The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.7K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 41 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 478 Fun & Games
- 139 BA Predictor Threads
- 43 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 324 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 133 Current West Ham
- 209 Men's First Team
- 4 Women's Team
- 13 PL2 & Academy
- 33 Management & Board
- 16 Stadium & Training Ground
- 30 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 431 Match Threads
- 99 MOTM
- 11 West Ham Nostalgia
- 36 Former Players and Staff
- 5 Past Games & Glories
- 40 Transfers
- 48 Transfer Speculation
- 88 Completed Transfers
- 56 Internationals
- 49 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 125 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 273 Other Teams & Matches
- 27 Other Players & Staff
Comments
People are forced, in the extreme, not by their natural instincts to commit acts of torture and genocide, but by the state and the threat of violence.
Most people would admit to following the basic tenets outlined previously, they would think of these things as natural and humane. What makes humans act in a way counter to these natural instincts. Something must.
I think it`s the way we are taught and nurtured. Nationalism, patriotism, duty, servility. All things that run counter to the human spirit.
If left alone the human spirit will seek a society that is just and fair, we have all the tools and natural attributes at our finger tips. I still think that one day the natural conclusion to the mess we see today will be a World of true equality.
It can`t go on as it is. Surely.
QAs far as brexit is concerned what was the most difficult thing to take were the arguments encouraged by press and certain politicians that were factually untrue, the Syrians coming in, Turkey in by Christmas, The 12 Billion or whatever it was being paid each year. It is really hard to hear untruths being peddled and know that certain people will hear it and vote according to it, as for all the talk of subverting democracy in my view that is the worst, factually lying, not opinion pieces but factually lying. Only yesterday someone who voted leave said to me that if the courts overturn brexit by next summer we will be overrun with Syrian refugees. And today people who had a vote speaking about the ruling yesterday without reading it let alone understanding it but believing without any doubt at all they understand it through a piece printed in a newspaper.
Not least because they bully, threaten and abuse but because they couldn't establish whether it was the right person first!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37869797
There aren't many examples I can think of of 'primitive' societies behaving very much differently to how we behave now.
In western society, I don't think how things are organised is the problem (although I do think there are problems with how things are organised) I think it is people who are the problem.
What's stopping the world from being a better place, imo, is a lack of better people.
"Grey, who would you blame for the holocaust. The individuals who perpetrated individual acts, or Hitler and the Nazi state and its ideology?
People are forced, in the extreme, not by their natural instincts to commit acts of torture and genocide, but by the state and the threat of violence. "
From claretandblue's link:
"But she said Thursday's "crazy" Brexit backlash took her completely by surprise.
"On Twitter, on Facebook - there were some swearing, lots of people saying I was a traitor. 'You're ruining our democracy', ' move to France' - and much more'.
She added: "I even had an email. In the subject box it said: 'I hope you die, I sincerely hope you get cancer and die'."
Having visited the UK on previous occasions, Ms Miller said: "It was in overwhelming contrast to the very proper, polite British behaviour I'd seen before."
So who was forcing these morons - oh, of course, my mistake, it was the Daily Mail et al and Arron ?anks.
Couldn't make it up ;lol
But surely that is what they should do, after all they are voted in to represent their constituencies views, not their own personal ones. If they don't at the next election all the opposition has to do is point this out and brand them as not trustworthy, saying "Don't vote for them, they will do what they think they should and is in their own/parties interest, not what you want or yours".
If you were an MP where over 60% of the constituents you represent had voted to leave, even if you did not and still think we should not, do you vote on Article 50 to reflect their wishes - knowing that if you did not and voted on your own view, there was a good chance you would lose the next election? Not only that, but it may contribute to a more right wing element getting in to power and triggering article 50 anyway as that would be one of the core election promises.
Well the current Gov't are saying it's not going to happen and they will push on with the current plans for triggering article 50 in March anyway.
When she states however that she will simply push on she is taking a position in which she seeks to place herself beyond the laws through which the nation is governed, in my view to play the home crowd. Either way she is either dangerous as she wishes to turn the narrative against judges who were not political in any way but simply applied the law in a coherent and clear way, or she is stupid and doesn't understand what the judgement meant, as it means she cannot push on without parliaments backing as she says she is going to, even if she wants to.
She really needs start trying to bring the country together again and why she went so overtly with the brexit means brexit I have no idea. I also think she is unsure of herself and seeks approval, so all in all I cant see her seeing this through.
This is what worries me most about TM as she had an opportunity to say that whilst she hoped the legal judgement would find in the Govts favour she recognises why it failed to - it is pretty clear why they couldn't find in the Govts favour and you don't need be a lawyer. She also originally had the chance to recognise that the vote was about as close as you could get and seek to unite the nation but instead went with brexit means brexit and anyone who asked questions was accused of subverting democracy, which is of course what she seeks to do by pushing on with her agenda regardless.
Personally, I think that TM is completely out of her depth, goes with whichever way the wind is blowing, is totally inconsistent in her views (compare her present stance with her past views of leaving the EU) and is a wannabe Thatcher (wash my mouth out) iron lady. Either that or she is playing a very clever game in which she would actually like to scupper Brexit while presenting the opposite image. ;hmm
I have also wondered of her being super smart and playing this all along to reassure that she is a brexiter, only to actually negotiate a soft brexit but rely upon them thinking she is one of them to have them accept it, as otherwise Boris the buffon would have been plotting from day 2.
There aren't many examples I can think of of 'primitive' societies behaving very much differently to how we behave now.
In western society, I don't think how things are organised is the problem (although I do think there are problems with how things are organised) I think it is people who are the problem.
What's stopping the world from being a better place, imo, is a lack of better people.
