|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 4, 2023 15:50:04 GMT
And tomorrow they'll take credit for it being on time in budget....
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 4, 2023 14:13:01 GMT
3. First shot on rarget was Burger late on and again talking excuses and a great loss. The injured players weren't winning games anyway but of course would have changed it all. . We won 3 out of our first 4 with Vidigal and Mamaee in the team and the constant run of injuries means we haven't been able to field a settled side which, given the turnover in the summer, is what we needed. If anything it's the disruption that has knackered us.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 4, 2023 13:28:04 GMT
They could have spent the money improving existing lines, reopening closed lines and upgrading rolling stock. They din't need to build HS2 to do any more of that it was just bunged in as an add on justification to blowing the money on HS2. They could have also built the new northern powerhouse line (only bits of it were shared with HS2) - the north/south lines aren't actually that bad, it's east/west that is the problem. The west coast main line is to capacity, trains are often overpacked, capacity means less local services on that route. How do you improve existing lines through built up areas like Stoke (and all the other cities and towns) and major interchanges like Crewe and Stockport with causing mayhem for years in the surrounding areas, demolishing existing buildings and infrastructure. I agree some closed local lines could be reopened, and the cross Pennines route is very bad etc but that doesn't get freight off the major roads like the M6 which HS2 would have. Freight doesn't need a high speed rail line. I'm no expert but it would seem to me doubling up track on existing lines would have been a damn sight cheaper than buying up and developing new land in some of the most expensive areas of the country. It was a vanity project - the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 4, 2023 13:12:14 GMT
I'll go with illegal, not sure about "sharp" - laid bare his business practices look anything but. Mind you, you do wonder about the competence of the people doing business with him. Sharp is a pejorative word for dishonest and I added illegal Your second point is interesting and I believe its one tranche of his defence In other words he admits that he inflated his financial Statements, the Judge already ruled pre-trial that he did, his defence is that the Banks should have known. Strangely I agree with him, proving it is another issue There had to be an element of collusion and turning a blind eye, but no Bank is going to admit it. The only matter to be decided are the penalties he will suffer Yes I understand the pejorative sense but it's use is derived from the idea that those using these practices are mentally sharp/clever. What Trump did was too blatant to merit being called "sharp" in that sense. I understand Trump is claiming that because he inserted a "buyer beware" clause in his contracts any claims of wrong doing are null and void. The judge has already ruled this to be invalid - presumably because lying through your teeth isn't considered valid business practice.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 4, 2023 12:55:36 GMT
Sunak reckons 36billion quid will now ho on transport projects in the North and the Midlands. Buses on Sunday in Wolstanton would be a good start. The north, the midlands and “across the country “. ...depending on where a Tory has a chance of winning a seat ...
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 4, 2023 11:46:23 GMT
Isn't this a civil rather than a criminal case - in which case he can't go to jail? Not that the outcome isn't bad - he's looking at a massive fine, selling off his businesses and being unable to operate in New York. The notable thing for me is his increasingly bizarre attacks on those prosecuting him - it's getting to him. He's also making no attempt to provide evidence to support his case which now pretty much amounts to I'm Donald Trump so anything I do or say I'd fine. Hopefully it becomes an Emperor's New clothes moment for some of his supporters. He knows he has no defence so he's just making a bunch of contradictory statements which if he confuses the issue enough his Maga Clowns 🤡 will just cry foul. A good example was when he demanded to know "where was the Jury" knowing full well there was none as he didn't request one as was his right. It will be a good soundbite later that he was convicted by a crooked Judge and not by The People He doesn't even need to attend if he doesn't want to. The biggest blow is to his Ego laid bare that he was nowhere near as successful as he claimed to be. Being found guilty of cheating, lying and sharp illegal Business Practices he would see as a positive I'll go with illegal, not sure about "sharp" - laid bare his business practices look anything but. Mind you, you do wonder about the competence of the people doing business with him.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 4, 2023 11:38:52 GMT
The money needed to do all those things has been blown on something that wasn't essential. They could have done all that by investing directly in those schemes. That money has now gone and even if the line is completed there won't be any left to do those other things. How could they have done it ? They could have spent the money improving existing lines, reopening closed lines and upgrading rolling stock. They din't need to build HS2 to do any more of that it was just bunged in as an add on justification to blowing the money on HS2. They could have also built the new northern powerhouse line (only bits of it were shared with HS2) - the north/south lines aren't actually that bad, it's east/west that is the problem.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 4, 2023 9:56:44 GMT
7
Hamstrung by the ever increasing injury list but gave a decent Southampton side a run for their money.
