guest1957 Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 I most certainly won't be wasting my time reading that. Ah yes, so familiarising yourself with the writings of one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century would be a waste of your time? I think I'm beginning to understand you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achosenman Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 Unfortunately the pace of change has left a majority struggling to keep up and there are lessons here about leaving large elements of society marginalised. Recent decisions will not change the course or direction of globalisation we just have to find ways to get the majority up to speed. That's perfect, except the reality on the ground will stop you. When you import someone to do a job at less than a living wage for those that are indigenous, you will get a backlash. The option of living 10 people to a house while sending money back home, is not an option for the indigenous citizen. Global corporations don't care, they want something for nothing. The profit margin and bonus it triggers are the driving factor and they are enabled by the so called progressive globalists in power. People have simply had enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 Ah yes, so familiarising yourself with the writings of one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century would be a waste of your time? I think I'm beginning to understand you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) That's perfect, except the reality on the ground will stop you. When you import someone to do a job at less than a living wage for those that are indigenous, you will get a backlash. The option of living 10 people to a house while sending money back home, is not an option for the indigenous citizen. Global corporations don't care, they want something for nothing. The profit margin and bonus it triggers are the driving factor and they are enabled by the so called progressive globalists in power. People have simply had enough. What are you talking about ? The Iranian ex pats in the US are amongst the most highly educated and prolific groups of people there, they are known to earn more than the national average (owing to their intellectual capability and work ethics) and are also heads of several listed companies worldwide. You're confusing fake news with reality. Edited January 31, 2017 by Hamster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 I think many of you are missing the important validation of the protests against Trump.......................................................Gary Lineker was there. What makes "celebrities" think their endorsement of anything outside their skill area, is relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Surely its the rule of law and democracy The same rules that the Remain camp and Hilary Clinton seem to have a problem with. Ah yes, so familiarising yourself with the writings of one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century would be a waste of your time? I think I'm beginning to understand you... It always strikes me as odd that some people read a book and suddenly become an expert, even if that book is seriously flawed. Sarcasm seems to be the only thing that they have learned. Myself, I need not read a book to have become an expert on that very subject. Cranfield - just read your post - you omitted to mention Lily Allen - the World's leading expert on all things which pop into her empty head. Edited January 31, 2017 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achosenman Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 Ah yes, so familiarising yourself with the writings of one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century would be a waste of your time? I think I'm beginning to understand you... No you don't. What is becoming clear is your sense of smug superiority, evident usually in those with a liberal left mind-set. Popper was around in 1902. Times were different, not so many ISIS infiltrators masquerading as refugees back then. Also, not so much unfettered globalisation that outsourced jobs to countries that have child labour and rampant social inequality. I choose not to read the musing of a socialist professor because to be frank, it would bore the pants off me. Life is too short. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 I guess the person appointed got the job because she had experience and knowledge. She used her experience and knowledge of the law to make a decision and got sacked. Sounds like a dictatorship approach to me. Don't feel sorry, many people struggle with the speed of change and globalisation. Fortunately its done the UK well so far. So it made no difference that she was a democrat I suppose? Was her job to decide whether or not to implement the exec order? Will her replacement have a similar 'knowledge of the law' ? And you seem to think that people like me dont understand the world we now live in ? Unfortunately the pace of change has left a majority struggling to keep up and there are lessons here about leaving large elements of society marginalised. Recent decisions will not change the course or direction of globalisation we just have to find ways to get the majority up to speed. So until we 'understand ' better ,you will in fact marginalise us ,because we are too uneducated to be able to vote the 'right' way . Well ,I am sorry that things are not going the way you would like them to,I call THAT change. No you don't. What is becoming clear is your sense of smug superiority, evident usually in those with a liberal left mind-set. Popper was around in 1902. Times were different, not so many ISIS infiltrators masquerading as refugees back then. Also, not so much unfettered globalisation that outsourced jobs to countries that have child