c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 20:45:09 GMT
Do you not have any concerns about the vaccines then? No. They are one of the greatest medical advances of all human history. I have had every vaccine available (including flu and covid last week) and had my children vaccinated for everything as well. Yes, there is a tiny element of risk as there is to every medical treatment ever devised (including all the quack ones) but the diseases are far more dangerous. Thanks PJ. I meant to edit that and put just mRNA vaccines! But got waylaid! What about the new mRNA vaccines specifically? |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 20:51:24 GMT
You are taking far too lofty a stance on this . Because Trump denies science doesn't mean that Biden always tells the truth politically. Because Trump lies a lot doesn't mean that Biden never does. All parties indulge in fiction-saying that they have achieved things which they havent. Blaming failures on factors which were irrelevant . Twisting the facts to suit their purposes. It’s the religious thing again. People believing their own sect are immaculate and infallible and never talk crap. Only other faiths do that. (The climate science thing is an interesting example, because people sometimes complain that if 99% of scientists believe in man-made climate change, and 1% don’t, then we should go with 99% and not consider the other side. Sometimes, the lone scientist is right though. Many scientists used to believe in the aether, until Einstein eventually showed it wasn’t necessary. But PJ has a point if the other side they get in for “balance” is talking rot. But this is a problem of the media again, if they can’t tell the difference). |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,576
Member is Online
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 11, 2024 21:20:03 GMT
But how do you have balance between fiction and reality? You are taking far too lofty a stance on this . Because Trump denies science doesn't mean that Biden always tells the truth politically. Because Trump lies a lot doesn't mean that Biden never does. All parties indulge in fiction-saying that they have achieved things which they havent. Blaming failures on factors which were irrelevant . Twisting the facts to suit their purposes. All parties do this. The media should critically analyse all of it in their political reporting. They don't apply balance when they have a preferred political party. Which, to varying degrees, seems to be the norm. I provided a link to the political bias of media in USA Sure Biden doesn't always tell the truth, he's a politician, but he doesn't deny scientific reality. If you can't see the difference between politicians who try to operate within the actual world we live in and ones who intend to create a fantasy world of their own and pretend it exists doing untold harm in the process then I feel surprised and alarmed. You are normalising the entirely abnormal and are so becoming complicit in what follows. I must admit I thought better of you. I had assumed that your and Turk's opposition to Trump was driven in part by the realisation that what he represents is not some new form of conservatism but something highly dangerous (and it isn't Facism, btw. More like a weird religious cult). Yes of course the media should scrutinise Biden and Harris as they used to Heath and Wilson or Major and Blair on policy grounds. But you can't scrutinise Trump in the same way and pretend that his agenda is 'normal'. It gives legitimacy to demonstrably false thinking. It's like saying that flat Earthers should be given the same respect of people who know the Earth is a (near) globe. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,576
Member is Online
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 11, 2024 21:28:27 GMT
No. They are one of the greatest medical advances of all human history. I have had every vaccine available (including flu and covid last week) and had my children vaccinated for everything as well. Yes, there is a tiny element of risk as there is to every medical treatment ever devised (including all the quack ones) but the diseases are far more dangerous. Thanks PJ. I meant to edit that and put just mRNA vaccines! But got waylaid! What about the new mRNA vaccines specifically? I don't claim to be any sort of expert and I'm happy to follow the scientific consensus*. However, the basic theory of how they work seems unproblematic. I would be happy to have one. ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2024/03/11/what-are-mrna-vaccines-and-how-do-they-work/* Yes I know the consensus both develops over time as new evidence emerges (i.e. normal scientific process) and is sometimes wrong and the iconoclasts are right - but that doesn't mean the latter are usually right. The consensus is correct most of the time. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,576
Member is Online
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 11, 2024 21:31:33 GMT