The effort is there and although the understanding isn't (understandably giving the constant chopping and changing due to injuries) we look a team that's working hard for each other. Clear up the injuries, get a settled side and I think we'll do ok.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 4, 2023 9:51:55 GMT
Fair cop... Good analogy tho 👍 Maybe - but I clearly hadn't thought it through and I'm now regretting it...
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 4, 2023 9:47:03 GMT
Could that be for contempt of court? I see the judge cleared the court of everyone bar Trump - final warning? I wish you hadn't brought up the thought of a naked Trump - that's going to be hard to shake off. I believe so yes. You started it! 😉 Fair cop...
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 4, 2023 9:42:52 GMT
It’s stuff like this that really angers me about the government, you could see from miles away this project was doomed and how much tax payers money has been spent on it so far? And for what? Get from London to Birmingham a bit quicker. Disgraceful mismanagement of the public’s hard earned money. It's not just getting from London to Birmingham quicker, it was about regenerating areas close by, relieving capacity on the existing lines, getting more freight off the the roads. Having seeing how it has worked in Italy recently, a dedicated high speed line and then the amount of new regional services and rolling stock on the existing lines, we should be able to do it here. The new local trains are very smart, plenty of dedicated cycle areas, buggy areas, higher level seats as well as lower level seats giving great views. www.fsitaliane.it/content/fsitaliane/en/innovation/transport-technology/the-new-regional-fleet.htmlThe new regional Rock and Pop trains are 95% recyclable with a 30% reduction in energy consumption. Compare those to some of the carts we still travel around in The money needed to do all those things has been blown on something that wasn't essential. They could have done all that by investing directly in those schemes. That money has now gone and even if the line is completed there won't be any left to do those other things.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 4, 2023 8:01:49 GMT
This was a white elephant from day one - should never have been commissioned and the money spent on improving the existing system. I'm not convinced salvaging our reputation/saving face is a good enough reason to keep on burning money.
If anything good comes out of this it should be proper devolution (including tax raising powers) to the North and the Midlands. The levelling up agenda was never going to go anywhere while the decisions were being made in London. That and it was always just a patronising con trick to win red wall seats anyway.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 4, 2023 7:49:35 GMT
Isn't this a civil rather than a criminal case - in which case he can't go to jail? Not that the outcome isn't bad - he's looking at a massive fine, selling off his businesses and being unable to operate in New York. The notable thing for me is his increasingly bizarre attacks on those prosecuting him - it's getting to him. He's also making no attempt to provide evidence to support his case which now pretty much amounts to I'm Donald Trump so anything I do or say I'd fine. Hopefully it becomes an Emperor's New clothes moment for some of his supporters. I just saw in the report that the judge could chuck him in a cell and since a future jail term is not out of the question the 'Wembley' song popped into my head 😃 You're hopefully right but for some the Emperor will always be naked 😕 Could that be for contempt of court? I see the judge cleared the court of everyone bar Trump - final warning? I wish you hadn't brought up the thought of a naked Trump - that's going to be hard to shake off.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 4, 2023 6:59:03 GMT
😃 Isn't this a civil case 🎵 Put the champagne on ice He's going to jail twice 🎵 Isn't this a civil rather than a criminal case - in which case he can't go to jail? Not that the outcome isn't bad - he's looking at a massive fine, selling off his businesses and being unable to operate in New York. The notable thing for me is his increasingly bizarre attacks on those prosecuting him - it's getting to him. He's also making no attempt to provide evidence to support his case which now pretty much amounts to I'm Donald Trump so anything I do or say I'd fine. Hopefully it becomes an Emperor's New clothes moment for some of his supporters.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 3, 2023 12:41:44 GMT
Kennedy is a conspiracy theorist but he's also a Democrat - he won't pull in many Republican votes. Quite a few commentators saying he will. It's an interesting one. He may pick up some Republican conspiracy theorists but as a Democrat he is going to leave a lot of Republicans cold. He's going to attract a very particular strange mixture of votes. I just don't get how the Democrats can't find someone to replace Biden - I can't see where they are coming from sticking with Biden.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 3, 2023 10:22:57 GMT
I've no time for loud mouth Trump but he's miles ahead in the polls for the Republican nomination. The 2024 election will be very hard to call with an obviously senile Biden and Kennedy looking like he'll run as an independent candidate. In which case Biden will win as Kennedy will spilt the Republican vote. Kennedy is a conspiracy theorist but he's also a Democrat - he won't pull in many Republican votes.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 2, 2023 22:58:58 GMT
