. Best not to take much notice of it.
However, we do seem to have entered a period when individuals with grievances announce their grievance in the most destructive manner they can manage.
We have just heard about getting on for a hundred people slaughtered in Turkey. The USA ignores the carnage its self-indulgent, bizarre and uncivilised gun laws generate (so far, this year, there has been an incident which has resulted in at least four people being injured or killed, on average, once a day). ISIS uses extreme brutality to reinforce its vile message. And in North Korea an ugly apology for a deformed idiot entrances his brainwashed subjects with fantasies that he can conquer the USA.
-
Look at the prophecies in the book of Daniel and tell us if they relate. :(
-
There are a number of factors. As somebody else has pointed out the technological means of disseminating the world news related to tensions and warfare have improved so much that it appears almost instantly in your living room. During the last world war the actuality of warfare appeared in your 'living room' but other bad news was largely suppressed to maintain morale.
The technological means of killing people and destroying property has advanced considerably and continues to do so. This coupled with the world population explosion and density probably means that there are more potential casualties and destruction of property and mass migrations.
As the world resources dwindle political power blocks will flex their muscles to exercise control over getting their 'share'.
As more and more people are forced to live in precarious geological zones e.g. lowland areas, tectonic areas, any natural disasters will create more casualties. Diseases will spread more quickly.
.... and that's just the good news. :o
-
Please see the thread on 'Some positive thinking...' . I think there are lots of good things today as compared to earlier centuries and decades. Of course, when the world becomes smaller and all of us relate to each others problems...things are bound to look gloomy.
I remember when I was in college... even events happening in other parts of India and even South India looked very distant and irrelevant to us. Only things happening in our town and maybe our State would seem important. Today its different. Even the killings in US, suicides in Japan, migrations into Europe... seem important and worrying. That's perhaps why we feel there are more troubles than before.
According to Hindu beliefs we will be entering a golden era (Satya yuga) after this period and I believe this is true.
-
There is more of us - so there is more of everything. Good and bad. Link this to the aforementioned ease of dissemination of information and the bias applied to that information and you could be led to believe things are getting worse. In relative terms I don't think so.
-
Look at the prophecies in the book of Daniel and tell us if they relate. :(
NO!
-
Actually the news is overwhelmingly good and improving - albeit the news that's little reported.
Globally child mortality has halved since 1990, girls very nearly match boys now in terms of the number of years in school, devastating diseases have been nearly (polio) or completely (smallpox) eliminated, previously chaotic and dictatorial countries (Nigeria, Indonesia) have had very successful democratic elections, life expectancy is increasing, the gap between poorer and richer countries has inexorably narrowed etc.
Pretty much everywhere you look there are (largely unreported) stories like this. That's not to say that catastrophic things are not happening (they are the things that get reported) but it is to say that underlying trends are almost universally positive.
In other words, if you rely on the most of the news outlets for your understanding of "the World" you'll get a very distorted view of it.
Try googling Hans Rosling for information about the stats actually say.
-
According to Hindu beliefs we will be entering a golden era (Satya yuga) after this period and I believe this is true.
I'm sure it is inevitable once humans educate themselves out of beliefs in gods, spirits, and things that go bump in the night.
-
Dear Blue,
Here's a thought, a news programme that only reports good news :o would anyone watch it??
Gonnagle.
-
Hi Gonners my friend,
Here's a thought, a news programme that only reports good news :o would anyone watch it??
I would. Not sure that those the think the Book of Daniel is credible would be able to handle being smacked so hard in the face by reality though!
-
Look at the prophecies in the book of Daniel and tell us if they relate. :(
NO!
Too Difficult for you to relate to with the Old names... :D
-
And now for the News at One O'clock.
Square Sausage and Tottie Scones :P God is in his Heaven all is right with the world ;D
Gonnagle.
-
The world have gone through good and bad patches throughout history.
-
What's normal?
Why do you think I wrote it as 'normal'? We tolerate a certain level of upset in the world and see this as just part of things but when it starts to escalate we often have the feeling that something is a foot.
So how do you feel about all the violence and wars in the world today?
Not happy with it, but it is to be expected.
-
JK,
So how do you feel about all the violence and wars in the world today?
For my part, obviously wars are horrible but it's comforting too to know too that proportionately fewer people are caught up in them than at pretty much any time in our history. You need to consider both what does happen and what does not happen to understand this - recently I was listening to something on Radio 4 when a Nobel laureate was asked what the most important historical event of the last century had been, and his reply was the fact that nuclear war did not happen.
I'm paraphrasing, but the point is well-made I think.
-
An extract from a paper by the University of Warwick:
"Wars are increasingly frequent, and the trend has been steadily upward since 1870. The main tradition of Western political and philosophical thought suggests that extensive economic globalization and democratization over this period should have reduced appetites for war far below their current level. This view is clearly incomplete: at best, confounding factors are at work. Here, we explore the capacity to wage war. Most fundamentally, the growing number of sovereign states has been closely associated with the spread of democracy and increasing commercial openness, as well as the number of bilateral conflicts. Trade and democracy are traditionally thought of as goods, both in themselves, and because they reduce the willingness to go to war, conditional on the national capacity to do so. But the same factors may also have been increasing the capacity for war, and so its frequency."
Also:
www.express.co.uk/.../Islamic-State-ISIS-conflicts-world-map-most- dangerous-ever-been-terror-security
-
A pretty graph. Armed conflicts peaked in the 90's and have declined since although they are now on an uptick.
http://www.pcr.uu.se/digitalAssets/66/66314_1armed-conflict-by-region-1946-2014jpg.jpg
-
Don't remember where I read this, but I believe that, when one takes the global population and the instances of 'trouble' into account, the proportion is probably not that much worse than it has ever been (the period that includes the 2 world wars excepted).
-
Look at the prophecies in the book of Daniel and tell us if they relate. :(
NO!
Too Difficult for you to relate to with the Old names... :D
Sass
Religion has really screwed you up, hasn't it. Do you really think that there is anything in the Book of Daniel that has any relevence?
You have already shown us (in the thread on giving accommodation to refugees ) that you haven't a clue about the central message of Christianity, so why on earth do you think that we shoul take notice of even older fairy tales?
-
Actually the news is overwhelmingly good and improving - albeit the news that's little reported.
Globally child mortality has halved since 1990, girls very nearly match boys now in terms of the number of years in school, devastating diseases have been nearly (polio) or completely (smallpox) eliminated, previously chaotic and dictatorial countries (Nigeria, Indonesia) have had very successful democratic elections, life expectancy is increasing, the gap between poorer and richer countries has inexorably narrowed etc.
Pretty much everywhere you look there are (largely unreported) stories like this. That's not to say that catastrophic things are not happening (they are the things that get reported) but it is to say that underlying trends are almost universally positive.
In other words, if you rely on the most of the news outlets for your understanding of "the World" you'll get a very distorted view of it.
Try googling Hans Rosling for information about the stats actually say.
Agreed.
-
Don't remember where I read this, but I believe that, when one takes the global population and the instances of 'trouble' into account, the proportion is probably not that much worse than it has ever been (the period that includes the 2 world wars excepted).
Apparently, Ghengis Khan was responsible for the deaths of maybe 30-40 million people which is around 10% of the World population at the time. The last two World wars are peanuts by comparison.
-
I agree with the posts that state that our media are thirsty to pump our fear, and that the Internet means we witness things that we didn't before. I sometimes think my parents have lived in a golden age - both born at the end of WW11 - but in fact the world they grew up in came far closer to nuclear conflict than it has in my lifetime.
-
Don't remember where I read this, but I believe that, when one takes the global population and the instances of 'trouble' into account, the proportion is probably not that much worse than it has ever been (the period that includes the 2 world wars excepted).
Apparently, Ghengis Khan was responsible for the deaths of maybe 30-40 million people which is around 10% of the World population at the time. The last two World wars are peanuts by comparison.
If you honestly think there is any reliable evidence for the figures about Ghengis Khan, then you are naive. In WW11 there were at least 20 million Russians killed alone, plus the holocaust, all the other military casualties, and the huge number of civilian deaths It all adds up to some 50 million, depending on which source you cite. Plus , of course, the WW1 millions on top of that. That makes the awful Khan's depredations look peanuts.
h2g2.com/approved_entry/A2854730
-
I also sometimes feel that the 1950's and the 60's were a golden era compared to later decades. But that could be because I was just too young to realize the problems around. Our younger days are always golden.
However it is possibly a fact that after the WWII .... and in India the war of Independence, there was a sense of relief and a settling down to a good life with a sense of loyalty, morality, building families, looking ahead, wanting to build the nation and so on. This probably did lead to a period of calm, enthusiasm, hope and optimism. I particularly enjoyed the movies of this period and most Indians still look back to this period as a golden period.
Then, by the end of the 60's came the wave of 'new ideas, new fashions, new thinking, globalization' etc....which rattled the calm somewhat. This has since grown and change has been very fast. In the last 40 years the world has become unrecognizable in many ways while retaining the same human issues as before. Too much of change too fast and too much of mental adjustment is disconcerting.
This is probably why the world looks troubled. Its our minds that are not adjusting to new situations and new values. In reality the world is probably better off now than ever before.
-
In reality the world is probably better off now than ever before.
I agree, and it's partly due, I'm sure, to the internet bringing immediate knowledge of problems to everybody.
-
I believe you are right.
"Scripture speaks of earthquakes, wars, and rumours of wars, and warns us with great urgency to prepare for the storms to come." Billy Graham
And my horoscope talks of readily foreseeable activities that will be encountered by the vast majority of people in a reasonably short timeframe as well, it's a variant of the Forer Effect.
O.
-
AB,
If you honestly think there is any reliable evidence for the figures about Ghengis Khan, then you are naive.
Depends what you mean by "reliable" exactly, but there's no reason to think them not to be reliable enough for rough estimate purposes at least.
In WW11 there were at least 20 million Russians killed alone, plus the holocaust, all the other military casualties, and the huge number of civilian deaths It all adds up to some 50 million, depending on which source you cite. Plus , of course, the WW1 millions on top of that. That makes the awful Khan's depredations look peanuts.
No it doesn't. As raw data the WWII numbers are obviously bigger than the deaths caused by Genghis Khan, but so was the global population. According to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs the global population in 1940 was about 2.3 billion.
For WWII to have had an equivalent effect to Genghis Khan, you'd need to find deaths of around 10% of that - ie, 230m.
-
BA,
An extract from a paper by the University of Warwick:...
You need to understand the context. The definition of "war" is problematic (was the Falklands conflict a war for example?) so UoW goes for declared wars between pairs of countries. Because there are many more countries now than before to be paired, so there are more opportunities for wars between them. You also need to factor in the numbers of people involved - three wars involving three pairs of Pacific Island states for example would clearly be less significant globally than, say, WWII.
And that's the point - for most people this is proportionally the most peaceful time to live there's ever been. Moreover, if you look at long term data, that's a trend.
-
Hope,
Don't remember where I read this, but I believe that, when one takes the global population and the instances of 'trouble' into account, the proportion is probably not that much worse than it has ever been (the period that includes the 2 world wars excepted).
Depends what you mean by "trouble", but the point is that it's not worse at all - we live in a time where you are statistically far less likely to be involved in a war, as well as to die early, to contract horrible diseases, to be illiterate etc.
-
I saw a story a whole back about a woman with severe anxiety who killed herself and her children because she couldn't face the future as presented by the media - inevitable war, famine etc. As with the hysteria around migrants, our media takes little or no effort over being responsible about what it reports, or how it is presented.
I did once try to start a thread on whether reading the news is beneficial with a link to Ralph Dobelli's piece on why he thinks it isn't, but nobody was interested.
-
I saw a story a whole back about a woman with severe anxiety who killed herself and her children because she couldn't face the future as presented by the media - inevitable war, famine etc. As with the hysteria around migrants, our media takes little or no effort over being responsible about what it reports, or how it is presented.
I did once try to start a thread on whether reading the news is beneficial with a link to Ralph Dobelli's piece on why he thinks it isn't, but nobody was interested.
If you are an optimist, reading the news will do no harm. If you are a pessimist, it could well do so.
-
It's such an obvious paradox when you think about it: many will take their understanding of the "the World" from the news, but "the news" is precisely the opposite of that: it concerns itself with what's new, different, unusual.
Another way to report "three million Syrians displaced this year" for example would be to say 7 billion people have not been displaced this year. The latter is a far more relevant way to understand the world than the former (especially if you can contextualise it with data about how much more secure the overwhelming majority of people are compared with any time in the past), yet it's the former and countless other stories like it that lead some to think we're all going to hell in a handcart.
There was comparatively little reporting recently for example of the UN statement that global infant mortality has halved since 1990. Halved! That's a huge story when you think about it, built moreover on remarkable advances in medical science, on enormous co-operation and co-ordination between countries, on major education programmes etc.
Of course the Syrian refugee story is tragic and important, but you cannot just decide that that's representative of the way the world is because it's getting so much coverage.
And another thing...
-
It seems that it's no so much that we need no news media, but better new media. I don't trust any of it as reliable any more, and that can't be healthy for society.
-
Little things break though which is why his death caused more of a stir than say a child dying elsewhere.
I think it also depends on our own experiences. If you have lived somewhere where the death of a 3-year-old is commonplace, that image would not have been as powerful as it would have been for those of us who haven't.
For me, the most powerful pictures remain the kind of thing that we saw during the Ethiopian famine in the 80s and the famous picture of the Vietnamese lass who was alight having been hit by napalm.
-
At times I get the feeling that there are more troubles and wars in the world than there have been in the last few decades, and tensions are brewing across the globe. How do others feel about what's going on in the world?
I don't think the worlds any worse than it used to be although events are reported a lot more so I suppose we know more about them. Strange though I was talking with my son about the troubles of the world wars etc and was saying when I was his age (17) I thought the world would have sorted itself out by the time I was 50... how naive was I??? ;D
-
Hi Rhi,
It seems that it's no so much that we need no news media, but better new media. I don't trust any of it as reliable any more, and that can't be healthy for society.
I don't see it that way - to the best of my knowledge most of the news media I look at is "reliable" - ie, it reports the facts accurately enough.
The problem though is that it's highly selective about the facts it chooses to cover, and moreover what we do with those facts is to assume that they're indicative of larger truths about the world when they're no such thing. To put it another way, not only are what's important and what's newsworthy often not the same thing, they can be facing in opposite directions.
And a lot of that I think is to do with the silent evidence problem. If you're one of the countless people who does not contract polio because it's been eliminated from your country you'll barely be aware of it; if on the other hand you're one of the few unfortunate enough to catch the Ebola virus that's a huge news story.
-
Hi Rhi,
It seems that it's no so much that we need no news media, but better new media. I don't trust any of it as reliable any more, and that can't be healthy for society.
I don't see it that way - to the best of my knowledge most of the news media I look at is "reliable" - ie, it reports the facts accurately enough.
The problem though is that it's highly selective about the facts it chooses to cover, and moreover what we do with those facts is to assume that they're indicative of larger truths about the world when they're no such thing. To put it another way, not only are what's important and what's newsworthy often not the same thing, they can be facing in opposite directions.
And a lot of that I think is to do with the silent evidence problem. If you're one of the countless people who does not contract polio because it's been eliminated from your country you'll barely be aware of it; if on the other hand you're one of the few unfortunate enough to catch the Ebola virus that's a huge news story.
I got seriously spooked from Ebola - my kids have had serious illnesses and I'm still a bit PTSD so am always on alert for threats, real or imagined. The reason I got so spooked largely was down to the media - when presented with the facts I didn't get especially worried, but then the media began running lots of 'what if' speculative stuff about mutation, pandemics, drug shortages - even on the BBC. I ended up getting all my information on it directly from the DofH's own website, where the Chief Medical Officer just kept on repeating that there was no public health risk to the UK.
Another recent headline I noticed following the Tunisian massacre was 'IS to attack Britain Today'. Now, ok, this was the Currant Bun, but was that headline in any way accurate, let alone responsible?
Or what about all the things the Daily Mail tell us will kill us all? I believe their options over the years have ranged from sausages to coffee to blow jobs.
-
I got seriously spooked from Ebola - my kids have had serious illnesses and I'm still a bit PTSD so am always on alert for threats, real or imagined. The reason I got so spooked largely was down to the media - when presented with the facts I didn't get especially worried, but then the media began running lots of 'what if' speculative stuff about mutation, pandemics, drug shortages - even on the BBC. I ended up getting all my information on it directly from the DofH's own website, where the Chief Medical Officer just kept on repeating that there was no public health risk to the UK.
Another recent headline I noticed following the Tunisian massacre was 'IS to attack Britain Today'. Now, ok, this was the Currant Bun, but was that headline in any way accurate, let alone responsible?
Or what about all the things the Daily Mail tell us will kill us all? I believe their options over the years have ranged from sausages to coffee to blow jobs.
I recommend a semi-regular exposure to the Daily Express. When you read that you can't help but laugh at the delusional nonsense, and they you read the Daily Mail and you see similar sorts of threads running through it and you realise how much spin there is in the crap.
Don't, though, ever ever ever open up the Daily Mail's website - just because the fewer people that do the less money they get from their advertisers.
O.
-
When in doubt the Express run Killer Weather stories - storms, predicted cold winters, droughts, heat waves...
I think the problem is that even serious news media has gone a bit Daily Mail. The BBC arent exempt, probably because they think there is a need to compete with Sky News.
The best newspaper I read is First News, written for kids aged 8-13. My kids subscribe to it; it presents stories such as Ebola and the Tunisian attacks in ways that are understandable and without hysteria. For example, following Tunisia they had a Q&A session and a child asked if he would be at risk on his trip to France. The reply was that dying from terrorism currently carries a risk of about 20,000,000-1 for UK residents- driving or walking to school each day is more dangerous.
Yet adult news media can't manage this.
-
I got seriously spooked from Ebola - my kids have had serious illnesses and I'm still a bit PTSD so am always on alert for threats, real or imagined. The reason I got so spooked largely was down to the media - when presented with the facts I didn't get especially worried, but then the media began running lots of 'what if' speculative stuff about mutation, pandemics, drug shortages - even on the BBC. I ended up getting all my information on it directly from the DofH's own website, where the Chief Medical Officer just kept on repeating that there was no public health risk to the UK.
Another recent headline I noticed following the Tunisian massacre was 'IS to attack Britain Today'. Now, ok, this was the Currant Bun, but was that headline in any way accurate, let alone responsible?
Or what about all the things the Daily Mail tell us will kill us all? I believe their options over the years have ranged from sausages to coffee to blow jobs.
I recommend a semi-regular exposure to the Daily Express. When you read that you can't help but laugh at the delusional nonsense, and they you read the Daily Mail and you see similar sorts of threads running through it and you realise how much spin there is in the crap.
Don't, though, ever ever ever open up the Daily Mail's website - just because the fewer people that do the less money they get from their advertisers.