You are taking far too lofty a stance on this . Because Trump denies science doesn't mean that Biden always tells the truth politically. Because Trump lies a lot doesn't mean that Biden never does. All parties indulge in fiction-saying that they have achieved things which they havent. Blaming failures on factors which were irrelevant . Twisting the facts to suit their purposes. It’s the religious thing again. People believing their own sect are immaculate and infallible and never talk crap. Only other faiths do that. ( The climate science thing is an interesting example, because people sometimes complain that if 99% of scientists believe in man-made climate change, and 1% don’t, then we should go with 99% and not consider the other side. Sometimes, the lone scientist is right though. Many scientists used to believe in the aether, until Einstein eventually showed it wasn’t necessary. But PJ has a point if the other side they get in for “balance” is talking rot. But this is a problem of the media again, if they can’t tell the difference). Scientists don't "believe" in climate change. They look at the evidence. Which frankly is now utterly overwhelming. |
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Nov 11, 2024 21:42:30 GMT
You are taking far too lofty a stance on this . Because Trump denies science doesn't mean that Biden always tells the truth politically. Because Trump lies a lot doesn't mean that Biden never does. All parties indulge in fiction-saying that they have achieved things which they havent. Blaming failures on factors which were irrelevant . Twisting the facts to suit their purposes. It’s the religious thing again. People believing their own sect are immaculate and infallible and never talk crap. Only other faiths do that. (The climate science thing is an interesting example, because people sometimes complain that if 99% of scientists believe in man-made climate change, and 1% don’t, then we should go with 99% and not consider the other side. Sometimes, the lone scientist is right though. Many scientists used to believe in the aether, until Einstein eventually showed it wasn’t necessary. But PJ has a point if the other side they get in for “balance” is talking rot. But this is a problem of the media again, if they can’t tell the difference). I'm surprised you use the example of Climate science, are you seriously suggesting that this is still a debate, it is not only the weight on one side in terms of numbers but it is the quality of their work compared to the other side. There is a growing community on the internet that maintains the earth is flat, do you give that credence? I will be interested in how your view of Musk develops over the next few years. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 21:58:36 GMT
It’s the religious thing again. People believing their own sect are immaculate and infallible and never talk crap. Only other faiths do that. ( The climate science thing is an interesting example, because people sometimes complain that if 99% of scientists believe in man-made climate change, and 1% don’t, then we should go with 99% and not consider the other side. Sometimes, the lone scientist is right though. Many scientists used to believe in the aether, until Einstein eventually showed it wasn’t necessary. But PJ has a point if the other side they get in for “balance” is talking rot. But this is a problem of the media again, if they can’t tell the difference). Scientists don't "believe" in climate change. They look at the evidence. Which frankly is now utterly overwhelming. We used to discuss that sort of thing on the old board, Popper and stuff, about science and things often being provisional. There could be some hitherto unknown effect discovered tomorrow that throws things up in the air, for example |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 22:01:51 GMT
It’s the religious thing again. People believing their own sect are immaculate and infallible and never talk crap. Only other faiths do that. (The climate science thing is an interesting example, because people sometimes complain that if 99% of scientists believe in man-made climate change, and 1% don’t, then we should go with 99% and not consider the other side. Sometimes, the lone scientist is right though. Many scientists used to believe in the aether, until Einstein eventually showed it wasn’t necessary. But PJ has a point if the other side they get in for “balance” is talking rot. But this is a problem of the media again, if they can’t tell the difference). I'm surprised you use the example of Climate science, are you seriously suggesting that this is still a debate, it is not only the weight on one side in terms of numbers but it is the quality of their work compared to the other side. There is a growing community on the internet that maintains the earth is flat, do you give that credence? I will be interested in how your view of Musk develops over the next few years. I picked it specifically, because there is so much consensus! Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing against it. I’m just using it to point out that weight of support doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right. And someone tomorrow could come up with some new information that confounds, and maybe it isn’t readily accepted at first. Climate modelling is somewhat speculative, it’s not like whether the earth is flat. We can test that now. But what the climate will be doing in 50 years?… |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 11, 2024 22:08:42 GMT