What do you think genocide means? A Genocide is what Stalin committed, in such events as the Holodomor genocide, and the crimenan genocide. There is a good book about it here. press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691152387/stalins-genocidesBased on past experiences with you though mate you don't listen so with that being said I won't be replying to any more of your boring, predictable merry go round of trolling posts. Nanite x That book claims that Stalin committed genocide on the basis that there was an element of ethnic cleansing in some of the atrocities he committed. Not all historians agree that what he did amounted to genocide in the internationally agreed definition of genocide - there has to be a conscious attempt at eradicating an ethnic/racial/religious group to qualify as genocide. No-one is arguing that Stalin didn't commit atrocities and the severity of those atrocities are unaffected by whether they are classified as genocide or not. To qualify as genocide the atrocities have to be rooted in some form of tribalism - otherwise it isn't genocide. Ignore me all you like - fact is you don't understand what genocide is - you are just using the term to mean any form of mass murder.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 2, 2023 22:25:18 GMT
You are not right - you don't even know what genocide means. What is currently happening in Nagorna-Karabac is very sad but it isn't genocide. The Azerbaijani's are not slaughtering the ethnic Armenians with a view to eradicating the population. They are reclaiming control of a region that is recognised internationally as belonging to Azerbaijan. The Armenian people are being allowed to return to Armenia or allowed to remain in Nagorna-Karabac if they so wish. It's even questionable as to whether the Armenians in Nagorna-Karabac would even qualify as refugees because they have a safe haven in Armenia and are being promised a safe life under Azerbaijani rule. And Nagorna-Karabac is already recognised as being part of Azerbaijan - they aren't taking ownership of territory that doesn't belong to them. What the Ottaman empire did to the Armenians in the last century was genocide but has nothing to do with what is happening now. You are wrong mate , it definitely is a genocide. We agree on the last sentence though. What do you think genocide means?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 2, 2023 22:12:32 GMT
Its not a matter of agreeing with me - it's down to the fact that, even though you raised a thread about genocide, you don't actually know the meaning of the word genocide. Look it up. The fact is I'm right and you are wrong. Back on point though, RIP to those Armenians currently suffering yet another genocide, I'm sure that's something we can agree on. You are not right - you don't even know what genocide means. What is currently happening in Nagorna-Karabac is very sad but it isn't genocide. The Azerbaijani's are not slaughtering the ethnic Armenians with a view to eradicating the population. They are reclaiming control of a region that is recognised internationally as belonging to Azerbaijan. The Armenian people are being allowed to return to Armenia or allowed to remain in Nagorna-Karabac if they so wish. It's even questionable as to whether the Armenians in Nagorna-Karabac would even qualify as refugees because they have a safe haven in Armenia and are being promised a safe life under Azerbaijani rule. And Nagorna-Karabac is already recognised as being part of Azerbaijan - they aren't taking ownership of territory that doesn't belong to them. What the Ottaman empire did to the Armenians in the last century was genocide but has nothing to do with what is happening now.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 2, 2023 21:28:04 GMT
No one has ever claimed Lenin committed genocide. He killed off his political opponents but that isn't genocide. The majority of historians do not claim Stalin committed genocide. They agree he committed atrocities but they were atrocities against people of his own tribe so by definition can't be classed as genocide. Some historians have claimed Stalin committed genocide but they all argue that he committed genocide because there was a tribal element to what he did. Everyone agrees that to qualify as genocide there has to be a tribal element. What is it about that you don't understand? You are right - tribalism doesn't necessarily lead to genocide and it's lovely that you aren't minded to commit genocide. However not all tribalist are as sweet as you are - they take their tribalism far more seriously. They believe tribalism is natural and genocide is just a normal manifestation of a natural biological phenomena. To them the fact that you aren't up for genocide is irrelevant - you are just aren't following through on your political convictions. Tribalism has to be there for genocide to exist. I don't agree mate. Its not a matter of agreeing with me - it's down to the fact that, even though you raised a thread about genocide, you don't actually know the meaning of the word genocide. Look it up.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 2, 2023 16:58:19 GMT