O.
Reading any of the ghastly tabloids, is like reading a fantasy comic for the gullible!
-
I got seriously spooked from Ebola - my kids have had serious illnesses and I'm still a bit PTSD so am always on alert for threats, real or imagined. The reason I got so spooked largely was down to the media - when presented with the facts I didn't get especially worried, but then the media began running lots of 'what if' speculative stuff about mutation, pandemics, drug shortages - even on the BBC. I ended up getting all my information on it directly from the DofH's own website, where the Chief Medical Officer just kept on repeating that there was no public health risk to the UK.
Another recent headline I noticed following the Tunisian massacre was 'IS to attack Britain Today'. Now, ok, this was the Currant Bun, but was that headline in any way accurate, let alone responsible?
Or what about all the things the Daily Mail tell us will kill us all? I believe their options over the years have ranged from sausages to coffee to blow jobs.
I recommend a semi-regular exposure to the Daily Express. When you read that you can't help but laugh at the delusional nonsense, and they you read the Daily Mail and you see similar sorts of threads running through it and you realise how much spin there is in the crap.
Don't, though, ever ever ever open up the Daily Mail's website - just because the fewer people that do the less money they get from their advertisers.
O.
Reading any of the ghastly tabloids, is like reading a fantasy comic for the gullible!
How do you know they are ghastly unless you read them yourself?
-
How do you know they are ghastly unless you read them yourself?
If the Daily Mail or the Express were to have a sudden outbreak of journalistic integrity I think you can rest assured it would be all over the papers...
O.
-
How do you know they are ghastly unless you read them yourself?
If the Daily Mail or the Express were to have a sudden outbreak of journalistic integrity I think you can rest assured it would be all over the papers...
O.
The Mail has conducted a number of investigations of considerable importance, and showing great integrity. Let's be fair here.
-
How do you know they are ghastly unless you read them yourself?
If the Daily Mail or the Express were to have a sudden outbreak of journalistic integrity I think you can rest assured it would be all over the papers...
O.
The Mail has conducted a number of investigations of considerable importance, and showing great integrity. Let's be fair here.
I am being fair. They are journalists, to conduct journalistic investigations is the expectation - other media outlets have also conducted creditable investigations. Others have set a standard - not a particularly high standard - that they have failed to live up to, time and time again.
O.
-
From time to time I look on-line at the garbage spouted by the tabloids, particularly the mail and express, I am incredulous that anyone with even half a brain could give them any credence! The Times, Guardian, Telegraph and Indy are so much better written imo.
-
How do you know they are ghastly unless you read them yourself?
If the Daily Mail or the Express were to have a sudden outbreak of journalistic integrity I think you can rest assured it would be all over the papers...
O.
Helpfully BA has helpfully posted a link to the Express so we can see how well they are doing.
-
How do you know they are ghastly unless you read them yourself?
If the Daily Mail or the Express were to have a sudden outbreak of journalistic integrity I think you can rest assured it would be all over the papers...
O.
If you want to see what they are doing, look it up yourself: try and be objective, for once.
Helpfully BA has helpfully posted a link to the Express so we can see how well they are doing.
-
Who, the Express? Spreading fear and terror among the British does seem to be their modus operandi, I agree.
-
Who, the Express? Spreading fear and terror among the British does seem to be their modus operandi, I agree.
A slightly over-the-top remark, I think. Quite unlike you.
-
Who, the Express? Spreading fear and terror among the British does seem to be their modus operandi, I agree.
A slightly over-the-top remark, I think. Quite unlike you.
Do you get sarcasm?
-
Who, the Express? Spreading fear and terror among the British does seem to be their modus operandi, I agree.
A slightly over-the-top remark, I think. Quite unlike you.
Do you get sarcasm?
Not in that post, I don't. It was pretty well hidden.
-
Little things break though which is why his death caused more of a stir than say a child dying elsewhere.
I think it also depends on our own experiences. If you have lived somewhere where the death of a 3-year-old is commonplace, that image would not have been as powerful as it would have been for those of us who haven't.
For me, the most powerful pictures remain the kind of thing that we saw during the Ethiopian famine in the 80s and the famous picture of the Vietnamese lass who was alight having been hit by napalm.
I saw my own son in the picture of him smiling.
I think you are right, some does depend on our own experiences.
A picture that changed me completely was seeing photos of a flat from which some failed asylum seekers had been taken without warning into custody. There were a few scattered toys but the thing that really got me was the bottle of Calpol that they'd had to leave. Never have I felt more ashamed of my country.
-
At times I get the feeling that there are more troubles and wars in the world than there have been in the last few decades, and tensions are brewing across the globe. How do others feel about what's going on in the world?
I think what has changed is how much information we have access to.
Earthquakes and wars happened years ago, but news took longer to spread if it spread at all.
People only tended to know a small amount, or old news.
I did consider that but we have had pretty good news coverage for many, many decades so I think it would be more than that.
-
At times I get the feeling that there are more troubles and wars in the world than there have been in the last few decades, and tensions are brewing across the globe. How do others feel about what's going on in the world?
I think what has changed is how much information we have access to.
Earthquakes and wars happened years ago, but news took longer to spread if it spread at all.
People only tended to know a small amount, or old news.
I did consider that but we have had pretty good news coverage for many, many decades so I think it would be more than that.
any chance of citing figures rather than your gut?
-
At times I get the feeling that there are more troubles and wars in the world than there have been in the last few decades, and tensions are brewing across the globe. How do others feel about what's going on in the world?
I think what has changed is how much information we have access to.
Earthquakes and wars happened years ago, but news took longer to spread if it spread at all.
People only tended to know a small amount, or old news.
I did consider that but we have had pretty good news coverage for many, many decades so I think it would be more than that.
But a lot of conflict would go unreported in the past. A lot of abuse of women for example, largely passed our media by until women took to the Internet to explain what happened within their communities.
-
There are a number of factors. As somebody else has pointed out the technological means of disseminating the world news related to tensions and warfare have improved so much that it appears almost instantly in your living room. During the last world war the actuality of warfare appeared in your 'living room' but other bad news was largely suppressed to maintain morale.
The technological means of killing people and destroying property has advanced considerably and continues to do so. This coupled with the world population explosion and density probably means that there are more potential casualties and destruction of property and mass migrations.
As the world resources dwindle political power blocks will flex their muscles to exercise control over getting their 'share'.
As more and more people are forced to live in precarious geological zones e.g. lowland areas, tectonic areas, any natural disasters will create more casualties. Diseases will spread more quickly.
.... and that's just the good news. :o
Can I take it that you agree with the OP then?
-
Please see the thread on 'Some positive thinking...' . I think there are lots of good things today as compared to earlier centuries and decades. Of course, when the world becomes smaller and all of us relate to each others problems...things are bound to look gloomy.
I remember when I was in college... even events happening in other parts of India and even South India looked very distant and irrelevant to us. Only things happening in our town and maybe our State would seem important. Today its different. Even the killings in US, suicides in Japan, migrations into Europe... seem important and worrying. That's perhaps why we feel there are more troubles than before.
According to Hindu beliefs we will be entering a golden era (Satya yuga) after this period and I believe this is true.
And how long is this period? When does it end and the new one start?
-
There is more of us - so there is more of everything. Good and bad. Link this to the aforementioned ease of dissemination of information and the bias applied to that information and you could be led to believe things are getting worse. In relative terms I don't think so.
Perhaps mankind is approaching critical mass when all manner of chaos will breakout...?
-
There is more of us - so there is more of everything. Good and bad. Link this to the aforementioned ease of dissemination of information and the bias applied to that information and you could be led to believe things are getting worse. In relative terms I don't think so.
Perhaps mankind is approaching critical mass when all manner of chaos will breakout...?
Very traditional figures run into hundreds of thousands of years. More reasonable estimates put it at about 3000 years from death of Krishna which was around 1300 BCE. So we are overdue and should perhaps be getting there sometime soon. :)
-
Actually the news is overwhelmingly good and improving - albeit the news that's little reported.
Globally child mortality has halved since 1990, girls very nearly match boys now in terms of the number of years in school, devastating diseases have been nearly (polio) or completely (smallpox) eliminated, previously chaotic and dictatorial countries (Nigeria, Indonesia) have had very successful democratic elections, life expectancy is increasing, the gap between poorer and richer countries has inexorably narrowed etc.
Pretty much everywhere you look there are (largely unreported) stories like this. That's not to say that catastrophic things are not happening (they are the things that get reported) but it is to say that underlying trends are almost universally positive.
In other words, if you rely on the most of the news outlets for your understanding of "the World" you'll get a very distorted view of it.
Try googling Hans Rosling for information about the stats actually say.
But increased numbers of people cause problems...
-
Dear Blue,
Here's a thought, a news programme that only reports good news :o would anyone watch it??
Gonnagle.
What, that lie? We have those and the US is plagued by them.
-
JK,
So how do you feel about all the violence and wars in the world today?
For my part, obviously wars are horrible but it's comforting too to know too that proportionately fewer people are caught up in them than at pretty much any time in our history. You need to consider both what does happen and what does not happen to understand this - recently I was listening to something on Radio 4 when a Nobel laureate was asked what the most important historical event of the last century had been, and his reply was the fact that nuclear war did not happen.
I'm paraphrasing, but the point is well-made I think.
Still could, though...
-
JK,
So how do you feel about all the violence and wars in the world today?
For my part, obviously wars are horrible but it's comforting too to know too that proportionately fewer people are caught up in them than at pretty much any time in our history. You need to consider both what does happen and what does not happen to understand this - recently I was listening to something on Radio 4 when a Nobel laureate was asked what the most important historical event of the last century had been, and his reply was the fact that nuclear war did not happen.
I'm paraphrasing, but the point is well-made I think.
Still could, though...
Which is specious as regards your OP
-
There is more of us - so there is more of everything. Good and bad. Link this to the aforementioned ease of dissemination of information and the bias applied to that information and you could be led to believe things are getting worse. In relative terms I don't think so.
Perhaps mankind is approaching critical mass when all manner of chaos will breakout...?
Do you have the calculation that gives this? Is your name Malthus? (Though I note again it is specious to the OP)
-
Hope,
Don't remember where I read this, but I believe that, when one takes the global population and the instances of 'trouble' into account, the proportion is probably not that much worse than it has ever been (the period that includes the 2 world wars excepted).
Depends what you mean by "trouble", but the point is that it's not worse at all - we live in a time where you are statistically far less likely to be involved in a war, as well as to die early, to contract horrible diseases, to be illiterate etc.
But the problem is that people get use to their ease of life and that becomes the norm or datum level and anything less is seen as bad and a cause to fight back against losing their life style. Spoilt brats is a good example of this.
-
JK,
So how do you feel about all the violence and wars in the world today?
For my part, obviously wars are horrible but it's comforting too to know too that proportionately fewer people are caught up in them than at pretty much any time in our history. You need to consider both what does happen and what does not happen to understand this - recently I was listening to something on Radio 4 when a Nobel laureate was asked what the most important historical event of the last century had been, and his reply was the fact that nuclear war did not happen.
I'm paraphrasing, but the point is well-made I think.
Still could, though...
Which is specious as regards your OP
Am expanding the scope of things....
-
There is more of us - so there is more of everything. Good and bad. Link this to the aforementioned ease of dissemination of information and the bias applied to that information and you could be led to believe things are getting worse. In relative terms I don't think so.
Perhaps mankind is approaching critical mass when all manner of chaos will breakout...?
Do you have the calculation that gives this? Is your name Malthus? (Though I note again it is specious to the OP)
I'm suggesting that the increase in violence, if this is the case, may be due to the increase of people on this planet and that resources are getting scarce. At some point it will reach a tipping point.
-
Or not.
-
Dear Jack,
I'm suggesting that the increase in violence, if this is the case, may be due to the increase of people on this planet and that resources are getting scarce. At some point it will reach a tipping point.
If I remember correctly one of Hans Rosling lectures, he did mention that war might be the inevitable outcome.
Gonnagle.
-
I think its inevitable that eventually someone who believes the end of the world has been prophesied gets their hands on a weapon that can bring that about.
-
I think its inevitable that eventually someone who believes the end of the world has been prophesied gets their hands on a weapon that can bring that about.
Sadly you could be right. In the US there are some right-wing religious nutters who would just love to bring about Armageddon! :(
-
I don't think the US has a monopoly on nutterism although they do have their fair share :)
Being a child of the cold war armageddon never seems that far away perhaps a few more players in the game though :'(
-
All this talk about armageddon. Why the anxiety, it's not the end of the world. :D
In all seriousness, the real danger is with the Muslim fundamentalists, and if they get hold of nuclear weapons.
-
All this talk about armageddon. Why the anxiety, it's not the end of the world. :D
In all seriousness, the real danger is with the Muslim fundamentalists, and if they get hold of nuclear weapons.
In all seriousness, the real danger is with the Muslim fundamentalists, and if they get hold of nuclear weapons.
Fixed that for you - you also need to worry about the Christian fundamentalists in the US government trying to get control of their nuclear arsenal, and the Russian fundamentalists sabre-rattling, and the Zionists casually invading Arab territories in defiance of all good sense who already have their nuclear weapons.
Yes the Muslims are a threat, so are the rest of them.
O.
-
All this talk about armageddon. Why the anxiety, it's not the end of the world. :D
In all seriousness, the real danger is with the Muslim fundamentalists, and if they get hold of nuclear weapons.
In all seriousness, the real danger is with the Muslim fundamentalists, and if they get hold of nuclear weapons.
Fixed that for you - you also need to worry about the Christian fundamentalists in the US government trying to get control of their nuclear arsenal, and the Russian fundamentalists sabre-rattling, and the Zionists casually invading Arab territories in defiance of all good sense who already have their nuclear weapons.
Yes the Muslims are a threat, so are the rest of them.
O.
The difference between all these groups is that that Isis types, for example, are actively attempting to destroy Western culture, as we speak, and have shown, graphically, that they will stop at nothing.
-
The difference between all these groups is that that Isis types, for example, are actively attempting to destroy Western culture, as we speak, and have shown, graphically, that they will stop at nothing.
You don't think the Republicans are trying to destroy Western culture?
O.
-
The difference between all these groups is that that Isis types, for example, are actively attempting to destroy Western culture, as we speak, and have shown, graphically, that they will stop at nothing.
You don't think the Republicans are trying to destroy Western culture?
O....
Do you? You are the one suggesting such, aren't you? If not, what are you on about?
-
The difference between all these groups is that that Isis types, for example, are actively attempting to destroy Western culture, as we speak, and have shown, graphically, that they will stop at nothing.
You don't think the Republicans are trying to destroy Western culture?
O.
Do you? You are the one suggesting such, aren't you? If not, what are you on about?
Yes, I do, whereas you apparently only think it's the Muslim fundamentalists, at least that's how your post came across to me.
O.
-
The difference between all these groups is that that Isis types, for example, are actively attempting to destroy Western culture, as we speak, and have shown, graphically, that they will stop at nothing.
You don't think the Republicans are trying to destroy Western culture?
O.
Do you? You are the one suggesting such, aren't you? If not, what are you on about?
Yes, I do, whereas you apparently only think it's the Muslim fundamentalists, at least that's how your post came across to me.
O.
I know nothing about these Republican activities. Perhaps you could enlighten me about their views and strength and resources, and the danger they pose. What have they done, compared, for example, to ISIS?
-
There are a number of factors. As somebody else has pointed out the technological means of disseminating the world news related to tensions and warfare have improved so much that it appears almost instantly in your living room. During the last world war the actuality of warfare appeared in your 'living room' but other bad news was largely suppressed to maintain morale.
The technological means of killing people and destroying property has advanced considerably and continues to do so. This coupled with the world population explosion and density probably means that there are more potential casualties and destruction of property and mass migrations.
As the world resources dwindle political power blocks will flex their muscles to exercise control over getting their 'share'.
As more and more people are forced to live in precarious geological zones e.g. lowland areas, tectonic areas, any natural disasters will create more casualties. Diseases will spread more quickly.
.... and that's just the good news. :o
Can I take it that you agree with the OP then?
I get the impression that tensions across the world are growing but then this has probably always been the case when empires have risen and fallen and other power structures have fought to fill the vacuum. The impression could arise from the competition between mass media outlets to outperform each other in public presentation. Also with the advent of the Internet it is difficult for secrecy to be maintained by those wishing to suppress negative news or those with an agenda to present disinformation. I suspect that as populations swell, it will become more and more difficult to control the masses that have they become critical.
-
Little things break though which is why his death caused more of a stir than say a child dying elsewhere.
I think it also depends on our own experiences. If you have lived somewhere where the death of a 3-year-old is commonplace, that image would not have been as powerful as it would have been for those of us who haven't.
For me, the most powerful pictures remain the kind of thing that we saw during the Ethiopian famine in the 80s and the famous picture of the Vietnamese lass who was alight having been hit by napalm.
Yes, the first cut is the deepest.
-
There are a number of factors. As somebody else has pointed out the technological means of disseminating the world news related to tensions and warfare have improved so much that it appears almost instantly in your living room. During the last world war the actuality of warfare appeared in your 'living room' but other bad news was largely suppressed to maintain morale.
The technological means of killing people and destroying property has advanced considerably and continues to do so. This coupled with the world population explosion and density probably means that there are more potential casualties and destruction of property and mass migrations.
As the world resources dwindle political power blocks will flex their muscles to exercise control over getting their 'share'.
As more and more people are forced to live in precarious geological zones e.g. lowland areas, tectonic areas, any natural disasters will create more casualties. Diseases will spread more quickly.
.... and that's just the good news. :o
Can I take it that you agree with the OP then?
I get the impression that tensions across the world are growing but then this has probably always been the case when empires have risen and fallen and other power structures have fought to fill the vacuum. The impression could arise from the competition between mass media outlets to outperform each other in public presentation. Also with the advent of the Internet it is difficult for secrecy to be maintained by those wishing to suppress negative news or those with an agenda to present disinformation. I suspect that as populations swell, it will become more and more difficult to control the masses that have they become critical.
...and, when tensions do grow things become polarized, as you suggest, and then things take off like a nuclear reaction.
-
There are a number of factors. As somebody else has pointed out the technological means of disseminating the world news related to tensions and warfare have improved so much that it appears almost instantly in your living room. During the last world war the actuality of warfare appeared in your 'living room' but other bad news was largely suppressed to maintain morale.
The technological means of killing people and destroying property has advanced considerably and continues to do so. This coupled with the world population explosion and density probably means that there are more potential casualties and destruction of property and mass migrations.
As the world resources dwindle political power blocks will flex their muscles to exercise control over getting their 'share'.
As more and more people are forced to live in precarious geological zones e.g. lowland areas, tectonic areas, any natural disasters will create more casualties. Diseases will spread more quickly.
.... and that's just the good news. :o
Can I take it that you agree with the OP then?