You are taking far too lofty a stance on this . Because Trump denies science doesn't mean that Biden always tells the truth politically. Because Trump lies a lot doesn't mean that Biden never does. All parties indulge in fiction-saying that they have achieved things which they havent. Blaming failures on factors which were irrelevant . Twisting the facts to suit their purposes. All parties do this. The media should critically analyse all of it in their political reporting. They don't apply balance when they have a preferred political party. Which, to varying degrees, seems to be the norm. I provided a link to the political bias of media in USA Sure Biden doesn't always tell the truth, he's a politician, but he doesn't deny scientific reality. If you can't see the difference between politicians who try to operate within the actual world we live in and ones who intend to create a fantasy world of their own and pretend it exists doing untold harm in the process then I feel surprised and alarmed. You are normalising the entirely abnormal and are so becoming complicit in what follows. I must admit I thought better of you. I had assumed that your and Turk's opposition to Trump was driven in part by the realisation that what he represents is not some new form of conservatism but something highly dangerous (and it isn't Facism, btw. More like a weird religious cult). Yes of course the media should scrutinise Biden and Harris as they used to Heath and Wilson or Major and Blair on policy grounds. But you can't scrutinise Trump in the same way and pretend that his agenda is 'normal'. It gives legitimacy to demonstrably false thinking. It's like saying that flat Earthers should be given the same respect of people who know the Earth is a (near) globe. I have not made any comparisons between Trump & Biden. For one thing i'm not a voter in USA. But I do know that a POTUS has effects across the globe. My main fear about Trump is therefore related to his effects outside USA. And that fear is based on two things. His narcissism and his unpredictability. ( and the economic clout he wields ) But I am not going the subscribe to the idea that because Trump doesn't believe in atmospheric warming it somehow absolves all media from examination of his opponent so they can devote every column inch to Trump's denial. That is just partisan politics. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 11, 2024 23:10:15 GMT
shevii - Certainly civilian casualties are high in Gaza, but that is in part down to Hamas deliberately integrating their military units within civilian centres. The Hamas leadership do not appear to have the slightest interest in actually protecting their own people, and the authorities in Gaza and Ukraine have fundamentally different approaches to the value of lives on their own side, which is not to downplay the severity of the Israeli crimes. While the proportion of Gaza that has been destroyed is higher than Ukraine, I'd just point out that Gaza is very nearly identical in area to the Donetsk oblast alone, and the area across which Russia has attacked is far greater, so the destruction overall is greater. I'd also question the notion that Russian war crimes are on a more limited scale. They are vast, and have been ongoing for a long time. Kidnapping children, raping women - before during and after transporting them to Russia, beheading prisoners of war, on film, institusionalized male rape of prisoners, deliberate targeting of hospitals and other civilian centres with the express aim of terrorising non-combatants. I struggle to see much difference, to be honest. Which is why I'm slightly aghast that those so willing to fight oppression in Palestine seem strangely quiet when faced with oppression in Ukraine. These are not mutually exclusive, but the imbalance in attention given to these two conflicts by some on the left is telling, in my view.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 12, 2024 0:09:32 GMT
Sorry pete , I’m a bit busy, you’ll have to find someone else. You could try mercian , if his shower issue has been resolved No thanks Think i'll give Mercian a miss. If even his own wife doesn't want to whiff him... But you're so cuddly!  |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 12, 2024 0:13:26 GMT
House result still on a knife edge. Currently 203:214 Democrats reasonably certain of 6 more the republicans 3 .All other 9 districts still in play with no margin over 2.5% and 6 under 1% Plenty of scope for rigging if such a thing ever happens. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 12, 2024 0:37:00 GMT