His defence in the current court case for overstating his assets is hilarious. My favourite is his claim that his penthouse flat was three times larger than it actually is isn't an issue because the matter is purely subjective. Presumably tape measures are a devious tool of the deep state. "The tape measures were tampered with" He's made more ludicrous claims and managed to convince some to be fair. Well yes some of his supporters believe anything he says. Problem for him is that there are a lot of people who have't bought into his fantasy world that don't. And to them his defence looks increasingly ridiculous -:it literally amounts to having to believe anything he says is true simply because he said it. He's taking narcissism into previously unknown territory.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 2, 2023 16:40:23 GMT
We going round and round because you don't actually understand the definition of genocide. Genocide isn't synonymous with mass murder. Genocide is a particular type of mass murder. It is "An internationally recognised crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." In order to qualify as genocide there has to be an element of tribalism - otherwise it doesn't qualify as genocide. It is in human nature to group into tribes. Unchecked it can and has led to genocide. If tribalism wasn't a thing genocide simply wouldn't happen. Political systems that embrace tribalism have a track record of inviting genocide - that is an historical fact. I repeat the question - what is it about your version of tribalism that would stop genocide happening? You are wrong mate, tribalism doesn't have to lead to genocide. Stalin and Lenin were genocidal maniacs but they weren't exactly tribal. My version of tribalism like many other versions of tribalism wouldn't lead to genocide because I don't support genocide. It's really not difficult mate. No one has ever claimed Lenin committed genocide. He killed off his political opponents but that isn't genocide. The majority of historians do not claim Stalin committed genocide. They agree he committed atrocities but they were atrocities against people of his own tribe so by definition can't be classed as genocide. Some historians have claimed Stalin committed genocide but they all argue that he committed genocide because there was a tribal element to what he did. Everyone agrees that to qualify as genocide there has to be a tribal element. What is it about that you don't understand? You are right - tribalism doesn't necessarily lead to genocide and it's lovely that you aren't minded to commit genocide. However not all tribalist are as sweet as you are - they take their tribalism far more seriously. They believe tribalism is natural and genocide is just a normal manifestation of a natural biological phenomena. To them the fact that you aren't up for genocide is irrelevant - you are just aren't following through on your political convictions. Tribalism has to be there for genocide to exist.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 2, 2023 16:08:45 GMT
He's going to jail, end of. His defence in the current court case for overstating his assets is hilarious. My favourite is his claim that his penthouse flat was three times larger than it actually is isn't an issue because the matter is purely subjective. Presumably tape measures are a devious tool of the deep state.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 2, 2023 16:01:10 GMT
I said that humans are tribal. And that tribalism by it's very nature is the root cause of genocide. The ethical thing to do is to choose a political position that recognises the potential for genocide in human nature and do things to stop it happening not just say it's natural and ignore the potential consequences. The far right have a track record for justifying genocide on the basis of it being "natural" - that is an established fact. What you haven't explained is how your version of right wing politics addresses this issue. You keep denying it's an issue when it clearly is and refuse to answer the question. I am also not using Godwin's law to silence you. I keep asking you to explain your position which you keep refusing to do. You are cancelling yourself - either because you know the consequences of your position and you don't want to admit it or you haven't actually thought through where your politics leads. I'm coming round to the latter - all you keep doing is repeat the same statement over and over again without even to trying to explain what you mean. Tribalism isn't the only thing that can lead to genocide mate, stalin and Lenin weren't tribal but they were genocidal maniacs. I don't argue with nature or biology but I don't agree with genocide. ....and round and round we go. 😦 We going round and round because you don't actually understand the definition of genocide. Genocide isn't synonymous with mass murder. Genocide is a particular type of mass murder. It is "An internationally recognised crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." In order to qualify as genocide there has to be an element of tribalism - otherwise it doesn't qualify as genocide. It is in human nature to group into tribes. Unchecked it can and has led to genocide. If tribalism wasn't a thing genocide simply wouldn't happen. Political systems that embrace tribalism have a track record of inviting genocide - that is an historical fact. I repeat the question - what is it about your version of tribalism that would stop genocide happening?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 2, 2023 15:19:20 GMT
I'm not a fan of GB News but to be fair they have done the right thing here - they've set standards of behaviour for their broadcasters and taken action when they've stepped over the line. Fair play to them.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 2, 2023 15:10:13 GMT