I get the impression that tensions across the world are growing but then this has probably always been the case when empires have risen and fallen and other power structures have fought to fill the vacuum. The impression could arise from the competition between mass media outlets to outperform each other in public presentation. Also with the advent of the Internet it is difficult for secrecy to be maintained by those wishing to suppress negative news or those with an agenda to present disinformation. I suspect that as populations swell, it will become more and more difficult to control the masses that have they become critical.
...and, when tensions do grow things become polarized, as you suggest, and then things take off like a nuclear reaction.
Let's hope it doesn't become like Calhoun's rats:
" Using a variety of strains of rats and mice, he once more provided his populations with food, bedding, and shelter. With no predators and with exposure to disease kept at a minimum, Calhoun described his experimental universes as "rat utopia," "mouse paradise." With all their visible needs met, the animals bred rapidly. The only restriction Calhoun imposed on his population was of space--and as the population grew, this became increasingly problematic. As the pens heaved with animals, one of his assistants described rodent "utopia" as having become "hell."
Males became aggressive, some moving in groups, attacking females and the young. Mating behaviors were disrupted. Some males became exclusively homosexual. Others became pansexual and hypersexual, attempting to mount any rat they encountered. Mothers neglected their infants, first failing to construct proper nests, and then carelessly abandoning and even attacking their pups. In certain sections of the pens, infant mortality rose as high as 96%, the dead cannibalized by adults. Subordinate animals withdrew psychologically, surviving in a physical sense but at an immense psychological cost. They were the majority in the late phases of growth, existing as a vacant, huddled mass in the centre of the pens. Unable to breed, the population plummeted and did not recover. The crowded rodents had lost the ability to co-exist harmoniously, even after the population numbers once again fell to low levels. At a certain density, they had ceased to act like rats and mice, and the change was permanent. "
-
There are a number of factors. As somebody else has pointed out the technological means of disseminating the world news related to tensions and warfare have improved so much that it appears almost instantly in your living room. During the last world war the actuality of warfare appeared in your 'living room' but other bad news was largely suppressed to maintain morale.
The technological means of killing people and destroying property has advanced considerably and continues to do so. This coupled with the world population explosion and density probably means that there are more potential casualties and destruction of property and mass migrations.
As the world resources dwindle political power blocks will flex their muscles to exercise control over getting their 'share'.
As more and more people are forced to live in precarious geological zones e.g. lowland areas, tectonic areas, any natural disasters will create more casualties. Diseases will spread more quickly.
.... and that's just the good news. :o
Can I take it that you agree with the OP then?
I get the impression that tensions across the world are growing but then this has probably always been the case when empires have risen and fallen and other power structures have fought to fill the vacuum. The impression could arise from the competition between mass media outlets to outperform each other in public presentation. Also with the advent of the Internet it is difficult for secrecy to be maintained by those wishing to suppress negative news or those with an agenda to present disinformation. I suspect that as populations swell, it will become more and more difficult to control the masses that have they become critical.
...and, when tensions do grow things become polarized, as you suggest, and then things take off like a nuclear reaction.
Let's hope it doesn't become like Calhoun's rats:
" Using a variety of strains of rats and mice, he once more provided his populations with food, bedding, and shelter. With no predators and with exposure to disease kept at a minimum, Calhoun described his experimental universes as "rat utopia," "mouse paradise." With all their visible needs met, the animals bred rapidly. The only restriction Calhoun imposed on his population was of space--and as the population grew, this became increasingly problematic. As the pens heaved with animals, one of his assistants described rodent "utopia" as having become "hell."
Males became aggressive, some moving in groups, attacking females and the young. Mating behaviors were disrupted. Some males became exclusively homosexual. Others became pansexual and hypersexual, attempting to mount any rat they encountered. Mothers neglected their infants, first failing to construct proper nests, and then carelessly abandoning and even attacking their pups. In certain sections of the pens, infant mortality rose as high as 96%, the dead cannibalized by adults. Subordinate animals withdrew psychologically, surviving in a physical sense but at an immense psychological cost. They were the majority in the late phases of growth, existing as a vacant, huddled mass in the centre of the pens. Unable to breed, the population plummeted and did not recover. The crowded rodents had lost the ability to co-exist harmoniously, even after the population numbers once again fell to low levels. At a certain density, they had ceased to act like rats and mice, and the change was permanent. "
I had heard about that but had no name, or scientist, nor the extent of the details. Sounds very much like what is going on with the human race to me - sins of the fathers.
-
There are a number of factors. As somebody else has pointed out the technological means of disseminating the world news related to tensions and warfare have improved so much that it appears almost instantly in your living room. During the last world war the actuality of warfare appeared in your 'living room' but other bad news was largely suppressed to maintain morale.
The technological means of killing people and destroying property has advanced considerably and continues to do so. This coupled with the world population explosion and density probably means that there are more potential casualties and destruction of property and mass migrations.
As the world resources dwindle political power blocks will flex their muscles to exercise control over getting their 'share'.
As more and more people are forced to live in precarious geological zones e.g. lowland areas, tectonic areas, any natural disasters will create more casualties. Diseases will spread more quickly.
.... and that's just the good news. :o
Can I take it that you agree with the OP then?
I get the impression that tensions across the world are growing but then this has probably always been the case when empires have risen and fallen and other power structures have fought to fill the vacuum. The impression could arise from the competition between mass media outlets to outperform each other in public presentation. Also with the advent of the Internet it is difficult for secrecy to be maintained by those wishing to suppress negative news or those with an agenda to present disinformation. I suspect that as populations swell, it will become more and more difficult to control the masses that have they become critical.
...and, when tensions do grow things become polarized, as you suggest, and then things take off like a nuclear reaction.
Let's hope it doesn't become like Calhoun's rats:
" Using a variety of strains of rats and mice, he once more provided his populations with food, bedding, and shelter. With no predators and with exposure to disease kept at a minimum, Calhoun described his experimental universes as "rat utopia," "mouse paradise." With all their visible needs met, the animals bred rapidly. The only restriction Calhoun imposed on his population was of space--and as the population grew, this became increasingly problematic. As the pens heaved with animals, one of his assistants described rodent "utopia" as having become "hell."
Males became aggressive, some moving in groups, attacking females and the young. Mating behaviors were disrupted. Some males became exclusively homosexual. Others became pansexual and hypersexual, attempting to mount any rat they encountered. Mothers neglected their infants, first failing to construct proper nests, and then carelessly abandoning and even attacking their pups. In certain sections of the pens, infant mortality rose as high as 96%, the dead cannibalized by adults. Subordinate animals withdrew psychologically, surviving in a physical sense but at an immense psychological cost. They were the majority in the late phases of growth, existing as a vacant, huddled mass in the centre of the pens. Unable to breed, the population plummeted and did not recover. The crowded rodents had lost the ability to co-exist harmoniously, even after the population numbers once again fell to low levels. At a certain density, they had ceased to act like rats and mice, and the change was permanent. "
I had heard about that but had no name, or scientist, nor the extent of the details. Sounds very much like what is going on with the human race to me - sins of the fathers.
There's further information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun
-
I know nothing about these Republican activities. Perhaps you could enlighten me about their views and strength and resources, and the danger they pose. What have they done, compared, for example, to ISIS?
The Republican party in the US are, in the main (and particularly the 'Tea Party' movement within it): pro-Gun; anti-abortion in all instances; in favour of the state paying for (Christian) faith-based education; de-facto religious tests for public office; the right to discriminate against homosexuals; the conversion of the military to Christian fighting force; military agitation.
They already have access to nuclear weapons, as well as the best funded military in the world with some of the most advanced weapons platforms available. At the same time they are unrelentingly pro-Israel in a fragmented middle-Eastern situation, anti-science reality deniers on the education and environmental front and jingoistic cheerleaders for American protectionism economically.
In India we see the beginnings of a similar Hindu fundamentalism as Narendra Mohdi's associates replace the leadership of the secular institutions of India with Hindutva hard-liners whilst maintaining an official silence over the increase in anti-secular criminal activities in the form of murders, violent attacks and threats.
When the world's two largest democracies are in danger of being taken over by religious fundamentalist nut-jobs, the fact that Isis persists outside of any official channels in a relatively small, poor, badly-equipped area of the middle-East is important, but not the most significant threat to world peace.
O.
-
I know nothing about these Republican activities. Perhaps you could enlighten me about their views and strength and resources, and the danger they pose. What have they done, compared, for example, to ISIS?
The Republican party in the US are, in the main (and particularly the 'Tea Party' movement within it): pro-Gun; anti-abortion in all instances; in favour of the state paying for (Christian) faith-based education; de-facto religious tests for public office; the right to discriminate against homosexuals; the conversion of the military to Christian fighting force; military agitation.
They already have access to nuclear weapons, as well as the best funded military in the world with some of the most advanced weapons platforms available. At the same time they are unrelentingly pro-Israel in a fragmented middle-Eastern situation, anti-science reality deniers on the education and environmental front and jingoistic cheerleaders for American protectionism economically.
In India we see the beginnings of a similar Hindu fundamentalism as Narendra Mohdi's associates replace the leadership of the secular institutions of India with Hindutva hard-liners whilst maintaining an official silence over the increase in anti-secular criminal activities in the form of murders, violent attacks and threats.
When the world's two largest democracies are in danger of being taken over by religious fundamentalist nut-jobs, the fact that Isis persists outside of any official channels in a relatively small, poor, badly-equipped area of the middle-East is important, but not the most significant threat to world peace.
O.
The above is totally off the track. You have established no case: your casual dismissal of Isis is frightening: the first paragraph is irrelevant to the discussion; and you are at a complete divergence with the West's attitude to Isis and Muslim terrorism, where it is regarded as the main threat to our society.
-
I know nothing about these Republican activities. Perhaps you could enlighten me about their views and strength and resources, and the danger they pose. What have they done, compared, for example, to ISIS?
The Republican party in the US are, in the main (and particularly the 'Tea Party' movement within it): pro-Gun; anti-abortion in all instances; in favour of the state paying for (Christian) faith-based education; de-facto religious tests for public office; the right to discriminate against homosexuals; the conversion of the military to Christian fighting force; military agitation.
They already have access to nuclear weapons, as well as the best funded military in the world with some of the most advanced weapons platforms available. At the same time they are unrelentingly pro-Israel in a fragmented middle-Eastern situation, anti-science reality deniers on the education and environmental front and jingoistic cheerleaders for American protectionism economically.
In India we see the beginnings of a similar Hindu fundamentalism as Narendra Mohdi's associates replace the leadership of the secular institutions of India with Hindutva hard-liners whilst maintaining an official silence over the increase in anti-secular criminal activities in the form of murders, violent attacks and threats.
When the world's two largest democracies are in danger of being taken over by religious fundamentalist nut-jobs, the fact that Isis persists outside of any official channels in a relatively small, poor, badly-equipped area of the middle-East is important, but not the most significant threat to world peace.
O.
Yes...I generally agree with you. But the threat to secularism in India is not as much as people think. Even Modi is embarrassed with the antics of the Shiv Sena, RSS and others. He is not likely to support them very far and if he does he will be thrown out without much ado. The majority of the people in India never tolerate fanaticism of any kind.
The problem is that for decades the congress has been seen as a minority supporting party...(it was also full of scams). This is why the BJP is now in power as a reaction to that. This happens every few years and the people try out another party. If they are unsatisfactory...they will be thrown out unceremoniously.
-
The above is totally off the track.
You are, of course, entitled to that opinion.
You have established no case:
You should, of course, remember that opinions are like arseholes.
your casual dismissal of Isis is frightening:
I did not 'casually dismiss' Isis, I merely said they weren't the worst threat to world peace at the moment, and I didn't even get to Russia or China.
the first paragraph is irrelevant to the discussion;
You expressed ignorance - deliberately, this time, rather than accidently - regarding the nature of American Republicanism, so I enlightened you. It's not a complete introduction, of course, and I'll freely confess that it's more than a little partisan, but it's eminently relevant.
and you are at a complete divergence with the West's attitude to Isis and Muslim terrorism, where it is regarded as the main threat to our society.
No, I'm at odds with the public relations output of Western governments and right-wing oriented media who want to spur jingoism by painting a black-and-white situation where there's a clear but eminently defeatable bogeyman that they can unload munitions at in some dusty, distant locale. I'm at odds with the Daily Mail/Express view of the world - frankly, I'm not too upset by that.
O.
[/quote]
-
Arguably the motor car poses a greater threat than IS.
-
Arguably the motor car poses a greater threat than IS.
To health, certainly, as things stand now. To peace...? Don't get me wrong, it's a pressing concern - I didn't go into threats to culture and civilisation from climate change and the like (beyond the reference to the Tea Party idiots).
O.
-
In terms of us as individuals losing our lives it's a far greater threat right now. And how much war happens because of our desire to keep producing more cars and more fuel for more cars?
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Cars!! I suppose you must, but do you have places in your area like Cumbernauld and East Kilbride, new towns, they seem to be built mainly for car owners.
It might just be me, but it seems that when you walk in these areas it is not pedestrian friendly, walkers have to go out of their way to navigate, I find these new towns very unfriendly.
Gonnagle.
-
In terms of us as individuals losing our lives it's a far greater threat right now. And how much war happens because of our desire to keep producing more cars and more fuel for more cars?
Indeed - I was tempted to include the links between 'Big Oil' and the funding of the Republican party, but I think it probably unfairly singles them out in that, the Democrats aren't a whole lot better when it comes to their funding sources.
And, of course, the reason the middle-East has the finances to support war efforts, and the reason anyone cares in the first place, is the oil - same argument for why Britain went to the expense of standing up for the Falklands.
O.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Cars!! I suppose you must, but do you have places in your area like Cumbernauld and East Kilbride, new towns, they seem to be built mainly for car owners.
It might just be me, but it seems that when you walk in these areas it is not pedestrian friendly, walkers have to go out of their way to navigate, I find these new towns very unfriendly.
Gonnagle.
Perhaps 'cars' is a slight inaccuracy - the internal combustion engine, then? Roll on the fuel-cell :)
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
I was thinking more about scrapping cars all together, claim back our roads for walkers and because I like cycling, more cycle paths.
I am not a fan of buses but if I could travel to work by train :) :)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Outrider,
I was thinking more about scrapping cars all together, claim back our roads for walkers and because I like cycling, more cycle paths.
I am not a fan of buses but if I could travel to work by train :) :)
Gonnagle.
Unfortunately, given the population levels in the developed world, our society is built around the personal mobility that cars have given. It's not commercially viable to operate trains out of a town as small as the one I live in, and it's not possible for me to do my job without travelling extensively to all the clients I work with, which is far beyond anyone's capacity to cycle around :)
The immediate impact of the internal combusion engine can be mitigated, the cultural impact of the personal mobility and freedom that the car brings - I think it would be a shame to lose that, but I do think that more planning needs to be done to make cycling a viable option.
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
Unfortunately, given the population levels in the developed world, our society is built around the personal mobility that cars have given. It's not commercially viable to operate trains out of a town as small as the one I live in,
Yes but I think the world is changing fast, I am thinking about my nephew who lives in Texas, he constantly talks to his company here in Glasgow by video conferencing, are cars really needed or just a luxury. ( just thinking ;) )
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Outrider,
Unfortunately, given the population levels in the developed world, our society is built around the personal mobility that cars have given. It's not commercially viable to operate trains out of a town as small as the one I live in,
Yes but I think the world is changing fast, I am thinking about my nephew who lives in Texas, he constantly talks to his company here in Glasgow by video conferencing, are cars really needed or just a luxury. ( just thinking ;) )
Gonnagle.
My wife and I tried to take the kids to Legoland last year by train - it's perhaps an hour long trip by car, and it took us nearly six hours each way by public transport, and that was accepting the later start than we'd have wanted because of the time the bus left town. As the world is constructed now, cars are a necessity.
Could they be a luxury? Perhaps, but it's difficult to see how - unless we densely pack people in, then having everything in someone's life within walking or cycling distance isn't viable, and we don't all want to live in massive conurbations.
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
I use my car to travel to work but by public transport my work is less than half an hour away, laziness on my part, also the car is cheaper, or is it, what with upkeep, tax and insurance, no I am just lazy :P
But I do think we need to step away from this car mentality, put more money into our public transport, open up all those lines cut by Beeching but it all boils down to money, or does it??
Gonnagle.
-
Not had a car for five years. I usually hire one a couple of times a year. But then I live in the centre of town.
-
Dear Outrider,
Unfortunately, given the population levels in the developed world, our society is built around the personal mobility that cars have given. It's not commercially viable to operate trains out of a town as small as the one I live in,
Yes but I think the world is changing fast, I am thinking about my nephew who lives in Texas, he constantly talks to his company here in Glasgow by video conferencing, are cars really needed or just a luxury. ( just thinking ;) )
Gonnagle.
My wife and I tried to take the kids to Legoland last year by train - it's perhaps an hour long trip by car, and it took us nearly six hours each way by public transport, and that was accepting the later start than we'd have wanted because of the time the bus left town. As the world is constructed now, cars are a necessity.
Could they be a luxury? Perhaps, but it's difficult to see how - unless we densely pack people in, then having everything in someone's life within walking or cycling distance isn't viable, and we don't all want to live in massive conurbations.
O.
For me not to have a car just wouldn't work. It's three miles to a corner shop, eight to school and an outpatients visit to the nearest hospital requires an overnight stay in a hotel if attempted by public transport.
I suppose one possibility would be some kind of car pool.
-
I know nothing about these Republican activities. Perhaps you could enlighten me about their views and strength and resources, and the danger they pose. What have they done, compared, for example, to ISIS?
The Republican party in the US are, in the main (and particularly the 'Tea Party' movement within it): pro-Gun; anti-abortion in all instances; in favour of the state paying for (Christian) faith-based education; de-facto religious tests for public office; the right to discriminate against homosexuals; the conversion of the military to Christian fighting force; military agitation.
They already have access to nuclear weapons, as well as the best funded military in the world with some of the most advanced weapons platforms available. At the same time they are unrelentingly pro-Israel in a fragmented middle-Eastern situation, anti-science reality deniers on the education and environmental front and jingoistic cheerleaders for American protectionism economically.
In India we see the beginnings of a similar Hindu fundamentalism as Narendra Mohdi's associates replace the leadership of the secular institutions of India with Hindutva hard-liners whilst maintaining an official silence over the increase in anti-secular criminal activities in the form of murders, violent attacks and threats.
When the world's two largest democracies are in danger of being taken over by religious fundamentalist nut-jobs, the fact that Isis persists outside of any official channels in a relatively small, poor, badly-equipped area of the middle-East is important, but not the most significant threat to world peace.
O.
This highlights something that has come to mind that inspired my OP. That not only do I feel there are more conflicts in the world than usual but that they are more intense and near to the edge of total chaos; all out mayhem. That things are more polarized and fanatical and for those involved more desperate. Even for us relatively well off westerners the political and social situations in the US and the EU are starting to crack up as people become more and more dissatisfied with how the ruling elites are lining their own pockets to the visible detriment and increase in poverty of the people and their daily lives.