Pjw1961 Watching the death of enlightenment. Is that the same enlightenment that calls anybody concerned about immigration a racist. Or the same enlightenment that bans speakers from Universities because students might be upset.Or the same enlightenment that wants to rewrite history because it offends some people. Or the death of enlightenment that sends people to jail for making comments on the internet whilst letting sex offenders go free. You need to wake up when your talking about enlightenment instead of looking at it from a left wing point of view ,political correctness has done far more damage to enlightenment and freedom that Trump and his cronies are ever likely to do. Here we go again, any chance of supporting your assertions withs some evidence? Give me an example of Someone sent to Gaol for making comments on the internet which did not involve breaking the Law of the Land (or can we now choose which we obey?) whilst letting sex offenders go free. Does anybody concerned about immigration get called a racist, or do they get called a racist when they make racist comments when they discuss Immigration. Does The enlightenment as you see it really want to re-write history because it offends people? or is it just part of the process of re-examination that happens generation after generation, why are you so challenged by that process are you so wedded to the History of Britain's glorious imperial past you were taught at school in the the !950's or 60's that you have a paddy when historians point out that there were inglorious episodes within it, does it ruin your day when you visit a Stately Home and are reminded it was built from wealth gained in the slave trade? Trump is a Climate crisis denier, he was a quack science follower during the Covid pandemic, He believes in alternative facts, he can't count the number of supporters at his rallies, last time he comprehensively lost the Election in 2020 he refused to accept the result, and tried to overturn the result, he is about to pull the rug on Ukraine and cosy up to Putin, but apparently Political Correctness whatever that is according to you has done far more damage to the enlightenment than Trump is ever likely to do. Time to show us your workings out Turk, or people may conclude your just posting rubbish. You obviously skipped over the bit of turk's post that I have highlighted. For instance re slavery. When Sir John Hawkins went on a speculative trade mission to west Africa with a cargo of goods such as (I assume) of manufactured goods such as axes and cloth and asked them what they had to trade they said "Well we have these slaves...". Thus began the famous triangular trade of England to West Africa to trade goods for slaves, then West Africa to the West Indies and mainland America to trade slaves for stuff like tobacco and cotton, and then back to England. It's just as valid to say that fortunes were built on cotton and tobacco as slaves. We were also the first major power to abolish slavery and attempted to police it for other nations as well as we could. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_SquadronWe should be celebrating our part in abolishing slavery in the Empire rather than wallowing in guilt. And of course slavery still exists and we are no longer in a position to enforce abolition even in our own country it seems. www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/slave-bride-brought-birmingham-hit-29160596 |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 12, 2024 0:42:47 GMT
I think you are confusing criticism of Republicans with balanced political reporting. Balanced reporting requires critical examination of both parties. Which rarely exists-and this perception of US media political bias looks fairly well......balanced to me :- guides.library.harvard.edu/newsleans/thechartBut how do you have balance between fiction and reality? It is the same logic as used to make the BBC have one distinguished scientist explaining the evidence based scientific consensus on climate change and someone like the late Lord Lawson talking complete bollocks (with a financial agenda that never got a mention) and think that represented "balance". At least they seem to have outgrown that nonsense. Yes let's hope that they only ever present leftie opinions from now on (which is pretty much true anyway). |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 12, 2024 0:54:43 GMT
It’s the religious thing again. People believing their own sect are immaculate and infallible and never talk crap. Only other faiths do that. (The climate science thing is an interesting example, because people sometimes complain that if 99% of scientists believe in man-made climate change, and 1% don’t, then we should go with 99% and not consider the other side. Sometimes, the lone scientist is right though. Many scientists used to believe in the aether, until Einstein eventually showed it wasn’t necessary. But PJ has a point if the other side they get in for “balance” is talking rot. But this is a problem of the media again, if they can’t tell the difference). I'm surprised you use the example of Climate science, are you seriously suggesting that this is still a debate, it is not only the weight on one side in terms of numbers but it is the quality of their work compared to the other side. There is a growing community on the internet that maintains the earth is flat, do you give that credence? I will be interested in how your view of Musk develops over the next few years. and @pjw61 c-a-r-f-r-e-w specifically said man-made climate change, which you both ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 12, 2024 1:02:04 GMT
Last post tonight and apologies for the flurry, but some of us have important things such as chess matches in the evening. I just wanted to share this, for all those who think I'm some sort of racist. I had a long chat with my pal Frank at the chess club tonight. He's a Jamaican, and said I was 'cool'. I was really flattered. I don't suppose he's said that to many elderly white men. Cheers Frank!