Who did Stalin and Lenin commit genocide against? I have never claimed to have far left views. You are the one who has claimed to have far right views - on one past you even claimed the current Tory Party are left wing which is patently nonsense. Incidentally there are plenty of people on the right who do not subscribe to your views on tribalism. because they understand the historical context of those views and where they can lead. That's a lie mate. I never said I had far right views, you made that up. I didn't say the Torys are left wing neither, I said culturally they are wokeys which means culturally they aren't right which, which is true. The right wing people that argue against biology and nature are wrong then. Same as the left wing people that argue with biology and nature. Humans are tribal it's ingrained in us and nothing you say will change that. I said that humans are tribal. And that tribalism by it's very nature is the root cause of genocide. The ethical thing to do is to choose a political position that recognises the potential for genocide in human nature and do things to stop it happening not just say it's natural and ignore the potential consequences. The far right have a track record for justifying genocide on the basis of it being "natural" - that is an established fact. What you haven't explained is how your version of right wing politics addresses this issue. You keep denying it's an issue when it clearly is and refuse to answer the question. I am also not using Godwin's law to silence you. I keep asking you to explain your position which you keep refusing to do. You are cancelling yourself - either because you know the consequences of your position and you don't want to admit it or you haven't actually thought through where your politics leads. I'm coming round to the latter - all you keep doing is repeat the same statement over and over again without even to trying to explain what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 2, 2023 12:47:22 GMT
Godwin's law isn't about closing down debate. Some people may have made accusations of facism to close down debate but that isn't Godwin's law and anyway I haven't tried to close down the debate - if I had why would I be replying and encouraging the debate? I didn't say tribalism has to lead to genocide. However genocide isn't genocide without it involving some form of tribalism - genocide is mass murder where one ethnic/tribal group tries to eradicate another tribal group. Stalin and Lenin committed mass murder. They murdered their own people so by definition it wasn't genocide. It doesn't make it any better but it wasn't genocide. Bringing up Stalin and Lenin is completely irrelevant to the debate about genocide. I don't have any problem condemning their behaviour or feel obliged to defend far left politics because I don't hold far left political views. It is an established fact that the far right have adopted tribalist views and on occasions it has resulted in genocide. It is you who have to explain why your version of far right politics won't lead to genocide - what is it about your version that addresses this issue? Just denying that it has led to genocide isn't good enough - in fact not addressing the issue means if ever your political views held sway it will almost certainly result in it happening again. It is mate. Godwins law is used to try and close debate and discredit valid points. It doesn't work on me. Stalin and Lenin did commit genocide and bringing them up is more relevant than you bringing Hitler up in an attempt to apply Godwins law. You can't argue with nature and biology mate, humans are tribal by nature but that doesn't necessarily lead to genocide. You need to explain why you think your far left wing views are any better than far right wing views. Who did Stalin and Lenin commit genocide against? I have never claimed to have far left views. You are the one who has claimed to have far right views - on one past you even claimed the current Tory Party are left wing which is patently nonsense. Incidentally there are plenty of people on the right who do not subscribe to your views on tribalism. because they understand the historical context of those views and where they can lead.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 2, 2023 12:40:50 GMT
She was a grammar school educated daughter of a shop keeper who married a millionaire - by any definition at the time that would have her middle class, not working class and to be fair at no point did she ever claim to be working class. She wasn't considered part of the establishment but there is no way she was working class. There are a good number of working class people who admire Thatcher but there are working class people right across the country who loathe her for what she did to working class communities. Despite what you seem to think you are not the authentic voice of the working class - in fact there isn't one voice and to suggest otherwise is nonsense. Is Starmer middle or working class? His father was a toolmaker and his mother a nurse so he could legitimately claim he was from a working class background but given where he is now I'd say he was middle class. Thatcher never claimed to be anything other than middle class. Any claims she was working class are nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 2, 2023 11:23:23 GMT