-
This highlights something that has come to mind that inspired my OP. That not only do I feel there are more conflicts in the world than usual but that they are more intense and near to the edge of total chaos; all out mayhem. That things are more polarized and fanatical and for those involved more desperate. Even for us relatively well off westerners the political and social situations in the US and the EU are starting to crack up as people become more and more dissatisfied with how the ruling elites are lining their own pockets to the visible detriment and increase in poverty of the people and their daily lives.
There aren't more conflicts, there is just more reporting of them, and they involve a significantly smaller proportion of the population; partly this is due to the advances in the machinery of warfare, but mainly it's because the move from authoritarian power-structures (such as the Prussian or British Empires) to democratic structures means that the personnel losses of wide-spread warfare are no longer acceptable to most of the major players.
This is why theocratic states and religiously motivated organisations are such a worry - what they lack in technological capacity and economic might they make up for with deluded absolute commitment and a leadership structure that can implement totalitarian means. Thankfully they are, for the moment, few and far between, but when they hijack democratic processes - as we see with the Hindu fundamentalists in power in India and the Christian fundamentalists seeking the Republican vote in the US - then we have a worrying combination.
We aren't in deep just yet, but the potential is there unless we can keep political, economic and military power separate from religious sentiment.
O.
-
This highlights something that has come to mind that inspired my OP. That not only do I feel there are more conflicts in the world than usual but that they are more intense and near to the edge of total chaos; all out mayhem. That things are more polarized and fanatical and for those involved more desperate. Even for us relatively well off westerners the political and social situations in the US and the EU are starting to crack up as people become more and more dissatisfied with how the ruling elites are lining their own pockets to the visible detriment and increase in poverty of the people and their daily lives.
There aren't more conflicts, there is just more reporting of them, and they involve a significantly smaller proportion of the population; partly this is due to the advances in the machinery of warfare, but mainly it's because the move from authoritarian power-structures (such as the Prussian or British Empires) to democratic structures means that the personnel losses of wide-spread warfare are no longer acceptable to most of the major players.
This is why theocratic states and religiously motivated organisations are such a worry - what they lack in technological capacity and economic might they make up for with deluded absolute commitment and a leadership structure that can implement totalitarian means. Thankfully they are, for the moment, few and far between, but when they hijack democratic processes - as we see with the Hindu fundamentalists in power in India and the Christian fundamentalists seeking the Republican vote in the US - then we have a worrying combination.
We aren't in deep just yet, but the potential is there unless we can keep political, economic and military power separate from religious sentiment.
O.
You see no possible flashpoints with the dissatisfaction with the political system in the west, which has put all its eggs in the failing Neo-Liberal basket case? This not being an isolated factor but something that could break the camels back with other disharmonies that are rocking the boat - the EU is not looking good and is starting to crack at the seams.
-
You see no possible flashpoints with the dissatisfaction with the political system in the west, which has put all its eggs in the failing Neo-Liberal basket case? This not being an isolated factor but something that could break the camels back with other disharmonies that are rocking the boat - the EU is not looking good and is starting to crack at the seams.
Should we return to the 1950s much better then?
-
You see no possible flashpoints with the dissatisfaction with the political system in the west, which has put all its eggs in the failing Neo-Liberal basket case?
I see flash-points, but I also see a much better-educated populace with much less centralised and authoritarian regimes - the flashes you'll get from those flashpoints will be much more measured. That 'neo-liberal' situation means that power is now divided between the corporate and political sectors, again reducing the potential for an absolute warfare situation.
This not being an isolated factor but something that could break the camels back with other disharmonies that are rocking the boat - the EU is not looking good and is starting to crack at the seams.
The EU is not starting to crack at the seams, it's undergoing a change due to outside influences and will adapt to a new norm. People within the EU are going to have to realise that Europe is not the be-all and end-all that it used to be.
O.
-
You see no possible flashpoints with the dissatisfaction with the political system in the west, which has put all its eggs in the failing Neo-Liberal basket case? This not being an isolated factor but something that could break the camels back with other disharmonies that are rocking the boat - the EU is not looking good and is starting to crack at the seams.
Should we return to the 1950s much better then?
That comment makes no sense. Who mentioned going back in time?
-
You see no possible flashpoints with the dissatisfaction with the political system in the west, which has put all its eggs in the failing Neo-Liberal basket case?
I see flash-points, but I also see a much better-educated populace with much less centralised and authoritarian regimes - the flashes you'll get from those flashpoints will be much more measured. That 'neo-liberal' situation means that power is now divided between the corporate and political sectors, again reducing the potential for an absolute warfare situation.
"...less centralised and authoritarian regimes..." - How come, everywhere you look they are there; EU, USA, China, Russia...
It is because it is now, or will be, a class war between the people and the elites the flashpoints won't be measured; more like French Revolution.
Neo-Liberalism is corporatism and the politicians are in league with them, not a power base opposing them.
This not being an isolated factor but something that could break the camels back with other disharmonies that are rocking the boat - the EU is not looking good and is starting to crack at the seams.
The EU is not starting to crack at the seams, it's undergoing a change due to outside influences and will adapt to a new norm. People within the EU are going to have to realise that Europe is not the be-all and end-all that it used to be.
O.
The EU does not do adapt, not adequate adaptation, only just enough to kick the can down the road - a mere sticking plaster on a major wound.
-
"...less centralised and authoritarian regimes..." - How come, everywhere you look they are there; EU, USA, China, Russia...
You think the EU is more authoritarian than it Europe was fifty years ago? You think the USA is centralised and authoritarian with the constant assault on Federal laws by State legislatures? You China is more authoritarian? Russia hasn't improved, significantly, but it's certainly no more authoritarian or centralised.
Neo-Liberalism is corporatism and the politicians are in league with them, not a power base opposing them.
It's in danger of becoming that way - certainly in the US that's a case that could be made - but it's not there world-wide yet by any stretch.
The EU is not starting to crack at the seams, it's undergoing a change due to outside influences and will adapt to a new norm. People within the EU are going to have to realise that Europe is not the be-all and end-all that it used to be.
The EU does not do adapt, not adequate adaptation, only just enough to kick the can down the road - a mere sticking plaster on a major wound.
It's a conservative organisation, but then most large organisations are - that doesn't mean that it's not changing, and that conservatism gives a stability that allows investment and market-confidence whilst still pioneering human rights legislation, health and safety law, personal liberty, neo-liberal socialism...
O.
-
That comment makes no sense. Who mentioned going back in time?
The narrative that is coming from you is things are terrible and getting worse. I think at any time in history you could make that case by cherry picking events, so was it ever thus.
In the meantime living standards rise etc.
-
"...less centralised and authoritarian regimes..." - How come, everywhere you look they are there; EU, USA, China, Russia...
You think the EU is more authoritarian than it Europe was fifty years ago? You think the USA is centralised and authoritarian with the constant assault on Federal laws by State legislatures? You China is more authoritarian? Russia hasn't improved, significantly, but it's certainly no more authoritarian or centralised.
It isn't the old style of authoritarianism, they know that doesn't work if carried out at the outset. It is the one where power and wealth is stealthily sucked towards an elite group, and once that is acquired then the rougher style can be implemented. The ever closer union of the EU is such a thing and is a move to a Soviet Union style 2.0.
Your 'more than' gesture and suggestion is a flawed relative posturing. The issue is about what is the right set up or arrangement, not some inane comparison of situations.
Neo-Liberalism is corporatism and the politicians are in league with them, not a power base opposing them.
It's in danger of becoming that way - certainly in the US that's a case that could be made - but it's not there world-wide yet by any stretch.
I wouldn't agree, the EU is there, and this is what globalisation is all about which is basically a US and allies policy.
The EU is not starting to crack at the seams, it's undergoing a change due to outside influences and will adapt to a new norm. People within the EU are going to have to realise that Europe is not the be-all and end-all that it used to be.
The EU does not do adapt, not adequate adaptation, only just enough to kick the can down the road - a mere sticking plaster on a major wound.
It's a conservative organisation, but then most large organisations are - that doesn't mean that it's not changing, and that conservatism gives a stability that allows investment and market-confidence whilst still pioneering human rights legislation, health and safety law, personal liberty, neo-liberal socialism...[/quote]
They can't change direction from their ever closer union and what has been set in stone by their Treaties. And all these are focused on corporatism, a system for the elites to rule the rest; central planning or a Soviet style feudalism.
-
That comment makes no sense. Who mentioned going back in time?
The narrative that is coming from you is things are terrible and getting worse. I think at any time in history you could make that case by cherry picking events, so was it ever thus.
In the meantime living standards rise etc.
No. It is about having your "eyes wide open" and seeing how things are going.
Rising living standards for who?
-
That comment makes no sense. Who mentioned going back in time?
The narrative that is coming from you is things are terrible and getting worse. I think at any time in history you could make that case by cherry picking events, so was it ever thus.
In the meantime living standards rise etc.
No. It is about having your "eyes wide open" and seeing how things are going.
Rising living standards for who?
<insert rhetoric only comeback here>
In the UK living standards have risen
-
That comment makes no sense. Who mentioned going back in time?
The narrative that is coming from you is things are terrible and getting worse. I think at any time in history you could make that case by cherry picking events, so was it ever thus.
In the meantime living standards rise etc.
No. It is about having your "eyes wide open" and seeing how things are going.
Rising living standards for who?
<insert rhetoric only comeback here>
In the UK living standards have risen
What's all this jibber-jabber, Jaks?
-
What's all this jibber-jabber, Jaks?
I asked a simple question.
-
It isn't the old style of authoritarianism, they know that doesn't work if carried out at the outset. It is the one where power and wealth is stealthily sucked towards an elite group, and once that is acquired then the rougher style can be implemented.
That ebb and flow of power and money is politics and economics at work - the rest is just rank paranoia.
The ever closer union of the EU is such a thing and is a move to a Soviet Union style 2.0.
That's not even rank paranoia, that's an application for a tin-foil hat and a single-sleeved heavy-duty jacket with extra buckles.
Your 'more than' gesture and suggestion is a flawed relative posturing.
Given the topic is whether things are worse or better than they used to be, how is that the case?
The issue is about what is the right set up or arrangement, not some inane comparison of situations.
And the set-up, whilst not perfect, is reasonably good - certainly better than it used to be, and better than it is in genuinely authoritarian piss-holes around the world.
I wouldn't agree, the EU is there, and this is what globalisation is all about which is basically a US and allies policy.
No, it's a corporate policy, and it's starting to develop resistance because it's no longer serving the majority.
They can't change direction from their ever closer union and what has been set in stone by their Treaties. And all these are focused on corporatism, a system for the elites to rule the rest; central planning or a Soviet style feudalism.
Central planning - or, depending on how you look at it, co-operationg - isn't intrinsically bad. Tax reform is sorely needed, and a focus shifted to public works co-operation rather than military or financial, but the structure is in place to do that. The application is lacking at the moment, but the structure is more than adequate.
O.
-
What's all this jibber-jabber, Jaks?
I asked a simple question.
Your question didn't logically follow from what was being said and so made no sense.
But to just to try and keep you quiet, the EU, and blocs like that, are out of date; yesterdays news.
-
What's all this jibber-jabber, Jaks?
I asked a simple question.
Your question didn't logically follow from what was being said and so made no sense.
But to just to try and keep you quiet, the EU, and blocs like that, are out of date; yesterdays news.
In your opinion, others are available.
-
It isn't the old style of authoritarianism, they know that doesn't work if carried out at the outset. It is the one where power and wealth is stealthily sucked towards an elite group, and once that is acquired then the rougher style can be implemented.
That ebb and flow of power and money is politics and economics at work - the rest is just rank paranoia.
That was the plan from day one of the EU project to gradually centralize all the power because they knew that trying to bring in wholesale a soviet style top down planning would enrage the people as they wouldn't accept that. So it has been a drip, drip, drip affair of ever closer union, whereby each generation would, they hoped, take it for granted that that was how life was suppose to be.
The ever closer union of the EU is such a thing and is a move to a Soviet Union style 2.0.
That's not even rank paranoia, that's an application for a tin-foil hat and a single-sleeved heavy-duty jacket with extra buckles.
More like you haven't done your homework and are very naïve.
Your 'more than' gesture and suggestion is a flawed relative posturing.
Given the topic is whether things are worse or better than they used to be, how is that the case?
The OP is more aimed at conflicts and wars as oppose to political power centres but I take your point. I wouldn't agree. As I have explained above the method used to day by them is this power by stealth and steady aggregation. TTIP highlights this now that the people at the top of the EU are playing to the US tune, almost. It may look fine on the surface but below this our rights have been hollowed out.
The issue is about what is the right set up or arrangement, not some inane comparison of situations.
And the set-up, whilst not perfect, is reasonably good - certainly better than it used to be, and better than it is in genuinely authoritarian piss-holes around the world.
It is not good because it is to top heavy with power concentrated in a relative few elites. This is sometimes referred to as corporatism.
I wouldn't agree, the EU is there, and this is what globalisation is all about which is basically a US and allies policy.
No, it's a corporate policy, and it's starting to develop resistance because it's no longer serving the majority.
But as I said it is backed by the politicians. It is the people who are resisting not the politicians at the top. Also, you seem to be back tracking because if things are pretty good as you say why are their groups now pushing back on what you say is a relatively better situation today?
They can't change direction from their ever closer union and what has been set in stone by their Treaties. And all these are focused on corporatism, a system for the elites to rule the rest; central planning or a Soviet style feudalism.
Central planning - or, depending on how you look at it, co-operationg - isn't intrinsically bad. Tax reform is sorely needed, and a focus shifted to public works co-operation rather than military or financial, but the structure is in place to do that. The application is lacking at the moment, but the structure is more than adequate.
All, or most, ideologies aren't intrinsically bad i.e. in theory. It is the application of them and the foibles of human nature, that is, greed.
You aren't going to get tax reform because the corporatists are pulling the strings and they don't want to pay any tax. They don't want to give the people a good life but would wish to move to a feudal type system, therefore, no real public works. And therefore, the structure isn't in place to do that. Application is pretty much non-existent and dwindling. Remember, the Nazis put in a lot of infrastructure and look how well that went....
-
What's all this jibber-jabber, Jaks?
I asked a simple question.
Your question didn't logically follow from what was being said and so made no sense.
But to just to try and keep you quiet, the EU, and blocs like that, are out of date; yesterdays news.
In your opinion, others are available.
And this is true for you, too. ;D
-
That was the plan from day one of the EU project to gradually centralize all the power because they knew that trying to bring in wholesale a soviet style top down planning would enrage the people as they wouldn't accept that.
No, the plan was to centralise the political and financial influence to counter the superpowers of the Soviet Union and the US.
So it has been a drip, drip, drip affair of ever closer union, whereby each generation would, they hoped, take it for granted that that was how life was suppose to be.
No, there hasn't been any significant closening of the ties since the mid 1990s - there's been an expansion of which countries were included, and that's expanded the influence of the Eurozone, but that's not the same thing as the EU.
The OP is more aimed at conflicts and wars as oppose to political power centres but I take your point. I wouldn't agree. As I have explained above the method used to day by them is this power by stealth and steady aggregation.
Except that wars and conflicts are killing fewer and fewer people, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the population.
TTIP highlights this now that the people at the top of the EU are playing to the US tune, almost. It may look fine on the surface but below this our rights have been hollowed out.
TTIP - as I've posted elsewhere here - is a problem, but not because it's creating more centralised power, quite the opposite. The problem with TTIP is that it's abandoning the power to restrain large corporations, it's a race not for harmonised regulations but to harmonise deregulation.
It is not good because it is to top heavy with power concentrated in a relative few elites. This is sometimes referred to as corporatism.
And once upon a time those elites were absolute monarchs and religious instutions who were accountable to no-one, even nominally. Now those elites are politicians and corporations who are accountable to their electorates and shareholders. Those may not wield their power strongly enough - particular the shareholders - but the option and the capacity is there.
But as I said it is backed by the politicians. It is the people who are resisting not the politicians at the top. Also, you seem to be back tracking because if things are pretty good as you say why are their groups now pushing back on what you say is a relatively better situation today?
Things are pretty good, but a) they aren't perfect, and b) they're starting to go the wrong way. That's why people are pushing back.
All, or most, ideologies aren't intrinsically bad i.e. in theory. It is the application of them and the foibles of human nature, that is, greed.
Whatever system is put in place is susceptible to human greed, unless you can somehow rid humanity of their greed. You keep referring to the Soviet Union as a bugbear - they had a system that 'eradicated' human greed, look how that turned out.
You aren't going to get tax reform because the corporatists are pulling the strings and they don't want to pay any tax. They don't want to give the people a good life but would wish to move to a feudal type system, therefore, no real public works. And therefore, the structure isn't in place to do that. Application is pretty much non-existent and dwindling.
And we see the Labour party suddenly electing a genuine left-winger, we see the Canadians throwing out their 'regulation-light' ten-year incumbent... Politicians might think that corporate money will buy them seats, but it only buys them advertising, and people are learning to smell the bullshit.
Remember, the Nazis put in a lot of infrastructure and look how well that went....
So did the UK, the US, Russia and Japan - infrastructure gives you options, it doesn't determine what you do with them.
O.
-
That was the plan from day one of the EU project to gradually centralize all the power because they knew that trying to bring in wholesale a soviet style top down planning would enrage the people as they wouldn't accept that.
No, the plan was to centralise the political and financial influence to counter the superpowers of the Soviet Union and the US.
That was the plan but you can't do that if democracy, i.e. the people voting for their 'silly little whimsical needs' keeps off balancing Brussels one track mind plan. You can only do that if the powers at the top are not subject to any form of democracy and interference from the those stupid minion peoples you rule. Hence the EU is totally undemocratic like the ex-Soviet Union.
So it has been a drip, drip, drip affair of ever closer union, whereby each generation would, they hoped, take it for granted that that was how life was suppose to be.
No, there hasn't been any significant closening of the ties since the mid 1990s - there's been an expansion of which countries were included, and that's expanded the influence of the Eurozone, but that's not the same thing as the EU.
I was talking about the overall development of the plan from the 1950's, the Ever Closer Union one. Not sure why you have included some irrelevant or minor details here...? As long as everyone signs up for the Treaties the member size isn't a consideration. And I don't know what your point is with suddenly commenting on the Eurozone when it wasn't on the table as a separate issue to reference.
The OP is more aimed at conflicts and wars as oppose to political power centres but I take your point. I wouldn't agree. As I have explained above the method used to day by them is this power by stealth and steady aggregation.
Except that wars and conflicts are killing fewer and fewer people, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the population.