|
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 12, 2024 1:44:47 GMT
A ramble on the Electoral College and the popular vote. At the moment whoever wins the necessary states to win a Presidential election is going to get their margin substantially padded in the Electoral College, because many of the swing states are relatively large. The most marginal states in 2004 were Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico, carrying 26 EC votes between them - this time the four most marginal will probably be Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia, carrying 60 EC votes. So the smallest margins are returning much bigger electoral rewards on a map like that, and this has been the case for Obama in 2012 and for Biden in 2020, as well as for Trump in 2016 and 2024. Comparing the popular vote across elections can get quite problematic too - and at the risk of triggering others, the biggest distortion in recent times is California. The popular vote margins there went off the charts for the Dems between 2000 and 2020 - some of it demographic shift, some of it the effect of the Republicans ceasing to compete there at state level, and some of it the combined effects of enthusiastic gerrymandering along with changing the electoral system for everything but the Presidential election meaning fewer competitive down-ballot races. Whatever the combination from these, the impact is stark. Just comparing the two relatively recent elections where the Republicans won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote; 2000 Dems win California by 1.3m votes, lose the rest of the country by 800k votes 2016 Dems win California by 4.5m votes, lose the rest of the country by 1.5m votes That's a massive shift compared to the rest of the country, way too big to be down to shifting demographics alone. Naturally the same sorts of currents will go on in both directions in other states too as they slip out of the swing state frame. It made no real difference when New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire stopped being swing states because they're too small to matter in the popular vote. Whereas when we get the final numbers for 2024 then similarly rapid increases in Republican support in Ohio and Florida over recent cycles may well turn out to be a significant part of why Trump looks set to win the popular vote by a point or two this time despite losing it by 2 points in 2016 with a near-identical Electoral College map. My point is really just that the scale and complexity of the US, coupled with its many tiers of simultaneous elections and the pre-eminence of prioritising very expensive TV advertising across many different regional TV markets makes the raw popular vote total from the Presidential election a hard thing to meaningfully compare, even to the equivalent numbers in the recent past. To extrapolate from them to what the election outcome would be if it were a direct election without the Electoral College is a then lot more of a leap of faith than say taking party vote shares from a UK GE and speculating what AV, STV or some other system would have yielded. As steve argued earlier, if you want a yardstick for national opinion, the votes and seats for the House of Representatives is probably the closest to being useful. And at the moment those look set to deliver a near-identical outcome to two years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Nov 12, 2024 5:26:33 GMT
Ah the caring sharing left still telling us how more intelligent they are and how stupid everyone else is. I wonder why it is that all these intelligent left wingers seem to have a default position on those who they disagree with by resulting to childish insults and name calling . I have several friends who voted Trump none of whom are Facists or religious fanatics or women haters, just ordinary people mostly farmers trying to make a living who thought Trump would be marginally better for them in that respect than Harris who had plenty to say about the opposition but nothing to say how she would improve people’s lives. Those same people also know we voted Democrat and campaigned.for Harris ,I haven’t Experienced any of the Bile I’ve read on these pages the last couple of days from them. But then there not a bunch of aggrieved left wingers crying about losing to Trump in a democratic election, rather just ordinary people who had a deep mistrust of State interference and meddling in how they run there lives who saw Trump as the lesser of two nobodies both of which who shouldn’t have been running for President in the first place. No ones rights were at risk if they voted for Harris though. However Trump is claiming he plans to deport millions of people and will quite happily separate families in doing so. You say your friends were making their decision on what marginally, (your words), may have been best for them. Did they give no consideration to Trumps character, lies, project 2025 plans, intentions for Ukraine and his attempt to undermine democracy through the Jan 6th insurrection? If they were making such a marginal decision, I for one am completely flummoxed as to they came to their decision. It seems to me that the choices they were making were actually pretty huge and are going to have massive consequences for millions of people both in the USA and Ukraine. As a self proclaimed Democrat who campaigned and voted for Harris I'm also shocked that you don't have similar questions? As a campaigning Democrat you will have been fully aware of what was at stake in that election and will have course have spent the last few weeks pointing out how the human rights of the undocumented were at risk and how Ukraine was going to be hung out to dry should Trump win. You will also have been campaigning on the character and lies of the Republican candidate and explaining to your friends how he tried to undermine the last election. Your current stance and mood therefore seems unfathomable to me because all the things you were sincerely and earnestly campaigning on are now at risk! |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Nov 12, 2024 5:34:34 GMT