Godwin's law isn't about closing down debate. It's an observation that in internet debates often end up in accusations of facism. It's an observation not a tactic. I'm not arguing about the fact that human beings are by nature tribal. When you say "you can't argue with nature' it can mean one of 2 things - nature is what it is (which isn't an issue) or it can mean if it is "natural" then it is justifiable. Proponents of Social Darwinism use it in the latter sense. How are you using it? Taking to its extreme tribalism is the cause of genocide - by definition it is the ultimate expression of tribalism. If you believe tribalism is just an expression of human mature then human nature is at the root of genocide. Which bit of that don't you understand? I never said Lenin and Stalin weren't evil. However their atrocities were against their own people - genocide is one ethnic group trying to eradicate another. Both the far left and the far right have blood on their hands - bringing Stalin and Lenin into this is just an attempt to deflect. Isn't mate. Using Godwins law is a sneaky underhand tactics to derail and deflect. Doesn't work with me though. Tribalism doesn't have to lead to genocide mate. Stalin and Lenin weren't tribal but they committed genocide. ....and round and round in circles we go. Godwin's law isn't about closing down debate. Some people may have made accusations of facism to close down debate but that isn't Godwin's law and anyway I haven't tried to close down the debate - if I had why would I be replying and encouraging the debate? I didn't say tribalism has to lead to genocide. However genocide isn't genocide without it involving some form of tribalism - genocide is mass murder where one ethnic/tribal group tries to eradicate another tribal group. Stalin and Lenin committed mass murder. They murdered their own people so by definition it wasn't genocide. It doesn't make it any better but it wasn't genocide. Bringing up Stalin and Lenin is completely irrelevant to the debate about genocide. I don't have any problem condemning their behaviour or feel obliged to defend far left politics because I don't hold far left political views. It is an established fact that the far right have adopted tribalist views and on occasions it has resulted in genocide. It is you who have to explain why your version of far right politics won't lead to genocide - what is it about your version that addresses this issue? Just denying that it has led to genocide isn't good enough - in fact not addressing the issue means if ever your political views held sway it will almost certainly result in it happening again.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 2, 2023 9:31:52 GMT
Godwin's law isn't meant to "work" on anyone - it's just an observation. You keep saying you "can't argue with nature". I'm not arguing with nature - I'm arguing with a particular interpretation of nature and how it has been used to justify a particular political outlook. I'm not arguing with nature I'm arguing about Social Darwinism and it's role in political thought. Human beings are tribal and throughout history tribes have fought other tribes. In its extreme form unfettered tribal rivalries have resulted in genocide and some people have used the "it's only natural" argument to justify their behaviour. That does not mean genocide is inevitable or that people who recognise the tribalism is a feature of human behaviour are in favour of genocide. However it does mean that people who do not question their tribal instincts and understand where it can lead that are likely to lay the foundations for yet more atrocities in the name of "doing what is natural". Lenin and Stalin committed unforgivable atrocities. What they did wasn't genocide - they committed those atrocities against their own people. However just because it wasn't genocide it doesn't make their behaviour any the less reprehensible. Hitler and the Nazi party tried to eliminate Jews from Europe and used the Social Darwinist arguments you have been using here to support their industrial scale attempt at genocide. They believed the Ayrian race was superior to all other's and used this as justification to suppress and wipe out other races. What they did was textbook "one tribe rising above the other". By not "arguing with nature" they just cracked on and built the gas ovens. It is mate. Godwins law is meant to close down the debate because the person using it knows that no one likes to be compared to nazis or nazi views. It's a weak disingenuous way of trying to sound like you know what you are talking about but you definitely don't. Like I said, it doesn't work with me. Humans are naturally tribal whether we want to be or not, you can't argue with biology or nature mate. Even though Stalin and Lenin didn't necessarily believe in the tribal nature of man they still committed genocide. Lenin and Stalin were evil mate. Godwin's law isn't about closing down debate. It's an observation that in internet debates often end up in accusations of facism. It's an observation not a tactic. I'm not arguing about the fact that human beings are by nature tribal. When you say "you can't argue with nature' it can mean one of 2 things - nature is what it is (which isn't an issue) or it can mean if it is "natural" then it is justifiable. Proponents of Social Darwinism use it in the latter sense. How are you using it? Taking to its extreme tribalism is the cause of genocide - by definition it is the ultimate expression of tribalism. If you believe tribalism is just an expression of human mature then human nature is at the root of genocide. Which bit of that don't you understand? I never said Lenin and Stalin weren't evil. However their atrocities were against their own people - genocide is one ethnic group trying to eradicate another. Both the far left and the far right have blood on their hands - bringing Stalin and Lenin into this is just an attempt to deflect.
|
|