Jump to content

Because The United Kingdom?


Mr King

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

Hell, the state of Minnesota elected a rather depraved comedian to the US Senate. No credentials, no experience, and a track record of sexual harassment/assault. Why did people vote for him? He provided all the right virtue signalling.

You could call it the Trump formula. 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

On the contrary, over the past 50 years I've recognised a basic truth. The politicians talk more and more, less and less gets done, and notably they get stupider and stupider. We now have a prime minister that came second place to a woman that came second place to a lettice. What does this tell you? 🤔

You articulate an idea where there are rules and laws for the voters but zero constraints on the politicians in terms of their limits or boundaries. How does that make sense? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

You articulate an idea where there are rules and laws for the voters but zero constraints on the politicians in terms of their limits or boundaries. How does that make sense? 

Pretty much the same way the responsibility for sobriety is on individuals, not distilleries. If you want to be drunk, fine. But accept the consequences, and don't blame coors for your misfortune.

Why should politics be any different? They give people what they want, it doesn't  have to be good for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Pretty much the same way the responsibility for sobriety is on individuals, not distilleries.
 

Huh? If you get drunk you can be charged. If you sell alcohol thats not of the type allowed you get charged. Alcohol producers pay taxes on and are covered by all manner of regulations. 
 

Where in any of that realm do you think there are no laws? 

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If you want to be drunk, fine. But accept the consequences, and don't blame coors for your misfortune.

Not a good counter example. You’re arguing that the people writing the laws and administering the government should have no boundaries. 

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Why should politics be any different? They give people what they want, it doesn't  have to be good for them.

Because government should have established scope, limits and boundaries so that the folks doing government can’t just so what they want with folks like you throwing you hands up and blaming the voters. 
 

You seemingly imagine a world where the distilleries can put what ever they want in the drinks, even if its methanol and its just up to the drinkers to deal with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rmgill said:

Huh? If you get drunk you can be charged. If you sell alcohol thats not of the type allowed you get charged. Alcohol producers pay taxes on and are covered by all manner of regulations. 
 

Where in any of that realm do you think there are no laws? 

Not a good counter example. You’re arguing that the people writing the laws and administering the government should have no boundaries. 

Because government should have established scope, limits and boundaries so that the folks doing government can’t just so what they want with folks like you throwing you hands up and blaming the voters. 
 

You seemingly imagine a world where the distilleries can put what ever they want in the drinks, even if its methanol and its just up to the drinkers to deal with. 

Right. And you cant get charged for voting unwisely, but you do suffer the consequences in other ways.

No, im arguing the real boundaries are not the goverment or the laws, but ourselves. If we vote unwisely, there will always be people trying to overturn the laws. Trump proved this. So for that matter did Boris Johnson.

No, its not Goverment that is the problem. It is the people that vote FOR a Goverment unwisely that is the problem. The Nazis would never have been a problem, unless people voted for them. Even the Bolshevicks actually got voted for in elections, before they took over.

Well during prohibition, they DID put anything they wanted in their drinks. And people still bought it, even though they were going blind or dying as a result. There is a message there if you care to learn it.

Its self discipline that maintains democracy, not a structure and not a constitution. They help, but they can always be overmoded. I think 'It cant happen here' successfully persuaded me of this perspective, and its been proven dozens of times in dozens of places in the 90 years since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's is not "self discipline that maintains democracy." It's the Judeo-Christian morality that laws are based on that will maintain a democracy or a representative republic. The most successful countries morally and economically have this morality as the basis of this success. We are seeing the results of people when they are forgetting and ignoring this morality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you are saying is you arent a Jew or a Christian you cant be moral? My father was an athiest, and in my view one of the more moral people ive met. Ok, he wasnt perfect but he was fair, considerably fairer than a lot of folks ive met who go to church.

People arent so simple as you believe Rick. Morality can be wholly divorced from Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

People arent so simple as you believe Rick.

But be believes. No point in starting an argument with him about that. I would argue, however, that Christian morality is deeply ingrained in Western culture, whether you're an atheist or not. I think you'd find peculiar differences between, say, atheists of Japan and atheists of Italy, or Mail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

But be believes. No point in starting an argument with him about that. I would argue, however, that Christian morality is deeply ingrained in Western culture, whether you're an atheist or not. I think you'd find peculiar differences between, say, atheists of Japan and atheists of Italy, or Mail.

Oriana Fallaci could be a good example

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the King can do as he desires? Or Mountbatten could  have had his coup and it would have been ok because there is no vote and there is no constitutional boundary save for tradition? 

 

 

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, im arguing the real boundaries are not the goverment or the laws, but ourselves. If we vote unwisely, there will always be people trying to overturn the laws. Trump proved this. So for that matter did Boris Johnson.

No, its not Goverment that is the problem. It is the people that vote FOR a Goverment unwisely that is the problem. The Nazis would never have been a problem, unless people voted for them. Even the Bolshevicks actually got voted for in elections, before they took over.

Nonone ever came to power by force of arms alone…

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well during prohibition, they DID put anything they wanted in their drinks. And people still bought it, even though they were going blind or dying as a result. There is a message there if you care to learn it.