Ah the caring sharing left still telling us how more intelligent they are and how stupid everyone else is. I wonder why it is that all these intelligent left wingers seem to have a default position on those who they disagree with by resulting to childish insults and name calling . and why it is they don't understand that patronising the electorate and taking them for granted is not , in the end, a vote winner ? I was thinking about that Julia Roberts advert clanger and then the queue of celebrities wheeled out to support Harris. What made them think that a bunch of wealthy celebs spouting platitudes about hope and democracy has any appeal to a voter who is struggling to pay the food bills and the rent and lives in a neighbourhood ruined by crime and drugs ? Tony Blair did it a bit with all that Cool Brittania stuff. I don't get it. Credit to Starmer that he seems to steer clear of it. As a campaigning Democrat I'm sure turk as we speak is feeding back his concerns about the campaign to the DNC.🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Nov 12, 2024 5:51:52 GMT
The incoming administration: Specifically rejects climate science Specifically rejects public health science (both the standard version and alec's revisionist one) Seemingly is prepared to go anti-vaccine and put the health of millions at risk Intends to demolish environmental protections, again putting the health of millions at risk - www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/11/environmental-protection-agency-staff-react-trump-second-termMy point is that you don't have to be some sort of leftie, liberal, profoundly scientific or even truthful to fall foul of the new order. Just being a rational, fact-based person, institution or media outlet means you are now an enemy, liable to be sacked from your job (see the linked article on scientists being told to rig their findings or be dismissed) or have your licence to operate questioned, as Trump has done with multiple media outlets. We are watching the death of the enlightenment and a return to government by superstition. I think you are confusing criticism of Republicans with balanced political reporting. Balanced reporting requires critical examination of both parties. Which rarely exists-and this perception of US media political bias looks fairly well......balanced to me :- guides.library.harvard.edu/newsleans/thechartYep what we need is more balanced reporting towards people who are in denial about climate science and think that injecting bleach may combat COVID. Drill baby drill! Talking of people being in denial...... |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Nov 12, 2024 6:05:56 GMT
It’s the religious thing again. People believing their own sect are immaculate and infallible and never talk crap. Only other faiths do that. (The climate science thing is an interesting example, because people sometimes complain that if 99% of scientists believe in man-made climate change, and 1% don’t, then we should go with 99% and not consider the other side. Sometimes, the lone scientist is right though. Many scientists used to believe in the aether, until Einstein eventually showed it wasn’t necessary. But PJ has a point if the other side they get in for “balance” is talking rot. But this is a problem of the media again, if they can’t tell the difference). I will be interested in how your view of Musk develops over the next few years. FFS noooo please don't encourage him😱. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Nov 12, 2024 6:15:35 GMT
Here we go again, any chance of supporting your assertions withs some evidence? Give me an example of Someone sent to Gaol for making comments on the internet which did not involve breaking the Law of the Land (or can we now choose which we obey?) whilst letting sex offenders go free. Does anybody concerned about immigration get called a racist, or do they get called a racist when they make racist comments when they discuss Immigration. Does The enlightenment as you see it really want to re-write history because it offends people? or is it just part of the process of re-examination that happens generation after generation, why are you so challenged by that process are you so wedded to the History of Britain's glorious imperial past you were taught at school in the the !950's or 60's that you have a paddy when historians point out that there were inglorious episodes within it, does it ruin your day when you visit a Stately Home and are reminded it was built from wealth gained in the slave trade? Trump is a Climate crisis denier, he was a quack science follower during the Covid pandemic, He believes in alternative facts, he can't count the number of supporters at his rallies, last time he comprehensively lost the Election in 2020 he refused to accept the result, and tried to overturn the result, he is about to pull the rug on Ukraine and cosy up to Putin, but apparently Political Correctness whatever that is according to you has done far more damage to the enlightenment than Trump is ever likely to do. Time to show us your workings out Turk, or people may conclude your just posting rubbish. You obviously skipped over the bit of turk 's post that I have highlighted. For instance re slavery. When Sir John Hawkins went on a speculative trade mission to west Africa with a cargo of goods such as (I assume) of manufactured goods such as axes and cloth and asked them what they had to trade they said "Well we have these slaves...". Thus began the famous triangular trade of England to West Africa to trade goods for slaves, then West Africa to the West Indies and mainland America to trade slaves for stuff like tobacco and cotton, and then back to England. It's just as valid to say that fortunes were built on cotton and tobacco as slaves. We were also the first major power to abolish slavery and attempted to police it for other nations as well as we could. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_SquadronWe should be celebrating our part in abolishing slavery in the Empire rather than wallowing in guilt. And of course slavery still exists and we are no longer in a position to enforce abolition even in our own country it seems. www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/slave-bride-brought-birmingham-hit-29160596 You seem to have missed out just a little bit in the middle of your rigorous analysis of the slave trade, that is the massive, never before seen in the world industrial scale that the British Empire, (among others) turned it into? You also neglect to mention the vast wealth made from it and how this has cascaded down to subsequent generations. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
|
Post by neilj on Nov 12, 2024 6:20:34 GMT
Chilling
Putin's presidential aide Nikolay Patrushev said -
"To achieve success in the election, Donald Trump relied on certain forces to which he has corresponding obligations."