Again, in terms of recent history, for those alive, which means post WWII, this is a relative term with regards to a longer view of history, in other words, the OP was about how people see things as an experience in their life time, not statistics etc. The question also arises by what we (and you here) mean now as war, as conflicts are less and less about nations going to war and more about various groups starting resistance offences. The OP was also about intensity of these conflicts (the fervour of the motivations and rhetoric, and insane radicalism of those taking part). So we could have the same number of these types of conflicts as in the past but if those taking part today are prepared to go to any measures, even bringing on Armageddon etc. then things could be seen as being worse.
It is not good because it is to top heavy with power concentrated in a relative few elites. This is sometimes referred to as corporatism.
And once upon a time those elites were absolute monarchs and religious instutions who were accountable to no-one, even nominally. Now those elites are politicians and corporations who are accountable to their electorates and shareholders. Those may not wield their power strongly enough - particular the shareholders - but the option and the capacity is there.
This is pretty much besides the point. The shareholders are usually large wealthy groups themselves who are part of the elites, the 1% or 0.1%. As for the electorates most are being hoodwinked (though this is starting to change) which is my point that of the undercurrents going on in the world, where the true power lies. You go to N. Korea and everything will look good and dandy but that proves nothing. You're going on, AND ON, about how the set-up of our political system etc. is right but looks can deceive.
All, or most, ideologies aren't intrinsically bad i.e. in theory. It is the application of them and the foibles of human nature, that is, greed.
Whatever system is put in place is susceptible to human greed, unless you can somehow rid humanity of their greed. You keep referring to the Soviet Union as a bugbear - they had a system that 'eradicated' human greed, look how that turned out.
That comment is laughable. If greed had been bred out of them how come when it fell people grabbed the assets and became billionaires? In fact murdered to acquire them.
You aren't going to get tax reform because the corporatists are pulling the strings and they don't want to pay any tax. They don't want to give the people a good life but would wish to move to a feudal type system, therefore, no real public works. And therefore, the structure isn't in place to do that. Application is pretty much non-existent and dwindling.
And we see the Labour party suddenly electing a genuine left-winger, we see the Canadians throwing out their 'regulation-light' ten-year incumbent... Politicians might think that corporate money will buy them seats, but it only buys them advertising, and people are learning to smell the bullshit.
But I think you'll see that those who speak the peoples language and get into 'power' will find they don't actually have much power to throw around because it is situated elsewhere.
-
That was the plan but you can't do that if democracy, i.e. the people voting for their 'silly little whimsical needs' keeps off balancing Brussels one track mind plan.
Except that Brussels doesn't have a 'one track mind', it has a mind influenced by those 'silly little whimisical needs' that people keep voting for. You keep trying to pitch this as some sort of stealth takeover, but the bureaucracy at Brussells - which, I freely accept, is considerable - serves the European Parliament, which is elected. The European Commission is not but - much like we're seeing with the House of Lords at the moment - they know better than to stray too far from the pitch of the electorate for fear of the constitutional trouble it will bring.
You can only do that if the powers at the top are not subject to any form of democracy and interference from the those stupid minion peoples you rule. Hence the EU is totally undemocratic like the ex-Soviet Union.
Rather ironic when you consider that the breakdown of the UK MEPs is more representative of the voting patterns in the country than the UK parliament is, but don't let that reality stop you.
I was talking about the overall development of the plan from the 1950's, the Ever Closer Union one.
Yet you said 'every generation' and I pointed out that the entirety of the last generation has seen no significant consolidation.
Not sure why you have included some irrelevant or minor details here...? As long as everyone signs up for the Treaties the member size isn't a consideration.
My point was that the EU has taken up the plan of expansion in recent times rather than consolidation.
And I don't know what your point is with suddenly commenting on the Eurozone when it wasn't on the table as a separate issue to reference.
Just heading off a possible confusion - many people conflate the two.
Again, in terms of recent history, for those alive, which means post WWII, this is a relative term with regards to a longer view of history, in other words, the OP was about how people see things as an experience in their life time, not statistics etc.
So how come this can be a short-term view (still an erroneous one) but the view of the EU's political status has to be long-term?
The question also arises by what we (and you here) mean now as war, as conflicts are less and less about nations going to war and more about various groups starting resistance offences.
Yes, they are, which means that by and large fewer people are actively serving in the military involved - whether you pitch it as 'conflicts' or 'wars', occupation or resistance movements, whether you count it in terms of money spent or munitions fired, the fact is that fewer people are dying in these conflicts, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the world population. By any measure that's an improving situation, surely?
The OP was also about intensity of these conflicts (the fervour of the motivations and rhetoric, and insane radicalism of those taking part). So we could have the same number of these types of conflicts as in the past but if those taking part today are prepared to go to any measures, even bringing on Armageddon etc. then things could be seen as being worse.
You think the modern nutters are more rabid than, what? Mao's red army? Japan's Unit 731? The SS? The Crusaders? I'd say, on balance, they're probably just as deranged, dehumanising and sick as each other.
This is pretty much besides the point.
No, it absolutely isn't, and that's where so many people fall down. People think that these mechanisms aren't there, or don't work, and allow themselves to be restricted by not appreciating the choices they have. Democracy gives power to people, but only if they have the courage to stand up and use it - but they give in to fear and their own stupidity and vote to elect the status quo, to follow the media lead and think that life is all about the economics of government.
People see shareholding as something that funds their pension but forget that it's something that gives them a hold over the executives that fleece them.
The shareholders are usually large wealthy groups themselves who are part of the elites, the 1% or 0.1%.
Some of them. Most of them are pension funds, and divested investment portfolios on behalf of banks and building societies - places we have influence over.
As for the electorates most are being hoodwinked (though this is starting to change) which is my point that of the undercurrents going on in the world, where the true power lies. You go to N. Korea and everything will look good and dandy but that proves nothing. You're going on, AND ON, about how the set-up of our political system etc. is right but looks can deceive.
Yes, looks can deceive, because people don't look properly. People have the Sun read to them or scan the Daily Mail and vote for the lions because they're told that the only other option is the pretend lion of Labour who'd be in hock to rabid 'Jocknationalists', when the reality is there's a wealth of other options if people would only go looking for them rather than just accepting what the media feed them - there's a reason those capital owners that you are, rightly, wary of are buying media time and media outlets, why they are pushing for regulation and commercialisation of the internet.
That comment is laughable. If greed had been bred out of them how come when it fell people grabbed the assets and became billionaires? In fact murdered to acquire them.
That was my point - if you try to eradicate or control greed you will fail, it's intrinsic to humanity.
But I think you'll see that those who speak the peoples language and get into 'power' will find they don't actually have much power to throw around because it is situated elsewhere.
We'll find out. Finance, in the current system, is influence not power - genuine power, the power to effect laws, the power to determine what is acceptable and what isn't, lies with the people and their representatives. All we need is for the people to actually learn enough to exert that power - why do think the media are so constantly critical of the standard of education? Disrupt education, disrupt the people's ability to recognise what's actually best for them. Yes there are nefarious tendencies amongst the rich to remain amongst the rich, but their successes at the moment - certainly in Europe - aren't through the direct funding of politicians, but through the control of the information that's pumped out to the masses.
O.
-
Look at the prophecies in the book of Daniel and tell us if they relate. :(
NO!
Too Difficult for you to relate to with the Old names... :D
Sass
Religion has really screwed you up, hasn't it.
In what way? You see what you might think is 'screwed up' could be something completely different to what others determined as screwed up. So in relation to the topic what is your deliberation of the use of that term?
I can tell you what how I have been saved from dark times in my life but nothing has screwed me up. But I think the world is in danger whether relgious or not from anti-social attitudes which attack..(like you own ideas) when accusing someone of being screwed up.
That type of transference tears down it does not build and I suppose that is why the disciples wrote for those still being fed milk the following teaching..." Greater is he who in thee than he who is in the world." We overcome not become screwed up.
Do you really think that there is anything in the Book of Daniel that has any relevence?
You have already shown us (in the thread on giving accommodation to refugees ) that you haven't a clue about the central message of Christianity, so why on earth do you think that we shoul take notice of even older fairy tales?
Should that be 'that we should take notice' etc
God seemed to think the book of Daniel relevant.
Even Christ, himself spoke about Daniel being a Prophet and to see and understand.
King James Bible
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
So clearly Christ himself has already give you your answer as to any relevance.
Then the personal attack...
The central message of Christianity is John 3:16
King James Bible
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
So saved because we believe what God has said about his Son Jesus Christ.
So the central message is about LOVE and being forgiven through faith.
As for refugees we have our soldiers on the street and our own people on the street.
If you brother was on the street and they offered a refugee a home before him then don't tell me you would be happy.
So really you need to understand that we are NOT Jesus Christ and cannot make one house into two house. Not make one pound divide into two pounds.
We would be better giving them help to remain in their own country. Why not go over there and live and give them your house and you live there where they come from.
See, reality is for all your spouting you would not trade places. But you want us to do the impossible in a country whose own soldiers who have served in combat have ended up homeless to leave them on the street for refugees.
REALITY is a wonderful thing it makes you see that if you can't take of your own then your love and charity abroad is ALL FAKE....
Our Country is not have the peoples interests served. It is serving the interest of the government and relations between other countries.
Not a good thing for any country. When God put King Solomon on the throne he served his people in his nation and it in turn prospered all.
-
God seemed to think the book of Daniel relevant.
Even Christ, himself spoke about Daniel being a Prophet and to see and understand.
You have to appreciate though, Sass, if we accepted that the words of the Old and New Testament accurately reflected the opinion of an actual God and its avatar, we wouldn't be questioning whether Daniel was relevant.
The central message of Christianity is John 3:16
King James Bible
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
So saved because we believe what God has said about his Son Jesus Christ.
So the central message is about LOVE and being forgiven through faith.
It's yet to be established that we've done anything wrong that needs forgiving, though.
As for refugees we have our soldiers on the street and our own people on the street. If you brother was on the street and they offered a refugee a home before him then don't tell me you would be happy.
Why is my brother more worthy than a refugee? Aren't they both people, trying to do their best? That's what bugs me about people in rich western countries complaining about 'foreigners' coming and stealing 'our jobs' and taking 'our benefits' - we're all people. We've been fortunate to be born in a nation with free health care, with employment rights, with a social security system, with relative domestic peace and stability. It's not enough to say 'these people aren't in immediate danger in Lebanon, let them stay there in this piss-hole, prospectless, destitute nomad camp' rather than share what we have. What makes us special? Why do we deserve this and they don't?
So really you need to understand that we are NOT Jesus Christ and cannot make one house into two house. Not make one pound divide into two pounds.
No, what we are is a nation with billions telling people with nothing that they can have crumbs, but they shouldn't dare come around asking for actual pieces of bread.
We would be better giving them help to remain in their own country. Why not go over there and live and give them your house and you live there where they come from.
Their countries are destitute, war-torn, hostile piss-holes lacking in the infrastructure and temperate climate that makes Western Europe so easy to live in. Before we tell them they should stay in their country we should be exporting an infrastructure for them to live within - roads, rail, sewage, domestic water, gas and electricity, a banking system, political and economic stability. It's not use saying 'stay there, it's safe now' when the lack of resources and the radical religious and political retardism will mean that conflict is only a minor weather incident away.
See, reality is for all your spouting you would not trade places. But you want us to do the impossible in a country whose own soldiers who have served in combat have ended up homeless to leave them on the street for refugees.
It's not impossible. People are spending hundreds of millions of pounds a season to acquire the contract rights for footballers. People across the 'civilised' world are collectively shelling out billions to watch films - I like a good film, but that's preposterous money when we're quibling about whether to spend millions on border controls or refugee camps as a better means of ensuring that other people won't be in a position to watch those films with us.
O.
-
And that applies equally about the wretched starving children of Africa, who don't seem to have a strong voice to stand up for them. Their living conditions are infinitely worse than the migrant camps.
Of course, nobody deserves to live like that; but once it was less than a bed of roses here, but we worked to make our country what it is now, for what it's worth.
Elsewhere on the boards, BA added this comment. I'd agree that that it applies to the starving sub-Saharan Africans as much as to anyone else, yes.
What I'd disagree with, though, is that 'we worked to make our country what it is now'. I work, certainly, and I contribute, but this country already had all those advantages when I was born, and why my parents were born, and for some considerable time before that.
Arguably you could go back as far as you like and point out that people living in the relatively fertile Western Europe had a societal advantage through that accident of birth simply because they could free up more resources given that subsistence was easier. Then, when the industrial revolution came, people with easy access to raw materials benefited from the accident of the location of their birth.
We're the beneficiaries not just of our own work, but of the good fortune to be born in an area where so much had already been done by other people, and we dismiss this with a sense of entitlement that says these scared, hungry, prospectless people should stay where they are because this good fortune is ours.
O.
-
We do it to our own, too. As a nation we are no better at reaching out to those less fortunate in the streets next to ours - if anything we are better at donating abroad because we feel that those who suffer here should just sort themselves out.
-
That was the plan but you can't do that if democracy, i.e. the people voting for their 'silly little whimsical needs' keeps off balancing Brussels one track mind plan.
Except that Brussels doesn't have a 'one track mind', it has a mind influenced by those 'silly little whimisical needs' that people keep voting for. You keep trying to pitch this as some sort of stealth takeover, but the bureaucracy at Brussells - which, I freely accept, is considerable - serves the European Parliament, which is elected. The European Commission is not but - much like we're seeing with the House of Lords at the moment - they know better than to stray too far from the pitch of the electorate for fear of the constitutional trouble it will bring.
It is the Commission who propose the laws based on the treaties. The European parliament has no legislative powers whatsoever. It is just a puppet assembly to give the impression of democracy to try to fool the people. As for the Commission not straying too far from the people just look at the out of touch and crass comments they have come out with over the years.
You can only do that if the powers at the top are not subject to any form of democracy and interference from the those stupid minion peoples you rule. Hence the EU is totally undemocratic like the ex-Soviet Union.
Rather ironic when you consider that the breakdown of the UK MEPs is more representative of the voting patterns in the country than the UK parliament is, but don't let that reality stop you.
If you really think that's a valid response to what I'm talking about then you haven't got a clue and you're spouting just bull-squirt.
I was talking about the overall development of the plan from the 1950's, the Ever Closer Union one.
Yet you said 'every generation' and I pointed out that the entirety of the last generation has seen no significant consolidation.
So no new powers have gone from our government/parliament in the last few decades?
Not sure why you have included some irrelevant or minor details here...? As long as everyone signs up for the Treaties the member size isn't a consideration.
My point was that the EU has taken up the plan of expansion in recent times rather than consolidation.
Still can't see what you are saying in that nonsense. Perhaps some examples would help.
Again, in terms of recent history, for those alive, which means post WWII, this is a relative term with regards to a longer view of history, in other words, the OP was about how people see things as an experience in their life time, not statistics etc.
So how come this can be a short-term view (still an erroneous one) but the view of the EU's political status has to be long-term?
Post WWII isn't really that long which is why the stealth plan of the EU and corporatists won't work. Many older generations have seen how things have changed for the worsts or how life today is going the wrong way. The OP was not just about possible more conflicts etc. but the intensity, fanaticism or madness of the perpetrators.
The question also arises by what we (and you here) mean now as war, as conflicts are less and less about nations going to war and more about various groups starting resistance offences.
Yes, they are, which means that by and large fewer people are actively serving in the military involved - whether you pitch it as 'conflicts' or 'wars', occupation or resistance movements, whether you count it in terms of money spent or munitions fired, the fact is that fewer people are dying in these conflicts, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the world population. By any measure that's an improving situation, surely?
I think there are more markers than just the numbers who die. What about quality of life and life style etc. I'm sure those in the refugee camps in Jordan etc. are not thrilled about the lives they are being forced to endure. Neither are the peoples of Libya sitting back and relaxing and enjoying the sunshine. And there are many, many, more I could list around the world such as N. Korea.
The OP was also about intensity of these conflicts (the fervour of the motivations and rhetoric, and insane radicalism of those taking part). So we could have the same number of these types of conflicts as in the past but if those taking part today are prepared to go to any measures, even bringing on Armageddon etc. then things could be seen as being worse.
You think the modern nutters are more rabid than, what? Mao's red army? Japan's Unit 731? The SS? The Crusaders? I'd say, on balance, they're probably just as deranged, dehumanising and sick as each other.
I did say post WWII and relatively recently. As for Mao that was a confined event within an isolated country, horrible as it was. The OP was also meant to be in reference to a general global threat or overall perceived shift worldwide. May be after the Cold War there was a feeling of things getting safer and optimism and it seems to me that things are being stirred up in a different to similar peaks we have seen in the past with say WWII and the like....?
This is pretty much besides the point.
No, it absolutely isn't, and that's where so many people fall down. People think that these mechanisms aren't there, or don't work, and allow themselves to be restricted by not appreciating the choices they have. Democracy gives power to people, but only if they have the courage to stand up and use it - but they give in to fear and their own stupidity and vote to elect the status quo, to follow the media lead and think that life is all about the economics of government.
People see shareholding as something that funds their pension but forget that it's something that gives them a hold over the executives that fleece them.
But the fact is the democracy you are talking about moves about only the pawns in the game now. As I said bodies like the EU Commission are unelected and weald the majority of the power and most of the shareholders are big players who are with the elites not the people.
The shareholders are usually large wealthy groups themselves who are part of the elites, the 1% or 0.1%.
Some of them. Most of them are pension funds, and divested investment portfolios on behalf of banks and building societies - places we have influence over.
The pension funds are like bulls with rings in their noses, they are led around like idiots because all the financial power is in the banking system and banks not with those investing their money where they are being ripped off as gullible fools.
But I think you'll see that those who speak the peoples language and get into 'power' will find they don't actually have much power to throw around because it is situated elsewhere.
We'll find out. Finance, in the current system, is influence not power - genuine power, the power to effect laws, the power to determine what is acceptable and what isn't, lies with the people and their representatives. All we need is for the people to actually learn enough to exert that power - why do think the media are so constantly critical of the standard of education? Disrupt education, disrupt the people's ability to recognise what's actually best for them. Yes there are nefarious tendencies amongst the rich to remain amongst the rich, but their successes at the moment - certainly in Europe - aren't through the direct funding of politicians, but through the control of the information that's pumped out to the masses.
Finance is power because it buys the politicians off so they make the laws the financial elites want. How many of the politicians who you consider to be in a minority, non-mainstream position could resist such monetary 'gifts'? And for them to do what you say we need 300 odd of them in our parliament to pass laws that will start to reverse the way things are going. But I do agree most voters are idiots.
-
It is the Commission who propose the laws based on the treaties.
And the national parliaments that decide whether or not they will accept those treaties. And the European Parliament that then votes on the specific measures that will be enforced because of those treaties.
As for the Commission not straying too far from the people just look at the out of touch and crass comments they have come out with over the years.
Which are pretty much the same as the out-of-touch and crass comments that national and regional elected officials in various countries come out with.