labour and rampant social inequality. I choose not to read the musing of a socialist professor because to be frank, it would bore the pants off me. Life is too short. Excellent reply Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achosenman Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 What are you talking about ? The Iranian ex pats in the US are amongst the most highly educated and prolific groups of people there, they are known to earn more than the national average (owing to their intellectual capability and work ethics) and are also heads of several listed companies worldwide. You're confusing fake news with reality. So earning more than the national average means that they have no radical sympathies? I don't know them personally, but a good vetting shouldn't be a problem. IIRC the Glasgow attack at the airport was carried out by a doctor. How does that square with the Hippocratic oath? It's easy with Islam, religion trumps all. That's family, country and everything in between. The ban is in fact a temporary halt to enable processes to be put in place. Why in the present terrorist climate, is that wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 No you don't. What is becoming clear is your sense of smug superiority, evident usually in those with a liberal left mind-set. Popper was around in 1902. Times were different, not so many ISIS infiltrators masquerading as refugees back then. Also, not so much unfettered globalisation that outsourced jobs to countries that have child labour and rampant social inequality. I choose not to read the musing of a socialist professor because to be frank, it would bore the pants off me. Life is too short. It is interesting you categorise me as "left". I certainly don't consider myself to be economically left. What I am is an anti-authoritarian who believes in the rule of law and the core values of liberty. I also don't understand why you see 'liberal' as a dirty word. All I can think is you are using the same misapplication of the word as the majority of the right wing press. Like the stupid term 'snowflake' it has become a stick to beat people who disagree with the dross that Farage, Trump etc are spewing because those using the term lack the eloquence to win the intellectual argument. And believe me, if you met me you wouldn't think I was smug; just lacking in tolerence for those who suddenly think they have a free pass to air their abhorrent views as a result of the events of the last twelve months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 So earning more than the national average means that they have no radical sympathies? I don't know them personally, but a good vetting shouldn't be a problem. IIRC the Glasgow attack at the airport was carried out by a doctor. How does that square with the Hippocratic oath? It's easy with Islam, religion trumps all. That's family, country and everything in between. The ban is in fact a temporary halt to enable processes to be put in place. Why in the present terrorist climate, is that wrong? Well the fact that they have lived and prospered there for decades without any radicalism or terrorism is a damn good indicator, it's a shame that you are so quick to believe what you want to believe about certain groups regardless of FACTS. I was responding mainly to your below living wage characterisation of immigrants, funny they never seem interested in bigging up those who create wealth and lets face it most immigrants do, hence why the most successful nations tend to have a large non immigrant population . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yod dropper Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 I think we are in fact seeing the polar opposite. Brexit, Trump etc is the last stand of those who have become outdated and irrelevant and can't bear the sight of progress. The boorishness, use of stupid put downs like "snowflake" etc. are the tactics of people who no longer have anything to add so have had to resort to creating anger and division to feel relevant. History will judge those who let these people get away with it. They are no different to those who start smashing a few chairs after being told to leave the pub by the landlord. What do you mean by outdated and irrelevant? What do you consider progress to be? Serious questions, I asked what Hamster meant and to his credit I could see his point. I'd hope your words aren't just some sort of put down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yod dropper Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 Read Karl Popper on the Paradox of Tolerence. There is absolutely no need for us to tolerate the intolerance of Trump and his gang of cronies. Would you consider yourself to be tolerant? - to accept that other people have a valid point of view? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 Would you consider yourself to be tolerant? - to accept that other people have a valid point of view? If you are tolerant of those who are intolerant, you create a paradox as the intolerant would abuse the tolerence they are being shown. To prevent this, it is necessary to be intolerant of the intolerant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achosenman Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Well the fact that they have lived and prospered there for decades without any radicalism or terrorism is a damn good indicator, it's a shame that you are so quick to believe what you want to believe about certain groups regardless of FACTS. I was responding mainly to your below living wage characterisation of immigrants, funny they never seem interested in bigging up those who create wealth and lets face it most immigrants do, hence why the most successful nations tend to have a large non immigrant population . I'm afraid the first sentence illustrates your ignorance of how terrorist