That wasn’t the businesses that had been before. It was people making distilled spirits illegally and for the black market. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So what you are saying is you arent a Jew or a Christian you cant be moral?

I am an atheist and am Highly moral. With much of the fabric laying upon the Judaeo-Christian tradition with a bit deriving from other sources. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rick said:

The world has histories of civilizations founded on the Bible and those founded on aitheism. 

And those civilizations based the Bible were mostly violent, dystopic, despotisms. with civil crime rates that make American inner cities look like Switzerland.  Countries founded or converted to non-Biblical, secular values that respect freedom of religion including freedom not to believe among other rights are the ones currently prospering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, R011 said:

And those civilizations based the Bible were mostly violent, dystopic, despotisms. with civil crime rates that make American inner cities look like Switzerland.  Countries founded or converted to non-Biblical, secular values that respect freedom of religion including freedom not to believe among other rights are the ones currently prospering.

Ha!


Mexico being the most egregious counter example.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, R011 said:

And those civilizations based the Bible were mostly violent, dystopic, despotisms. with civil crime rates that make American inner cities look like Switzerland.  Countries founded or converted to non-Biblical, secular values that respect freedom of religion including freedom not to believe among other rights are the ones currently prospering.

How?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2023 at 3:38 PM, R011 said:

And those civilizations based the Bible were mostly violent, dystopic, despotisms. with civil crime rates that make American inner cities look like Switzerland.  Countries founded or converted to non-Biblical, secular values that respect freedom of religion including freedom not to believe among other rights are the ones currently prospering.

Yet it was also those civilizations that made the move to legal systems that made life much safer and in the case of GB, the first Empire to outlaw slavery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... You can make a case it was Christian based groups in Britain that campaigned to end slavery. There is a certain amount of truth in that. OTOH, it was Christians that also enthusiastically slaved, as we saw with the American founding fathers (whom were themselves British at the time). Im not sure it really proves anything about Christians either way, other than there seemed to be multiple different ways to interpret the same scripture, or so it would seem.

The Empire was primarily a system of trade. So it was on the face of it fairly agnostic when it came to doing moral things (or we clearly wouldnt have taken over india). OTOH, it is clear it did, to encourage that trade, enhance a code of laws we had developed, which we enthusiastically exported. I cant say it was enthusiastically adopted by the inhabitants of the Empire, but you know, when you read about things like the Thugee cult, which was commendably stamped out, and the fondness of Indians throwing widows on their husbands funeral pyre, then one has to say we were extending law and order into things which were no primarily of fiscal interest, but were primarily of moral interest. And in areas like that I think there was a moral imperative in the Empire, even if it was often eclipsed by the desire to make money. Yes, the old narrative about the 'White Mans Burden' now sounds desperately smug. But it wasnt entirely a fiction I think.

Empires are complicated things, as multifarious as the numerous people whom built them. You can classify them as good or bad, it really doesnt matter. But even the bad ones sometimes did good things, even by the law of unintended consequences. There is a good case for saying Napoleon spread the adoption of Democracy in Europe, even if he didnt actually believe in it, by the wholesale destruction of so many Monarchies in Europe. You kick over one social order, something better often takes its place.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well... You can make a case it was Christian based groups in Britain that campaigned to end slavery. There is a certain amount of truth in that.

I'd say there's a great deal of truth to that. Not just a certain amount. 

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

OTOH, it was Christians that also enthusiastically slaved, as we saw with the American founding fathers (whom were themselves British at the time). Im not sure it really proves anything about Christians either way, other than there seemed to be multiple different ways to interpret the same scripture, or so it would seem.

Slavery was a long time institution that was older than Christianity itself. The Americas did it because it was an aspect of forging new spaces in a frontier. The British Isles had a history of slavery in its early period. Who do you think worked Latifundium. What do you think all those Gallic and Celtic captives were set to in the Roman Empire? And it wasn't just the Romans who took slaves as captive in raids. 

Contrastingly, the slave trade is STILL going on in the Islamic world. Slaves were present at the crowning of Queen Elizabeth. One of the Arab world's rulers brought a few with him. I think it was Ibn Saud but I could be mistaken.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bible isn't a tract on theory.  It's not a text book of science.  It's not a book on economics.  The examples of Biblical government and economy describe absolute monarchies and slavery as normal.  Those elements of the Ten Commandments that are not specifically religious are pretty much common to every civilization.  Even Christ says as much when He said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.

Capitalism and modern democracy may have developed in Christian countries, but aren't applicable just to Christians and aren't Biblical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, rmgill said:

Contrastingly, the slave trade is STILL going on in the Islamic world.

Meh, look at European brothels and tell me that for the non-west European women in them it's not slavery. Sure --- human trafficking is illegal, and the police is doing something about it, better than nothing, not the same, no moral equivalency is implied. But this f'in' disgrace has been a reality for at least forty years if not longer, so I'm no longer convinced that our societies are doing everything possible to eradicate this form of slavery, rather than cultivate it as long as it happens largely out of sight. The illegal immigrants working in Italy's tomato fields and Spanish bell pepper greenhouses - might not be slavery, but isn't very far from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...