If you really think that's a valid response to what I'm talking about then you haven't got a clue and you're spouting just bull-squirt.
So the fact that the British membership of the European Parliament is more representative of the electorate in this country than Parliament is, to you, is not evidence that there's no democratic shortfall in Europe?
So no new powers have gone from our government/parliament in the last few decades?
No SIGNIFICANT new powers, no, not since Maastricht.
Still can't see what you are saying in that nonsense. Perhaps some examples would help.
In recent years times the European Union hasn't been attempting greater centralisation, hasn't been attempting to harmonise any further, but has instead increased its effectiveness by expanding to new territories rather than homogenising the ones it already has. I really can't see what's so difficult to grasp about that.
Post WWII isn't really that long which is why the stealth plan of the EU and corporatists won't work.
If we're talking about the EU then 'post-WWII' is the entirety of the EU - by definition that's not 'recently' in the context of the history of the EU.
Many older generations have seen how things have changed for the worsts or how life today is going the wrong way.
In their opinion, perhaps, but many older people have seen how much things have changed for the better, and many more older people have the option of having an opinion because so many fewer of them have been killed by malnutrition, disease and warfare.
The OP was not just about possible more conflicts etc. but the intensity, fanaticism or madness of the perpetrators.
And I pointed out that I don't see any more fanatacism in current fanatics than in previous fanatics.
I think there are more markers than just the numbers who die. What about quality of life and life style etc. I'm sure those in the refugee camps in Jordan etc. are not thrilled about the lives they are being forced to endure. Neither are the peoples of Libya sitting back and relaxing and enjoying the sunshine. And there are many, many, more I could list around the world such as N. Korea.
Infant mortality has halved in the last few decades. Several pandemic killers have been virtually eliminated, and medical treatments continue to extend average lifespan across the world. The number of people in subsistence living conditions is decreasing, quality and duration of life, on average, are up, education is more widely available than it has ever been, in addition to fewer people dying in conflicts. Things are on the up - it's far from perfect, and there are worrying trends in there, not least of which is the increasing gulf between the extremely rich and the rest, that economic inequality, both in terms of individual people and in terms of national economies.
I did say post WWII and relatively recently. As for Mao that was a confined event within an isolated country, horrible as it was.
That 'isolated country' is the world's largest exporter and home to a sixth of the world's population. Mao was 'post WWII' and earlier on 'post WWII' was considered recent by you.
The OP was also meant to be in reference to a general global threat or overall perceived shift worldwide. May be after the Cold War there was a feeling of things getting safer and optimism and it seems to me that things are being stirred up in a different to similar peaks we have seen in the past with say WWII and the like....?
There is a perception, particularly with Russia's increased territoriality and willingness to exert military authority, that a new cold war is coming, but we're far from the heady days of the Bay of Pigs, or the diplomatic empasse of the late 70s - that's not a guarantee that we won't head that way, of course, but we're nowhere near it yet.
But the fact is the democracy you are talking about moves about only the pawns in the game now.
Which isn't the fault of the mechanism, which can move the kings and queens, but the players who don't choose to.
As I said bodies like the EU Commission are unelected and weald the majority of the power and most of the shareholders are big players who are with the elites not the people.
The European Commission has no power - it can offer up treaties, and if national governments reject them nothing happens. If national governments accept them then the European Parliament decides how they will be implemented. If individuals do not like that implementation they can appeal to the European Courts.
The pension funds are like bulls with rings in their noses, they are led around like idiots because all the financial power is in the banking system and banks not with those investing their money where they are being ripped off as gullible fools.
Because the stakeholders in those pension schemes get their annual letter about voting at the AGM and ignore it - the bankers don't.
Finance is power because it buys the politicians off so they make the laws the financial elites want.
Which only works if we accept those politicians in the first place.
But I do agree most voters are idiots.
Some of them, perhaps many. Most? Most of them are disillusioned, because the mass media - which is, by and large, owned and directed by the rich vested interests - tells them that it doesn't really matter, that democracy is a largely failed experiment, that governing is all about ensuring the country is making a profit, regardless of the social costs. People aren't idiots, necessarily, idiots can't think: people are lazy, and either don't or won't think, and people spreading the doom and gloom message of 'it's a done deal, we're all owned by the megacorporations' are just helping that.
O.
-
JK,
I think there are more markers than just the numbers who die. What about quality of life and life style etc. I'm sure those in the refugee camps in Jordan etc. are not thrilled about the lives they are being forced to endure. Neither are the peoples of Libya sitting back and relaxing and enjoying the sunshine. And there are many, many, more I could list around the world such as N. Korea.
Outy has already done the heavy lifting in rebutting your various arguments, but on this one specifically its worth noting that your OP is titled, "More World Troubles Than 'Normal'?". Of course the example you give are awful, but not in "World" terms. To the contrary, for most people in most places most of the trends have been good for several decades now - life expectancy, literacy, disease elimination etc have all gone in the right direction and show every sign of continuing to do so.
The danger here is in conflating "what the news media pays most attention to" with "the World". By definition, "news" is what's new, different, unusual whereas the remarkable positive changes that affect by magnitudes more people than those you list are almost unreported. Imagine for example that 99% of the global population had been displaced but the populations of a few, fairly small countries had not been then the headlines would be, "300,000 in country X have not been displaced", which would also tell you very little about the World as a whole.
-
Since the EU has been mentioned, this latest Poll is interesting:
LONDON (Reuters) -" British support for staying in the European Union has tumbled over the past four months as an influx of migrants into Europe has pushed many voters towards opting for an exit, the Ipsos MORI pollster said on Thursday.
Prime Minister David Cameron is seeking to renegotiate relations with the bloc it joined in 1973 ahead of a referendum on membership by the end of 2017.
In one of the starkest illustrations to date of how the migrant crisis may be polarising British views of Europe, an Ipsos MORI poll showed 52 percent of Britons would vote to stay in the EU, down from a record 61 percent in June."
-
I think reading the runes here is a bit harder than that. The refugee crisis has been ongoing and in the middle of it as the passage notes support went up to 61%, a record in recent polling. Note these figures are not excluding don"t knows so it isn't 61v 39 but was 61 v 27. The polls are definitely volatile but most of the recent movement as a trend has been in favour of staying in.
At this stage with not even a date for the referendum and given the volatility, who knows what might happen but the odds of about2/1 pm staying in seem about right to me.
-
I think reading the runes here is a bit harder than that. The refugee crisis has been ongoing and in the middle of it as the passage notes support went up to 61%, a record in recent polling. Note these figures are not excluding don"t knows so it isn't 61v 39 but was 61 v 27. The polls are definitely volatile but most of the recent movement as a trend has been in favour of staying in.
At this stage with not even a date for the referendum and given the volatility, who knows what might happen but the odds of about2/1 pm staying in seem about right to me.
I think when Cameron fails in his re-negotiatios, as he surely will, and though he will try to put a positive spin on it, then that, with the almost certain continuation of the migrant crisis, might well see the figures change dramatically.
-
Which doesn't really cover why there was the recent peak in staying in. As for the negotitaions, whether by cunning or stupidity, Cameron has managed to never make clear any objectives. In one sense, this could be advantageous in that it is difficult to be clear of success or failure, but the dangerous aspect is given it is difficult to claim success, it may make it easier for disaffected Tories to campaign against staying in.If there is a strong enough rebellion in the senior parts of govt, then one might see the pendulum spinning back to Out.
Unlike with the Scottish referendum where at this stage poll movements were small and the No side had always held a substantial lead, this is much harder to read.
-
NS, you say the polls are volatile, and this one, from The Mail Online, in September, is different:
"
A majority of British people would vote to leave the European Union in the wake of the migrant crisis engulfing the continent, a shock new Mail on Sunday poll has found.
If a referendum were to be held tomorrow on whether to remain a member of the EU, 51 per cent of British people would vote ‘No’.
It follows a string of polls over recent years which have given comfortable leads to the pro-European camp. Significantly, it is the first measure of public opinion since the Government changed the wording of the referendum question, lending weight to claims that the new phrasing boosts the chances of victory for the ‘Out’ campaign."
-
Which then gives you a problem with different polls and different methods. If you throw the survation DM one in then it be argued that in the month since it was taken there must have been a swing to staying in given the 52 v whatever figure for Out in the poll _ which would negate the entirety of the point in the report from Reuters.
All that the polls seem to reveal at the moment is their volatility though as noted for about a year or so in a number of them there has been a stronger showing for In than in the 3 yrs previously. That there are substantial discrepancies based on the methods makes it even harder to read. One thing to bear was that in the run up to Scottish referendum Survation generally showed a higher Yes vote.
Taking individual polls, or even comparing two polls carried out by the same organisation some months apart, is not much help in attributing any actual causation between specific events and the figures. It's also no guide to the future, except in overall trend analysis of what the effect of events will be.
-
Which then gives you a problem with different polls and different methods. If you throw the survation DM one in then it be argued that in the month since it was taken there must have been a swing to staying in given the 52 v whatever figure for Out in the poll _ which would negate the entirety of the point in the report from Reuters.
All that the polls seem to reveal at the moment is their volatility though as noted for about a year or so in a number of them there has been a stronger showing for In than in the 3 yrs previously. That there are substantial discrepancies based on the methods makes it even harder to read. One thing to bear was that in the run up to Scottish referendum Survation generally showed a higher Yes vote.
Taking individual polls, or even comparing two polls carried out by the same organisation some months apart, is not much help in attributing any actual causation between specific events and the figures. It's also no guide to the future, except in overall trend analysis of what the effect of events will be.
Agreed. But the one thing that seems pretty clear is that at the moment the trend is towards "No." Just hoping that continues.
-
It doesn't seem clear at all. The trend cannot be taken simply from the two polls that we started with since the first of those was at a point of a record high for In on the back of a four year long trend of generally increasing values for staying In. To take the one result here and declare a trend is incorrect statistically and psephologically.
as to the Survation poll as already highlighted, it uses different method and would have to be looked at in the basis of its trend over a similar length of time. It cannot be used conjunction with the latest poll because again as already pointed out, it would then read as if the trend from Sep to Oct had been in favour of staying in. That would be even further wrong in terms of stats and votes.
Taking two data points and describing it as a trend is simply incorrect in what the term means, particularly given the vicissitudes of polling.
-
Just to help please find the poll tracking which I presume based on the Reuters reports we are referring to for the latest poll.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11617702/poll.html
-
It is the Commission who propose the laws based on the treaties.
And the national parliaments that decide whether or not they will accept those treaties. And the European Parliament that then votes on the specific measures that will be enforced because of those treaties.
Pretty much not. For the most part they are just rubber stampers - a bit like the Lords. Yes they say this and that but it is the treaties that shape things and it is the Commission that takes its cue from them. I know what you are going to respond with about the voters and all that......but the fact is most of the people in Brussels' machinery agree to the stipulations of the Treaties.
If you really think that's a valid response to what I'm talking about then you haven't got a clue and you're spouting just bull-squirt.
So the fact that the British membership of the European Parliament is more representative of the electorate in this country than Parliament is, to you, is not evidence that there's no democratic shortfall in Europe?
Your answer assumes that the EU parliament has any power is not a joke. The fact is it has little power, though it is trying to get some (way too late now) and it is a joke because of this.
So no new powers have gone from our government/parliament in the last few decades?
No SIGNIFICANT new powers, no, not since Maastricht.
What about the Lisbon Treaty!!?
Still can't see what you are saying in that nonsense. Perhaps some examples would help.
In recent years times the European Union hasn't been attempting greater centralisation, hasn't been attempting to harmonise any further, but has instead increased its effectiveness by expanding to new territories rather than homogenising the ones it already has. I really can't see what's so difficult to grasp about that.
I can't see the relevance of that to our topic. If others jump aboard the ship to Soviet Union II that doesn't mitigate it. So what is all that rhetoric about ever closer union then?
I think there are more markers than just the numbers who die. What about quality of life and life style etc. I'm sure those in the refugee camps in Jordan etc. are not thrilled about the lives they are being forced to endure. Neither are the peoples of Libya sitting back and relaxing and enjoying the sunshine. And there are many, many, more I could list around the world such as N. Korea.
Infant mortality has halved in the last few decades. Several pandemic killers have been virtually eliminated, and medical treatments continue to extend average lifespan across the world. The number of people in subsistence living conditions is decreasing, quality and duration of life, on average, are up, education is more widely available than it has ever been, in addition to fewer people dying in conflicts. Things are on the up - it's far from perfect, and there are worrying trends in there, not least of which is the increasing gulf between the extremely rich and the rest, that economic inequality, both in terms of individual people and in terms of national economies.
So the OP was saying in effect do those on this forum think the tide has changed or has the possibility of changing with what is going on now in the world?
I did say post WWII and relatively recently. As for Mao that was a confined event within an isolated country, horrible as it was.
That 'isolated country' is the world's largest exporter and home to a sixth of the world's population. Mao was 'post WWII' and earlier on 'post WWII' was considered recent by you.
Hence my comment that Mao was confined and isolated and so his atrocities were minimally felt in the world at large. The OP is looking at the bigger picture of what is going in the world and how it could affect it at large.
But the fact is the democracy you are talking about moves about only the pawns in the game now.
Which isn't the fault of the mechanism, which can move the kings and queens, but the players who don't choose to.
My point being that the democratic process doesn't even touch or effects the Kings and Queens because they are below the radar.
As I said bodies like the EU Commission are unelected and weald the majority of the power and most of the shareholders are big players who are with the elites not the people.
The European Commission has no power - it can offer up treaties, and if national governments reject them nothing happens. If national governments accept them then the European Parliament decides how they will be implemented. If individuals do not like that implementation they can appeal to the European Courts.
Don't know where you're getting your info from but that's crap.
-
Yeah, The EU is all about democracy!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11949701/AEP-Eurozone-crosses-Rubicon-as-Portugals-anti-euro-Left-banned-from-power.html
-
More gaffs from Junckhead
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/11949091/Jean-Claude-Juncker-is-right.-Europe-is-dying.html
But what is his solution, "For him, the answer to Europe’s shrinking importance in an expanding global economy is greater integration of nation-states, a Europe that looks in on itself."
-
A majority of British people would vote to leave the European Union in the wake of the migrant crisis engulfing the continent, a shock new Mail on Sunday poll has found.
The Mail on Sunday is affiliated with the Daily Mail, as such it is the most destructive entity amongst the British media. Whatever advice it gives, you should pretty much do the opposite.
Anyway, what makes you think the migration cries will be any better if we are not in the EU. Is it because you know that the resulting economic crash will make this an unattractive place to be?
-
Yeah, The EU is all about democracy!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11949701/AEP-Eurozone-crosses-Rubicon-as-Portugals-anti-euro-Left-banned-from-power.html
In what way is the EU responsible for the Portuguese president making an anti-democratic decision?
-
Pretty much not. For the most part they are just rubber stampers - a bit like the Lords. Yes they say this and that but it is the treaties that shape things and it is the Commission that takes its cue from them. I know what you are going to respond with about the voters and all that......but the fact is most of the people in Brussels' machinery agree to the stipulations of the Treaties.
If they act as rubber stampers it's because the people who elected them don't seem to care very much for their activities - they have the power, if they're not using that's not a structural problem, that's an application problem.
Your answer assumes that the EU parliament has any power is not a joke. The fact is it has little power, though it is trying to get some (way too late now) and it is a joke because of this.
No, it's not 'trying to get some' power, it already has the power, it's trying to build up some momentum and actually use it.
So no new powers have gone from our government/parliament in the last few decades?
No SIGNIFICANT new powers, no, not since Maastricht.
What about the Lisbon Treaty!!?[/quote]
Also known as 'The Reform Treaty' - which is a bit of a hint. Major changes from that were in thresholds for voting on issues (moving many from requiring unanimity to qualified majority, giving MORE chance of the European Parliament exerting the power it has) and consolidating the legal entity of the European Union.
I can't see the relevance of that to our topic. If others jump aboard the ship to Soviet Union II that doesn't mitigate it. So what is all that rhetoric about ever closer union then?
Because the point is that, instead of going for 'ever closer union' they've going for an ever-larger version of the relatively loose union we currently have. Your claim that the drive is to 'ever closer union' just isn't the case.
So the OP was saying in effect do those on this forum think the tide has changed or has the possibility of changing with what is going on now in the world?
No, the tide hasn't changed. Things have been improving for a considerable time, and they continue to do so. That the news focuses on a few isolated areas that are bucking that trend, and that they seem so horrendous by comparison, should make that apparent.
Hence my comment that Mao was confined and isolated and so his atrocities were minimally felt in the world at large. The OP is looking at the bigger picture of what is going in the world and how it could affect it at large.
A sixth of the world's population is a significant chunk of any 'big picture' you care to paint. Mao was not confined, as any review of Asian politics of the time will tell you - indeed, it was the relative security Russia felt from having communist China at it's Eastern flank that helped the Cold War spending last as long as it did.
My point being that the democratic process doesn't even touch or effects the Kings and Queens because they are below the radar.
No, they aren't, they just want you to think that - and you do their work for them.
As I said bodies like the EU Commission are unelected and weald the majority of the power and most of the shareholders are big players who are with the elites not the people.
The European Commission has no power - it can offer up treaties, and if national governments reject them nothing happens. If national governments accept them then the European Parliament decides how they will be implemented. If individuals do not like that implementation they can appeal to the European Courts.
Don't know where you're getting your info from but that's crap.
The European Commission cannot compel national governments to adopt new measures - they either have to put them to the European Parliament under agreements that have already been made, or they need to put the proposals to national governments for them to sign up to new agreements.
It's like saying that the Civil Service has power in the UK - they don't, they are the mechanism by which the power gets transferred from intent to application.
O.
-
I like this site, that explains more or less who can do what in an easy to absorb way.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSINST/IN4.php
-
Yeah, The EU is all about democracy!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11949701/AEP-Eurozone-crosses-Rubicon-as-Portugals-anti-euro-Left-banned-from-power.html
In what way is the EU responsible for the Portuguese president making an anti-democratic decision?
If you had read the article you'd have found out. His decision is based on what Brussels wants for Portugal. So as the Greeks found out no matter what you vote for you always get the party and policies of the EU imposed upon you - Soviet Union II. Democracy is dead!!!
-
God seemed to think the book of Daniel relevant.
Even Christ, himself spoke about Daniel being a Prophet and to see and understand.
You have to appreciate though, Sass, if we accepted that the words of the Old and New Testament accurately reflected the opinion of an actual God and its avatar, we wouldn't be questioning whether Daniel was relevant.
The bible is for those men and women of faith. The reason you are questioning the bible has nothing to do with faith.
You questioning Daniel at all is irrelevant in that you are not able to possess the knowledge and truth of God due to your disbelief.
The central message of Christianity is John 3:16
King James Bible
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
So saved because we believe what God has said about his Son Jesus Christ.
So the central message is about LOVE and being forgiven through faith.