networks operate. Just because they are personally not running around sawing innocent heads off, doesn't mean they are not involved in the great jihad. Looking close never hurt anyone. The UK has taken close interest in certain individuals from a relevant background while fighting terrorists. I don't remember any outcry over that. The comment re living wage was relevant because despite the chattering classes claim, it was a big factor for the votes both sides of the pond. The trouble with creating wealth is when it goes to a few, not the many. The term "private profit, social loss" didn't just appear because the wealth creators were behaving properly. Sending jobs overseas while selling the products back into that society was always going to end in tears. Edited January 31, 2017 by achosenman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonepark Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 If you are tolerant of those who are intolerant, you create a paradox as the intolerant would abuse the tolerence they are being shown. To prevent this, it is necessary to be intolerant of the intolerant. But you miss out the important part, people should be allowed to be intolerant as much as they wish, as long as those views do not impinge on other citizens freedoms. Similarly, tolerance should not impinge on an intolerant citizens freedoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achosenman Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) It is interesting you categorise me as "left". I certainly don't consider myself to be economically left. What I am is an anti-authoritarian who believes in the rule of law and the core values of liberty. I also don't understand why you see 'liberal' as a dirty word. All I can think is you are using the same misapplication of the word as the majority of the right wing press. Like the stupid term 'snowflake' it has become a stick to beat people who disagree with the dross that Farage, Trump etc are spewing because those using the term lack the eloquence to win the intellectual argument. And believe me, if you met me you wouldn't think I was smug; just lacking in tolerence for those who suddenly think they have a free pass to air their abhorrent views as a result of the events of the last twelve months. So you champion the tactic that has failed the left so many times before...the gag. The rest of the post is full of assumptions consistent with someone who is so convinced by their superiority that the idea people may hold a different view, is unthinkable. FYI Liberal is how I describe those like Tim Farron. You know the type that profess to be tolerant of all...just so long as you do, say and think what he tells you to. Snowflake IMO aptly describes those who scream the loudest and hurl the most vitriolic insults in debate (if they allow debate) yet exhibit fragile tender snowflake melting qualities when challenged. Every time we have this debate it becomes obvious that those who lost on both sides of the pond, are incapable of understanding why they lost. Their arrogance and superiority are their Achilles Heal that defeats them every time, and they just can't see it. Edited January 31, 2017 by achosenman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 What do you mean by outdated and irrelevant? What do you consider progress to be? Serious questions, I asked what Hamster meant and to his credit I could see his point. I'd hope your words aren't just some sort of put down. Progress to my mind is the move towards a society where you aren't defined my where you are born or what you look like. A society where politicians are no longer able to gain political capital by targeting groups of people because they look different or speak a different language. A society where a woman isn't considered to be inferior and told by men that she can't make her own choices. Outdated and irrelevant is a description of those who believe they are somehow special because they were born white, British\American and often male. Such people also tend to think their views are unquestionably right without providing any intellectual or moral justification for them. They also generally think they have an authoritarian right to force their own world order on others. But you miss out the important part, people should be allowed to be intolerant as much as they wish, as long as those views do not impinge on other citizens freedoms. Similarly, tolerance should not impinge on an intolerant citizens freedoms. The intolerance we are seeing is impinging on other citizens' freedom and that is why we need to shut it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 Farage and Trump are what happen when the establishment has for too long and to a lesser or greater extent, ignored the unrepresented masses. We get what we deserve. Now we have to live with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyotemaster Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 I guess the person appointed got the job because she had experience and knowledge. She used her experience and knowledge of the law to make a decision and got sacked. Sounds like a dictatorship approach to me. Don't feel sorry, many people struggle with the speed of change and globalisation. Fortunately its done the UK well so far. What are you smoking? Are you forgetting her meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac while she was supposedly investigating his wife? Lynch was one of two Obama AGs that were investigated by Congress, not a common practice for the nations top cop. She should have been indicted and impeached-- actually taking the 5th several times in her testimony to avoid answering questions that may incriminate her in criminal conduct. Her replacement Senator Jeff Sessions is a man of integrity, something that was sadly lacking in ALL of Obama's selections(many of