From Tass, the Russian News Agency
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,366
|
Post by Danny on Nov 12, 2024 6:28:31 GMT
Do you not have any concerns about the vaccines then? No. They are one of the greatest medical advances of all human history. I have had every vaccine available (including flu and covid last week) and had my children vaccinated for everything as well. Yes, there is a tiny element of risk as there is to every medical treatment ever devised (including all the quack ones) but the diseases are far more dangerous. Vaccines vary in their benefits. Specifically, the mass vaccination of the entire population for covid was halted for the youngest age groups because it was seen the risk to those receiving the vaccinations was higher than the benefit they would get from having had it. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,366
|
Post by Danny on Nov 12, 2024 6:42:52 GMT
does it ruin your day when you visit a Stately Home and are reminded it was built from wealth gained in the slave trade? The phrase 'wage slave' was created because the restrictions placed upon someone by being forced to work for someone else to survive are not in the end so very different to formal slavery where one person owns another. Slavery is not all about people kept in chains and beaten to death, thats rather stupid in terms of maximising your economic return from an asset. Milder forms of control are more effective. Some stately homes might have been built on the proceeds of slavery, but all were built on the proceeds of exploiting a captive workforce. And they still are, whoever has a mortgage is feeding the wealth of the new generation of stately home owners.
All stately homes were also built on the proceeds of murdering other humans in the widely approved process of war. Slavery has often been a by-product of war, and to give a topical example the people living in Ukraine in areas captured by Russia who were not Russian supporters are living now in very bad cicumstances. We have in recent years taken part in invasions ourselves, and left locals to suffer when we left. We did this for national gain.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,366
|
Post by Danny on Nov 12, 2024 6:46:41 GMT
. However, incitement to mass murder has always been a criminal offence I believe, even before the enlightenment. Oh my goodness, of course not. The largest inciters to mass murder are usually governments firmly enshrined in due process and established support. Normally against those they perceive as their enemies, often for reasons of economic benefit to themselves or their own country at the expense of the other. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,366
|
Post by Danny on Nov 12, 2024 6:49:09 GMT
All parties indulge in fiction-saying that they have achieved things which they havent. Blaming failures on factors which were irrelevant . Twisting the facts to suit their purposes. All parties do this. The media should critically analyse all of it in their political reporting. They don't apply balance when they have a preferred political party. Which, to varying degrees, seems to be the norm. I provided a link to the political bias of media in USA It seems likely one reason political parties lie so much is that they can get away with it, without being called out as liars. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,366
|
Post by Danny on Nov 12, 2024 6:53:55 GMT
We can agree that Russia is the clear aggressor whereas Israel had more of an excuse but beyond that I don't think there is any comparison and certainly Russia is not going to be found guilty of genocide. Mind, Russia has a better case historically in that it used to own Ukraine and only surrendered it because of military weakness at that time. So it has a better prior claim of ownership of Ukraine than Israel does of the lands it is curently seizing. The arabs in general were the majority posessors of all the lands now comprising the state of Israel until the western powers, in particular Britain, stole them and created the state of Israel. Historically Israel only ever controlled a tiny land area. A pretty weak case. |
|
jib
Member
Posts: 3,004
Member is Online
|
Post by jib on Nov 12, 2024 7:39:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 12, 2024 7:53:03 GMT
moby - "No ones rights were at risk if they voted for Harris though. However Trump is claiming he plans to deport millions of people and will quite happily separate families in doing so." That's the point though. These people don't have rights to risk, if they are legally able to be deported. That's what the left doesn't appear to understand. By definition, they are there illegally, and that's why so many legal migrants in the US, who did things by the book, are seriously hacked off about uncontrolled immigration. It's why Trump won. No amount of bleating about the rights of people who have trampled on the rights of everyone else alters these fundamental facts, and the left's failure to grasp this, along with the tendency to claim everyone who disagrees with them is one step away from Hitler, is why they are getting kicked back at the polls. I struggle to understand why the mass movement of low cost labour in the form of high levels of immigration from poor to rich countries is a left wing obsession. It hurts low paid workers in the host country, harms the poorer economies in the donor countries, and provides excellent benefits for middle class and wealthy types who have access to a ready pool of low cost, compliant labour.
|
|