It's yet to be established that we've done anything wrong that needs forgiving, though.
Again... you accept if the law of the land tells you not to do something and you do it... you have done wrong and need punishing. Yet the bible tells you the same thing. It tells you what is wrong and why you sin if you do it.
So it is established in the bible by God for those who believe. You are an atheist...what is it to you?
How can you without faith establish or apply anything in the true context?
You don't have an argument... The bible is clear and if you want to say it is wrong then just prove it.
As for refugees we have our soldiers on the street and our own people on the street. If you brother was on the street and they offered a refugee a home before him then don't tell me you would be happy.
Why is my brother more worthy than a refugee?
Well, if even your own brother has no value to you then why would refugees have any value.
We either acknowledge if we cannot love our brother who we can see and help then there is no love or real care or wanting to do it for a stranger.
Aren't they both people, trying to do their best?
Your brother and you are already in the boat. Do you drag someone out of the water to replace your brother.
You could push your brother into the water with the other person. Which means both are without.
Now our country already has your brother living here. Should they ignore his needs to aid the needs of someone who does not already live here?
That's what bugs me about people in rich western countries complaining about 'foreigners' coming and stealing 'our jobs' and taking 'our benefits' - we're all people.
Are you Britsh born and bread? It isn't about them stealing jobs and benefits. It is about our own people being homeless and starving whilst they give houses and benefits to foreigners.. Something completely different. We are not a wealthy nation any longer our wealth is being given to foreign countries. Our old age pensioners starving and dying from cold whilst they send millions abroad. If sending millions of pounds abroad why are people still coming here.
The Government are sending Aid to other countries whilst their own people suffer. The royals came and helped refurbish old houses for our troops left homeless having defended their country. NO it stops now. Look after our own first and then look after the rest of the world. If you over fill a boat it will capsize and all will be lost.
We've been fortunate to be born in a nation with free health care, with employment rights, with a social security system, with relative domestic peace and stability. It's not enough to say 'these people aren't in immediate danger in Lebanon, let them stay there in this piss-hole, prospectless, destitute nomad camp' rather than share what we have. What makes us special? Why do we deserve this and they don't?
NO Our health care is contributed to by National insurance and tax. Nothing is free and it was paid for by our grandparents and we have contributed too. The only people getting it free is refugees and foreigners.
You need to think there is NOTHING free we are tax paying nation and a insurance paying nation.
Our Government is responsible for us and our welfare. Just as the leaders in Lebanon are responsible for it's own people.
If we were in trouble they would NOT HELP US.
It isn't about deserving... but at any time when things were good they could have left Lebanon but they did not.
They only want to come here for the free care and homes. TROJAN HORSE comes to mind. Once in they will wreck this Country too.
So really you need to understand that we are NOT Jesus Christ and cannot make one house into two house. Not make one pound divide into two pounds.
No, what we are is a nation with billions telling people with nothing that they can have crumbs, but they shouldn't dare come around asking for actual pieces of bread.
Go and tell your neighbour you want him to keep you. Pay your mortgage and all your bills.
Because that is the real issue not the stupid and ignorant thing you just said. You see this Nation is basically like you and your neighbour. Both in the world, both with your own houses and now you want your neighbour to pay for you to live where you are and keep you. NO you would not get that would you. No more than you would pay for your neighbours because responsibility begins with you and your home. Just as the Lebanon predicament begins with them, their own Government/rulers and people as a nation. They cannot demand or expect another nation to pay for them and even move into their home.
We would be better giving them help to remain in their own country. Why not go over there and live and give them your house and you live there where they come from.
Their countries are destitute, war-torn, hostile piss-holes lacking in the infrastructure and temperate climate that makes Western Europe so easy to live in. Before we tell them they should stay in their country we should be exporting an infrastructure for them to live within - roads, rail, sewage, domestic water, gas and electricity, a banking system, political and economic stability. It's not use saying 'stay there, it's safe now' when the lack of resources and the radical religious and political retardism will mean that conflict is only a minor weather incident away.
Whose fault is it, that their countries are destitute, war-torn, hostile piss-holes lacking in infrastructure and temperature climates that make Western Europe so easy to live in. Do you honestly think you have an argument of some type there.
They made their country what it is today as the rest of Europe did. As or the rest LEBANON IS NOT PART OF THE UK nor is it our responsibility.
See, reality is for all your spouting you would not trade places. But you want us to do the impossible in a country whose own soldiers who have served in combat have ended up homeless to leave them on the street for refugees.
It's not impossible. People are spending hundreds of millions of pounds a season to acquire the contract rights for footballers. People across the 'civilised' world are collectively shelling out billions to watch films - I like a good film, but that's preposterous money when we're quibling about whether to spend millions on border controls or refugee camps as a better means of ensuring that other people won't be in a position to watch those films with us.
O.
That is because companies have built up their industries. Footballers and teams have absolutely nothing to do with politics and are not responsible for Lebanon. The same way our Government and people are NOT responsible to keep them or look after them. Their own Government and rulers are responsible. Each man has the right to his own house, land, and living they have earned. We are NOT responsible for every other Country on earth
Your arguments fail till you can show the UK to be responsible for every other Country and their people in the world.
We do not have the room, the money or the housing to look after our own. Till we do we cannot afford to accommodate foreigners.
[/quote]
-
We do not have the room, the money or the housing to look after our own. Till we do we cannot afford to accommodate foreigners.
If Jesus was around today I wonder if those would be his sentiments? ::)
-
Again... you accept if the law of the land tells you not to do something and you do it... you have done wrong and need punishing.
Not necessarily. There are laws that I morally disagree with - I accept that they are the law, and are a consequence of having a structured society, but I don't accept that by breaking those specific laws or by breaking the law in general you have necessarily done something 'wrong'. Illegal and wrong are only the same thing in an ideal world.
Yet the bible tells you the same thing. It tells you what is wrong and why you sin if you do it.
Is it, though, wrong in and of itself, or is it simply wrong because the deity decides that it is wrong? Is it deontologically wrong, or is there an independent ethical value to it?
So it is established in the bible by God for those who believe. You are an atheist...what is it to you?
It's an input to people who have a place in the government that determines the laws of the land in which I live - laws like those on assisted dying or the provision of marriage or equalities legislation.
How can you without faith establish or apply anything in the true context?
Because we aren't misled by ancient fairy stories, perhaps?
You don't have an argument... The bible is clear and if you want to say it is wrong then just prove it.
It's not for me to prove that it's wrong. You're making the claim that it has merit - I'll accept each argument you give on its own basis, and accept or refute it as such. Until you've made a robust case for gods I can just ignore them.
Well, if even your own brother has no value to you then why would refugees have any value. We either acknowledge if we cannot love our brother who we can see and help then there is no love or real care or wanting to do it for a stranger.
I think I agree with your broad sentiment here, I think we're just phrasing it differently: how can we value one person in need over another is what I'm trying to say.
Your brother and you are already in the boat. Do you drag someone out of the water to replace your brother.
You could push your brother into the water with the other person. Which means both are without.
Now our country already has your brother living here. Should they ignore his needs to aid the needs of someone who does not already live here?
My point is, though, that as a country we have a massive boat, and some people in it have ten cabins to themselves whilst we argue about whether we can afford to let 10 people or 12 who are in need share one.
Are you Britsh born and bread?
Bred.. Yes, I am.
It isn't about them stealing jobs and benefits.
For a lot of people it would seem that it is.
It is about our own people being homeless and starving whilst they give houses and benefits to foreigners.
Our own people don't need to be homeless either, we have enough to go around.
Something completely different. We are not a wealthy nation any longer our wealth is being given to foreign countries.
We are the fifth largest economy in the world. Our average income per person is vastly in excess of the majority of the world's population. Both individually and as a nation we are, by any measure, a rich nation.
Our old age pensioners starving and dying from cold whilst they send millions abroad. If sending millions of pounds abroad why are people still coming here.
Because those millions we are sending abroad are being shared amongst millions. Do we have pensioners starving and dying at home - generally speaking no, we have a relatively small portion of the populace who are making bad choices, but even then there are safety nets to catch them. We could well stand to more equitably distribute the money we have, absolutely, but it's difficult to find someone who is short of the necessities of life without finidng someone who has made bad choices to get there.
The Government are sending Aid to other countries whilst their own people suffer.
Not to anything like the same degree. People here have health-care, have job opportunities, have legal defences.
The royals came and helped refurbish old houses for our troops left homeless having defended their country.
The Royals came and actually did a day's sort of actual work whilst making damned sure they made their money's worth in PR for their parasitic lifestyle... woohoo, let me break out a trumpet.
NO it stops now. Look after our own first and then look after the rest of the world. If you over fill a boat it will capsize and all will be lost.
Yeah, that's the Christian way. You hypocrite.
NO Our health care is contributed to by National insurance and tax. Nothing is free and it was paid for by our grandparents and we have contributed too.
No, it wasn't. It was set up by our grandparents, but what is being spent now is being taxed on us, just as their pensions that they are now claiming is being paid by us. At least, though, we have the opportunity to be taxed and to elect people at our discretion who will determine the level of taxation and what that will be spent on - do these refugees have that luxury where they come from? What benefits do they get from their taxation? What chance to elect governments do they get?
The only people getting it free is refugees and foreigners.
In the main they want to work and they want to pay taxes. Yes, they want to do it here because it gives them better options than other places, what right do you have to say you deserve that chance and they don't? You say your grandparents built this system, fine - that's what they did. What do you do to deserve the benefits of it?
Just as the leaders in Lebanon are responsible for it's own people.
But those people didn't choose that government, and that government isn't governing in their best interests. What have they done to deserve that? Nothing, they were just born there.
If we were in trouble they would NOT HELP US.
We don't know if they would or wouldn't, but that's not really the point - we don't determine what's right or wrong based on how the worst possible people would treat us in return.
It isn't about deserving... but at any time when things were good they could have left Lebanon but they did not.
Firstly, perhaps they actually couldn't - legally or financially - but even if they could, whilst there wasn't a problem why would they? And for those people that are coming from peaceful, adequate places because the possibilities are better here - Poles, say, or Hungarians and Bulgarians - they face the same response.
They only want to come here for the free care and homes. TROJAN HORSE comes to mind. Once in they will wreck this Country too.
No, they want to come here for stability and education for their children and the chance to earn a comfortable, safe living. They don't mind paying taxes, because they value what those taxes go towards.
Go and tell your neighbour you want him to keep you. Pay your mortgage and all your bills.
Nobody's asking for that. Trying climbing out of the Daily Mail for a minute.
Because that is the real issue not the stupid and ignorant thing you just said. You see this Nation is basically like you and your neighbour. Both in the world, both with your own houses and now you want your neighbour to pay for you to live where you are and keep you. NO you would not get that would you. No more than you would pay for your neighbours because responsibility begins with you and your home. Just as the Lebanon predicament begins with them, their own Government/rulers and people as a nation. They cannot demand or expect another nation to pay for them and even move into their home.
No, I see it as my neighbour is a twat who beats his family. His son wants to leave home, get a job and move on with his life, and the rest of the town is saying 'But you're one of those - stay in that house, get beaten, we don't owe you anything, our jobs and houses are for decent, upright, people'.
Whose fault is it, that their countries are destitute, war-torn, hostile piss-holes lacking in infrastructure and temperature climates that make Western Europe so easy to live in. Do you honestly think you have an argument of some type there.
Yes. Do you think the refugees are the ones with access to government bank accounts to buy weapons systems?
They made their country what it is today as the rest of Europe did. As or the rest LEBANON IS NOT PART OF THE UK nor is it our responsibility.
Perhaps, as a Christian, you should try reading some of that Christianity stuff again... Good Samaritan, perhaps, or at worst the Prodigal Son.
That is because companies have built up their industries.
Because they're based in stable Western democracies where they have that option.
Footballers and teams have absolutely nothing to do with politics and are not responsible for Lebanon.
The obligation is on all of us, not just on politicians. If you have billions of pounds that you don't need, can you really justify funding Chelsea Football Club's latest multi-million pound bench-warming left back when people are starving on beaches waiting to risk their lives to escape a hopeless, desperate life?
Each man has the right to his own house, land, and living they have earned.
And what of these people, who are facing having that right taken away? If you believe in those rights why are you denying people them? 'It's not our problem' you say, no it's their problem, but we can help.
We are NOT responsible for every other Country on earth
Am I not my brother's keeper any more?
Your arguments fail till you can show the UK to be responsible for every other Country and their people in the world.
Firstly, you don't need to be responsible for someone situation in order to help them, or it wouldn't be called charity it would be called compensation. Secondly, the way economics (and mid 20th Century politics) works means that, actually, yes, our good fortune now is a direct influence on their situation.
We do not have the room, the money or the housing to look after our own.
Bullshit, bullshit and why not? Not lack of resources, not lack of opportunity, but because two-face lying shits horde the money, pretend like they care and kick the poor and desperate when they're down. We could easily build enough housing for all our own people, and many from outside, and we could easily feed and employ them, but we wouldn't make as much profit as we do now - people don't count, coinage does, and you bleat about being the holiest of holy then back them to hilt.
O.
-
If you had read the article you'd have found out. His decision is based on what Brussels wants for Portugal. So as the Greeks found out no matter what you vote for you always get the party and policies of the EU imposed upon you - Soviet Union II. Democracy is dead!!!
Brussels did not tell him to prevent a democratically elected party from becoming government. You are misrepresenting the EU.
Bad boy.
-
If you had read the article you'd have found out. His decision is based on what Brussels wants for Portugal. So as the Greeks found out no matter what you vote for you always get the party and policies of the EU imposed upon you - Soviet Union II. Democracy is dead!!!
Brussels did not tell him to prevent a democratically elected party from becoming government. You are misrepresenting the EU.
Bad boy.
Actually they did. Get your facts right, Jeremy!!!
-
If you had read the article you'd have found out. His decision is based on what Brussels wants for Portugal. So as the Greeks found out no matter what you vote for you always get the party and policies of the EU imposed upon you - Soviet Union II. Democracy is dead!!!
Brussels did not tell him to prevent a democratically elected party from becoming government. You are misrepresenting the EU.
Bad boy.
Actually they did. Get your facts right, Jeremy!!!
No they didn't.
-
If you had read the article you'd have found out. His decision is based on what Brussels wants for Portugal. So as the Greeks found out no matter what you vote for you always get the party and policies of the EU imposed upon you - Soviet Union II. Democracy is dead!!!
Brussels did not tell him to prevent a democratically elected party from becoming government. You are misrepresenting the EU.
Bad boy.
Actually they did. Get your facts right, Jeremy!!!
No they didn't.
You know what your boss wants!!!
-
You know what your boss wants!!!
Failed analogy - his 'boss' is the electorate. His electorate chose him, and in representing him he took what he considered to be the best long-term option for Portugal.
O.
-
You know what your boss wants!!!
Failed analogy - his 'boss' is the electorate. His electorate chose him, and in representing him he took what he considered to be the best long-term option for Portugal.
O.
I wasn't talking about how it looks on paper but where his loyalties lie with him personally.
-
You know what your boss wants!!!
Failed analogy - his 'boss' is the electorate. His electorate chose him, and in representing him he took what he considered to be the best long-term option for Portugal.
O.
I wasn't talking about how it looks on paper but where his loyalties lie with him personally.
And you spoken with him to know, personally, that he feels his boss is in Brussels, do you? Not that his economic proclivities lead him to believe that it's the best path, but that he feels he's beholden to Brussels for some reason?
O.
-
You know what your boss wants!!!
Failed analogy - his 'boss' is the electorate. His electorate chose him, and in representing him he took what he considered to be the best long-term option for Portugal.
O.
I wasn't talking about how it looks on paper but where his loyalties lie with him personally.
And you spoken with him to know, personally, that he feels his boss is in Brussels, do you? Not that his economic proclivities lead him to believe that it's the best path, but that he feels he's beholden to Brussels for some reason?
O.
Read his reasons for doing what he did. He said an anti-austerity government that opposes the EU's policy wouldn't be good for Portugal. But the Left had formed a coalition agreement that could form a majority government, not a right wing minority as he wanted. The people had chosen the Left but he went against their democratic wishes.
-
Read his reasons for doing what he did. He said an anti-austerity government that opposes the EU's policy wouldn't be good for Portugal. But the Left had formed a coalition agreement that could form a majority government, not a right wing minority as he wanted. The people had chosen the Left but he went against their democratic wishes.
And Portugal's constitution allows this - he believes that it's best for Portugal, and he has sufficient votes to run a minority government. There's a democratic process there to put checks and balances in place so that the left-wing alliance can balance out his efforts. I still fail to see how his being a Europhile suddenly undermines Portugal's political system and makes him some sort of weird fifth columnist.
Portugal elected him, albeit in a minority...
O.
-
A majority of British people would vote to leave the European Union in the wake of the migrant crisis engulfing the continent, a shock new Mail on Sunday poll has found.
The Mail on Sunday is affiliated with the Daily Mail, as such it is the most destructive entity amongst the British media. Whatever advice it gives, you should pretty much do the opposite.
Anyway, what makes you think the migration cries will be any better if we are not in the EU. Is it because you know that the resulting economic crash will make this an unattractive place to be?
And who says there will be an economic crash? Are you now an expert economist as well as mathematician, theologian, sports pundit, political analyst, and general google know-all?
-
Read his reasons for doing what he did. He said an anti-austerity government that opposes the EU's policy wouldn't be good for Portugal. But the Left had formed a coalition agreement that could form a majority government, not a right wing minority as he wanted. The people had chosen the Left but he went against their democratic wishes.
And Portugal's constitution allows this - he believes that it's best for Portugal, and he has sufficient votes to run a minority government. There's a democratic process there to put checks and balances in place so that the left-wing alliance can balance out his efforts. I still fail to see how his being a Europhile suddenly undermines Portugal's political system and makes him some sort of weird fifth columnist.
Portugal elected him, albeit in a minority...
O.
Why put in a minority government that is going to be voted down in a vote of no confidence, and then followed by the Left government/coalition which was there at the first? Because he can say to the Brussels that he tried to do the right thing by them and can I have a nice big fat job for my loyalty.
-
Why put in a minority government that is going to be voted down in a vote of no confidence, and then followed by the Left government/coalition which was there at the first? Because he can say to the Brussels that he tried to do the right thing by them and can I have a nice big fat job for my loyalty.
Because he stood to represent a large number of people who voted for him - that's what he promised to do, and he's doing it. On many issues the left wing may be able to stymie his efforts, but as the leader of a minority government he gets to decide what the conversation will be about, he gets to exert the influence of the single largest party.
That's the nature of multi-party politics. He now has the opportunity, perhaps on a case-by-case basis, to build alliances and work with other groups to try to build a consensus and get things done.
He's leading as a minority leader because that's a better way to represent the many people who voted for him than to throw his hand and capitulate and let down the people that put their confidence in him.