whom he brought with him from Chicago.) I won't even comment on your remark about how well globalisation has done for the UK but it's doing well for Sweden--now the rape capitol of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 I'm afraid the first sentence illustrates your ignorance of how terrorist networks operate. Just because they are personally are not running around sawing innocent heads off, doesn't mean they are not involved in the great jihad. Looking close never hurt anyone. The UK has taken close interest in certain individuals from a relevant background while fighting terrorists. I don't remember any outcry over that. The comment re living wage was relevant because despite the chattering classes claim, it was a big factor for the votes both sides of the pond. The trouble with creating wealth is when it goes to a few, not the many. The term "private profit, social loss" didn't just appear because the wealth creators were behaving properly. Sending jobs overseas while selling the products back into that society was always going to end in tears. Its simply untrue that terrorists come from a relevant background. Whilst its true to say that these or any individuals could be involved to look closely at a particular group because of origin is not productive. See this. I agree on ensuring that wealth is distributed more evenly. The Romans threw out bread. The EU also tries a similar tactic of spreading wealth but we voted against that also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 If you are tolerant of those who are intolerant, you create a paradox as the intolerant would abuse the tolerence they are being shown. To prevent this, it is necessary to be intolerant of the intolerant. Soo ,to fight the right wing 'nazis' you have to become left wing 'nazis' is this the progress you are talking about ? Progress to my mind is the move towards a society where you aren't defined my where you are born or what you look like. A society where politicians are no longer able to gain political capital by targeting groups of people because they look different or speak a different language. A society where a woman isn't considered to be inferior and told by men that she can't make her own choices. Outdated and irrelevant is a description of those who believe they are somehow special because they were born white, British\American and often male. Such people also tend to think their views are unquestionably right without providing any intellectual or moral justification for them. They also generally think they have an authoritarian right to force their own world order on others. The intolerance we are seeing is impinging on other citizens' freedom and that is why we need to shut it down. You dont seriously believe your heroic left wing politicos want to help the down trodden and poor people of third world nations do you Authoritarianism is what I and people like me are fighting against,you need to seriously think about that one ! And the piece de resistance..you talk about citizens freedom and the need to shut that freedom down,in the same sentence ! Utterly , gob smackingly hypocritical! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyotemaster Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 Its simply untrue that terrorists come from a relevant background. Whilst its true to say that these or any individuals could be involved to look closely at a particular group because of origin is not productive. See this. I agree on ensuring that wealth is distributed more evenly. The Romans threw out bread. The EU also tries a similar tactic of spreading wealth but we voted against that also. I am betting that you have not accumulated much wealth in your life, those of us who have anything to speak of are not generally inclined to "redistribute" what we have labored for. There are many here that favor your approach, I see them everyday at the gym, not really caring about finding a job just hoping the nanny state will provide for them. A few actually still live with their parents--- at age 25-30--- Is this you? Wealth redistribution is a socialist agenda not far removed from communism-- that hasn't worked yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achosenman Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 Its simply untrue that terrorists come from a relevant background. Whilst its true to say that these or any individuals could be involved to look closely at a particular group because of origin is not productive. See this. I agree on ensuring that wealth is distributed more evenly. The Romans threw out bread. The EU also tries a similar tactic of spreading wealth but we voted against that also. I do have some first hand experience in this area. I think you are confusing what I mean by "relevant background" The newspaper article does a good job, as it was intended to...to confuse. Not like the Washington Post to have an agenda Profiling works in the vast majority of cases. Ask the Israelis'. There will always by the atypical one that slips through the net, but better to stop 90% than sit by and do nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 I am betting that you have not accumulated much wealth in your life, those of us who have anything to speak of are not generally inclined to "redistribute" what we have labored for. There are many here that favor your approach, I see them everyday at the gym, not really caring about finding a job just hoping the nanny state will provide for them. A few actually still live with their parents--- at age 25-30--- Is this you? Wealth redistribution is a socialist agenda not far removed from communism-- that hasn't worked yet. And never will ,every country thats tried it has abandoned it to the mists of time..except North Korea..and look how well its working for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.