He's leading because, even as a minority leader, he still believes that his way is better than the left wing way, and he can't do anything about their terrible ideas if he just gives up.
Any or all of those are viable possible influences that are more credible than your "EU OVERLORDS"TM concept.
O.
-
Why put in a minority government that is going to be voted down in a vote of no confidence, and then followed by the Left government/coalition which was there at the first? Because he can say to the Brussels that he tried to do the right thing by them and can I have a nice big fat job for my loyalty.
Because he stood to represent a large number of people who voted for him - that's what he promised to do, and he's doing it. On many issues the left wing may be able to stymie his efforts, but as the leader of a minority government he gets to decide what the conversation will be about, he gets to exert the influence of the single largest party.
That's the nature of multi-party politics. He now has the opportunity, perhaps on a case-by-case basis, to build alliances and work with other groups to try to build a consensus and get things done.
He's leading as a minority leader because that's a better way to represent the many people who voted for him than to throw his hand and capitulate and let down the people that put their confidence in him.
He's leading because, even as a minority leader, he still believes that his way is better than the left wing way, and he can't do anything about their terrible ideas if he just gives up.
Any or all of those are viable possible influences that are more credible than your "EU OVERLORDS"TM concept.
O.
Who is he? We are talking about the president here, he had no votes this time round. I get the idea you have your lines crossed(?).
-
We do not have the room, the money or the housing to look after our own. Till we do we cannot afford to accommodate foreigners.
If Jesus was around today I wonder if those would be his sentiments? ::)
He would ask you... Would you put your own children and their families on the street to accomodate strangers in your home.
Well there is no difference in what I said and that.
We have to provide for our own if we don't then our charity is false.
-
He would ask you... Would you put your own children and their families on the street to accomodate strangers in your home.
Well there is no difference in what I said and that.
We have to provide for our own if we don't then our charity is false.
The Jesus of the Bible myth would have said :- "Love all of mankind, family and stranger alike ... share everything you have."
Unfortunately, his creators were short-sighted and deluded, advocating a dream-world impossible to achieve.
We now have to grow out of their fairy-tale ramblings. pick up the pieces, and create as good a world as we can.
-
He would ask you... Would you put your own children and their families on the street to accomodate strangers in your home.
Well there is no difference in what I said and that.
We have to provide for our own if we don't then our charity is false.
Sass, who said anything about putting one's family out in the street? ::) You sound very much like my 'born again' late father-in-law who was happy to donate money for Bibles for the 'heathen' in Africa, but not to fill their empty stomachs. Surely if Christianity has any meaning it is to help those less fortunate than we are?
-
When will one or other of the atheists on here think of a different description for the Bible other than "fairy stories." It is so unoriginal, and crushingly boring!
-
Hmm..
big book of fables?
Big book of fantasies?
Big book of fun?
Big book of nonsense?
There, now don't say i'm not good to you BA if you need anymore you only need to ask :)
No thanks necessary!
-
Hmm..
big book of fables?
Big book of fantasies?
Big book of fun?
Big book of nonsense?
There, now don't say i'm not good to you BA if you need anymore you only need to ask :)
No thanks necessary.
No thanks forthcoming. :)
Must do better!
-
Guess there's no pleasing some people :)
-
Guess there's no pleasing some people :)
I'm quite easily pleased, really. You just failed on this occasion. Try some more adult variations. :)
-
Hmm..
big book of fables?
Big book of fantasies?
Big book of fun?
Big book of nonsense?
There, now don't say i'm not good to you BA if you need anymore you only need to ask :)
No thanks necessary!
You missed Big Book of Bollocks.
-
You missed Big Book of Bollocks.
I don't wish to hear about your reading habits, thank you. :)
-
The Jesus of the Bible myth would have said :- "Love all of mankind, family and stranger alike ... share everything you have."
Unfortunately, his creators were short-sighted and deluded, advocating a dream-world impossible to achieve.
We now have to grow out of their fairy-tale ramblings. pick up the pieces, and create as good a world as we can.
There you go Leonard,
Putting your own words into the mouth of Christ. When reality is that the words of God came out of the mouth of Christ.
True love does not have boundaries and if you cannot take care of your own family then the care for others is false.
-
Sass, who said anything about putting one's family out in the street? ::) You sound very much like my 'born again' late father-in-law who was happy to donate money for Bibles for the 'heathen' in Africa, but not to fill their empty stomachs. Surely if Christianity has any meaning it is to help those less fortunate than we are?
We have only your word what you Father was and wasn't. You wrote that so you could tell us about your Father. It has NOTHING in example by comparison to what I said about putting your own family first and then others. Whatever your Father was or wasn't bears no resemblance to the issue we are discussing.
It is a useless thing your father did. For charity is about feeding the Spiritual and bodily needs which God promised us to do.
Would your father leave your belly empty to send bible abroad. That basically would be a better comparison than yours.
-
When will one or other of the atheists on here think of a different description for the Bible other than "fairy stories." It is so unoriginal, and crushingly boring!
One day they might actually read it, then they can change it... ;D
-
One day they might actually read it, then they can change it... ;D
We're generally evidence-based thinkers - we classify it as a fairy-tale because we've read, not because we haven't. Would you prefer 'speculative fiction'? I'm guessing fantasy fiction wouldn't be any preferable?
Of course, the fact that you complain about the fact that we use the term rather than in any way demonstrating why you think we're wrong to do so is telling.
O.
-
Well, I'll just learn from BA with all his sweated hours of study about the Bible and accept his opinion that the OT is wrong.
-
Dear Rabbac, ( how the devil are you :P )
Hmm..
big book of fables?
Big book of fantasies?
Big book of fun?
Big book of nonsense?
Big book of truths.
Please note I did not say Truth.
Gonnagle.
-
Well, I'll just learn from BA with all his sweated hours of study about the Bible and accept his opinion that the OT is wrong.
At last, a supporter! Try reading Marcion: he'll put you right about the OT.
-
There you go Leonard,
Putting your own words into the mouth of Christ. When reality is that the words of God came out of the mouth of Christ.
True love does not have boundaries and if you cannot take care of your own family then the care for others is false.
Like the gospel writers didn't put words into his mouth! Anyway you are a good one to talk as you often tell us what the deity's thoughts are! ;D
-
At last, a supporter! Try reading Marcion: he'll put you right about the OT.
Already done that, it's why some eons ago I wrote a post about you being a Marcionite. Iirc Dicky Underpants participated, and when I said to Prof Davy that I would happily have a drink with you, cyberman got annoyed because we were talked my about you, and that was bad, even if we were being nice.
-
Already done that, it's why some eons ago I wrote a post about you being a Marcionite. Iirc Dicky Underpants participated, and when I said to Prof Davy that I would happily have a drink with you, cyberman got annoyed because we were talked my about you, and that was bad, even if we were being nice.
Well, I missed all that; and may I ask what your take on Marcion is now?
-
Well, I missed all that; and may I ask what your take on Marcion is now?
That he got it mostly right but failed to get rid of the god stuff
-
That he got it mostly right but failed to get rid of the god stuff
But he did assert the love that God has for us all; a fact that so many atheists here try to deny.
-
At last, a supporter! Try reading Marcion: he'll put you right about the OT.
Marcion was nothing more than a semi-pagan.
-
But he did assert the love that God has for us all; a fact that so many atheists here try to deny.
Why are you being so nasty to the word 'fact'? What's it ever done to you that you should mock it in this cruel way?
-
Marcion was nothing more than a semi-pagan.
A pretty valueless comment.
-
Why are you being so nasty to the word 'fact'? What's it ever done to you that you should mock it in this cruel way?
I get cross with it because people bandy it around uselessly, and it never bites back.
-
A pretty valueless comment.
It was an accurate comment. He couldn't rid himself of his paganism, which is why he believed in the demiurge. Had he understood the words of Christ he would have known that the God of the Old and New Testaments are one and the same.
-
It was an accurate comment. He couldn't rid himself of his paganism, which is why he believed in the demiurge. Had he understood the words of Christ he would have known that the God of the Old and New Testaments are one and the same.
He based his opinions on what the OT said with regard to God: and it did not represent Him as a loving and forgiving God, as Jesus did. The two views are diametrically opposed.
-
He based his opinions on what the OT said with regard to God: and it did not represent Him as a loving and forgiving God, as Jesus did. The two views are diametrically opposed.
Then Marcion made Christ out to be a liar and so do you, for Christ constantly confirms the OT.
-
I get cross with it because people bandy it around uselessly, and it never bites back.
It is a mere catspaw (or possibly a meerkat's paw) but I don't think you can blame it.
Anyway are you really surprised that atheists don't accept the idea that there is a god that loves us all, given that they don't have a belief in gods.
-
Then Marcion made Christ out to be a liar and so do you, for Christ constantly confirms the OT.
You really ought to read the NT, and maybe even look at a Commentary or two. Jesus said that He had come to replace the old with the new: "new wine for old." "You have heard it said, in times of old... but I say unto you...", etc, etc.
Jesus introduced the New Covenant, and by bringing in His New Covenant, transformed the law of the OT.
-
Throughout the Gospels and the Epistles the Old Testament is constantly confirmed. It is you who obviously has not read the New Testament.
"And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken by God, saying to you: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?"
"Now that the dead rise again, Moses also shewed, at the bush, when he called the Lord, The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living"
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him."
"And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."
"Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith to him: We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth."
"For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me."
And there are many more from the Gospels and from the Epistles.
-
The fact that something is written down on paper doesn't make it confirmed, you know.
-
The fact that something is written down on paper doesn't make it confirmed, you know.
But it does go some way to demonstrate the lack of substance in BA's assertions, for which he has displayed no conclusive arguments whatsoever, other than the odd quote or two, and shouting 'Midrash' like someone with a nervous tick every time Matthew's gospel is mentioned.
It should be noted that some of Ad-O's quotes come from Mark's gospel, and certainly reinforce the claim that Jesus was indebted to the teachings of the OT, and an orthodox Jew through and through.
It is in fact possible to argue a strong case that the historical Jesus' teachings and mission were exclusively to the Jewish diaspora (and a number of scholars have done so), and that all 'universalist' texts were inventions of the evangelists. There are certainly criteria to establish such a view, beyond mere cherry-picking. Such an approach wouldn't please either Ad-O or BA, the former determined to retain everything in the gospels, and the latter everything that doesn't accord with his 'gentle Jesus meek and mild' view.
I could begin a thread on this elsewhere, but as a non-believer, my interest is largely academic, and I suspect the interest would be minimal. It's no skin off my nose that such a view can't ultimately be substantiated any more than the other views, but believers have obviously much more hanging on the rightness or wrongness of what they've signed up for.
BTW, I rather wish BA's view of Jesus had some definite scholarly rigour to support it - it would certainly be better for society if this were the case. But if there is any such rigour, I'm afraid our old friend has done little to substantiate it, other than insisting N number of times "I've got a 'cesstifficut'" and "I've wiped a lot of sweat away" :)
-
It was an accurate comment. He couldn't rid himself of his paganism, which is why he believed in the demiurge. Had he understood the words of Christ he would have known that the God of the Old and New Testaments are one and the same.
I appreciate you're probably not a psychiatric specialist, but do you think it's a multiple personality disorder, or just bad editing that results in this singular character having such cosmically differing depictions?
O.
-
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him."
"And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."
Ironic, isn't it, that these quotes are from Luke, Marcion's favourite evangelist? :)
-
Ironic, isn't it, that these quotes are from Luke, Marcion's favourite evangelist? :)
Aye!
-
I appreciate you're probably not a psychiatric specialist, but do you think it's a multiple personality disorder, or just bad editing that results in this singular character having such cosmically differing depictions?
O.
Different prophets, different regions, different times. But each individual writer thought they were talking about the same God. Of course, each individual is likely to have a different take on what he thinks the divine to be.
Poor old Ezra - the likely compiler of the Pentateuch and the early part of the Bible - had a huge task on his hands. He was dealing with similar stories from different kingdoms and had to some how smooth them out and make a continuing narrative out of them all. Often he kept both, so inconsistencies keep cropping up (as in the two accounts of the Noah story which are intercolated). But not only do the individual details differ, the views of God from the North and South kingdoms differ somewhat. The Jahvist literature always seems a bit more 'homely' than the Elohist. Whereas the Priestly author is just an absolutely crushing bore.
Of course, if you take the view that "All scripture is inspired of God" (no matter how repellent the nature of the material), any scribe or redactor ipso facto feels constrained to treat it with respect.
-
You really ought to read the NT, and maybe even look at a Commentary or two.
I don't think you need to tell Ad-O to read commentaries - he's obviously well-read in Biblical literature, even though his take on the scriptures doesn't please you - or me for that matter. If you're going to suggest people read 'commentaries', perhaps you should specify a few. I can - and have - often specified commentaries and scholars whose views are diametrically opposed to yours. What's the point of vaguely referring to 'commentaries', as if all these 'commentators' had the same views? Can't you name the commentaries you mean, or have you forgotten?
-
I don't think you need to tell Ad-O to read commentaries - he's obviously well-read in Biblical literature, even though his take on the scriptures doesn't please you - or me for that matter. If you're going to suggest people read 'commentaries', perhaps you should specify a few. I can - and have - often specified commentaries and scholars whose views are diametrically opposed to yours. What's the point of vaguely referring to 'commentaries', as if all these 'commentators' had the same views? Can't you name the commentaries you mean, or have you forgotten?
There are so many Biblical Commentaries, you can take your pick.And if you profess to know so much, I shouldn't need to reel off any names: you should be aware of them.
I don't recollect those: remind me.
-
You could start with the Fathers, which is the only place to start, if you ask me.
-
I don't wish to hear about your reading habits, thank you. :)
You've confused that with the Big Book of Dog's Bollocks.
-
You've confused that with the Big Book of Dog's Bollocks.
No need to advertise your unsavoury reading habits!
-
No need to advertise your unsavoury reading habits!
I never said I read it just that you had confused it with the other book.
-
I never said I read it just that you had confused it with the other book.
I'm not at all confused, but...
-
That's a matter of opinion ;)
-
That's a matter of opinion ;)
Well, if it's your opinion, then nothing to worry about! :)
-
I'm not at all confused, but...
But if were confused how would you know? That very confusion would block your capacity to make such a judgement.
-
But if were confused how would you know? That very confusion would block your capacity to make such a judgement.
I was simply confused as to knowing what you meant.
-
But if were confused how would you know? That very confusion would block your capacity to make such a judgement.
I simply did not follow you meant, which was confusing me.
-
There are so many Biblical Commentaries, you can take your pick.And if you profess to know so much, I shouldn't need to reel off any names: you should be aware of them.
I don't recollect those: remind me.
Can't believe I'm bothering to answer this. I mentioned quite a few 'diametrically opposed' to your views quite recently*. I'm not going to remind you - you're the one whose supposed to have the superlative knowledge of such things. If you're not aware of them, then you're no sort of scholar at all, and all your words are so much braggadocio. In all the time I've seen you posting, I've often seen you refer to 'commentaries' but never named any. You seem totally unaware of the last 200 years or so of so-called 'Higher Criticism', since you never refer to any of this corpus of Biblical scholarship. In fact your own 'Higher Criticism' seems to be reduced to about four or five elements: a bit of vague reference to 'Midrash', some hoary old references to Josephus and Tacitus (being apparently totally unaware of the doubts associated with such texts, even though they've been aired here several times), and some enthusiastic remarks about Marcion (who, on your own confession, you came to 'late' - I knew about him decades ago; nothing special about that, since he's an important figure in the early days of Christianity).
*In the 'Paris Attacks' thread, post 61.
-
Can't believe I'm bothering to answer this. I mentioned quite a few 'diametrically opposed' to your views quite recently. I'm not going to remind you - you're the one whose supposed to have the superlative knowledge of such things. If you're not aware of them, then you're no sort of scholar at all, and all your words are so much bragadocio. In all the time I've seen you posting, I've often seen you refer to 'commentaries' but never named any. You seem totally unaware of the last 200 years or so of so-called 'Higher Criticism', since you never refer to any of this corpus of Biblical scholarship. In fact your own 'Higher Criticism' seems to be reduced to about four or five elements: a bit of vague reference to 'Midrash', some hoary old references to Josephus and Tacitus (being apparently totally unaware of the doubts associated with such texts, even though they've been aired here several times), and some enthusiastic remarks about Marcion (who, on your own confession, you came to 'late' - I knew about him decades ago; nothing special about that, since he's an important figure in the early days of Christianity).
Got anything new to say? If not, l'll leave you.
-
Got anything new to say? If not, l'll leave you.
I'm leaving you, darling, because you have nothing new to say. Now go back to your Wisden and the Boys Bumper Book of Boxing Heroes.
-
I'm leaving you, darling, because you have nothing new to say. Now go back to your Wisden and the Boys Bumper Book of Boxing Heroes.
My only boxing hero is Muhammad Ali; and I met him at a book signing in Nottingham, some years ago. You wouldn't have argued with him! :D
-
My only boxing hero is Muhammad Ali; and I met him at a book signing in Nottingham, some years ago. You wouldn't have argued with him! :D
If it was only a few years ago you could have not only argued with him but blown him over.
-
If it was only a few years ago you could have not only argued with him but blown him over.
He was a massive fellow, and you would certainly not have argued with him.
-
He was a massive fellow, and you would certainly not have argued with him.
Why not?
-
Why not?
Because I don't think he would have taken too happily to it. He most certainly gave the impression that he was not one to trifle with.
-
Because I don't think he would have taken too happily to it. He most certainly gave the impression that he was not one to trifle with.
Are you saying he would be violent?
-
If it was only a few years ago y...
It was some sixteen or seventeen, at least, as I remember. I wouldn't mind betting he could blow you over, even now! :)
-
Are you saying he would be violent?
He was imposing, and not one you would carelessly trifle with. Pity you weren't there, and tried. :D
-
If it was only a few years ago you could have not only argued with him but blown him over.
It was some sixteen or seventeen, at least, as I remember. I wouldn't mind betting he could blow you over, even now! :)
-
It was some sixteen or seventeen, at least, as I remember. I wouldn't mind betting he could blow you over, even now! :)
No he couldn't, based on the state he was in the last time I saw anything of him :(
-
No he couldn't, based on the state he was in the last time I saw anything of him :(
So, if you're right, so what? Why do you keep pressing the point? I am happy to consider him as he is and was, and a far greater achiever than you could ever be. Another example of mice nibbling at the feet of an elephant!
-
So, if you're right, so what? Why do you keep pressing the point? I am happy to consider him as he is and was, and a far greater achiever than you could ever be.
How would you know?
-
How would you know
Know what? That Ali was a greater achiever than you? Well, all I can go on is your posting over the years, and as an achiever I would say you'd have made a better gas fitter! :)
-
What are you lot going on about? Today a Russian plane was shot down in Syria/Turkey which could signal More World Troubles Than 'Normal'.....