Two points, it is well documented, and carries through to this very day, that in most primitive societies there was one major difference, and that is the concept of common ownership. Most means of production and certainly goods produced were shared equally amongst the communities. Hunters went out and hunted, fishermen fished and farmers farmed. Hunters didn`t hunt in privately owned forests, no-one owned the lakes and fields. Common ownership. All goods produced would be held in common and distributed equitably. That seems a little different to the way we divvy up now.
Secondly, you contend that there is a lack of good people. Ask yourself this and then think of the hundreds, possibly thousands of people you have known since childhood. All the kids and teachers through infants school, secondary school, college, work, friends, neighbours, people you meet in the bank, the taverna, the shops. People you have met on holiday or through pursuing leisure activities, you get the drift, it will be a lot of people. With them in mind, but thinking about the following scenarios from your perspective:
If you were presented with someone who had really cheesed you off, really offended you and Mrs G, and were told without fear of consequence you could kill this person, personally murder them with your own hands, snuff the very life from them. Imagine this person was presented to you and you had three minutes, they wouldn`t fight back and you could walk away afterwards. Pretty repugnant thought isn`t it.
If you were taken to a room and you had a loaf of bread with you and in was wheeled the above person, or anyone come to that, but the chap that cheesed you off makes it a little more interesting. You were told that this person was starving, would die within minutes for the want of bread, you have bread, you have more at home, what would you do?
Thirdly, think about if you went to the room and you wanted for nothing, you had bread at home. Say a chap was wheeled in and he had about his person a loaf of bread, a particularly nice loaf. The chap is in front of you is unfortunately blind and you could take his bread without him knowing and without fear of consequence. Would you steal his bread?
Think about what you would do, think hard, and then think about the hundreds, possibly thousands of people you have known over the years and think what they would do. I honestly think you would find it hard to think of anyone that would kill, walk away or steal. You may think of the odd chap, Derek from Scunthorpe perhaps, he seemed a bit shifty, certainly not a murderer, but I bet he`d have that bread. Either way, you may come across a very, very tiny minority of people who may not be as good as you and I, but it would be a very, very tiny minority. You could ask the same questions of anyone on here and the response would be the same. There are a very small percentage of bad people, mad people, but it is not the norm. The human spirit has goodness at its very core. So I don`t think it is for the lack of good people that society fails, I think it may have something to do with the systems that operate, and the inequalities inherent in them.
But then again I may be wrong.
If you want irony, please don`t compare the Holocaust with a few spotty keyboard warriors.
Peoples NATURAL instincts are good to the core.
Your 'what ifs' are interesting, but a a very limited way of evaluating whether people will 'do the right thing' (in a Judaeo-Christian sense, at least, since not all cultures or societies operate in that type of moral framework). Your conclusion that most people are 'good' because most people wouldn't murder seems to me simplistic. Furthermore that most people won't steal based solely on a scenario where (a) they won't steal from someone less fortunate than themselves or (b) they already have the item that they could steal and it is of limited value is, to me, not a sufficient test of their honesty.
Finally, your 'primitive societies' comment: while there was no ownership of land or water, it isn't the case that all food (caught grown or gathered) or things made (tools, clothing, jewellery) was commonly owned.
Finally finally, even were it as you say (in primitive societies) it doesn't follow that this is how people are by nature - only that this is how they are in those particular circumstances. And since you argue that (modern) societal structures/systems can influence how people behave .... then you have to accept that maybe those primitive folks were only 'good' because of their circumstances.
And even more finally, even those societies had people who dd not adhere to the 'moral code' - so I'm not swayed by your argument.
PS, I now 3 people who have at one time or another been thieves. None of them really needed the stuff they stole, they just wanted it and it was there for the taking, so they took it. They are in all other respects really nice people, fine upstanding citizens, moral AND law-abiding.
PPS. I don't know any murderers, but I do know a few who occasionally drive while over the limit.
On your second point, spin and fear seem to be the political norm now, you only have to look at the American Presidential race. It is sad, but true. Perhaps we have a press and a set of politicians we deserve.
And finally, I do hope that Turkey is in by Christmas................... ;biggrin
imo, if you remove one set of beliefs and ideas, some other will come in to take their place.
And the bases instincts will re-appear, justifying themselves on a new ideology. imo.
I know that this is a thread on leaving the EU, but the point was made early on that Brexiters were likely to be little Englanders, thick and racist. Some undoubtedly would be, as would some remainers, I just wanted to give my take on Brexit. Went a bit off tangent at times.
I`ve always said from the start that the concept of the EU is pretty sound. It`s the domination (perceived or real) from Brussels that is the problem for most. Which brings me back to "taking back control" I.E. local decisions made by local people. It is what most people trust.
SPREAD ANARCHY
and someone had scrawled underneath
DON`T TELL ME WHAT TO DO
;lol
I wasn't equating genocide and mass murder with a handful of threats made on Twitter and Facebook, I was referring to your point:
"People are forced, in the extreme, not by their natural instincts to commit acts of torture and genocide, but by the state and the threat of violence."
Also, thanks for the lighter side of you, I was beginning to wonder if you had one ;biggrin
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/11/04/liz-truss-is-unfit-for-office-and-should-resign/
It's almost as if she is in cahoots with the Mail/Murdoch press.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-immigration-uk-freedom-movement-myths-eu-referendum-theresa-may-amber-rudd-a7393136.html#gallery
And this:
https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-leave-remain-52-48-per-cent-voter-turnout-electoral-register-7399226?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100
I've read nearly all of this thread from the start, without contributing (too much). It doesn't affect me directly, hence I wouldn't of voted even if I could of.
How refreshing it is to see so many people debate about a subject that obviously can get people more than a bit worked up, and done with the right amount of respect.
Even when that may of got out of hand it was quickly defused.
Well done to all of you
;clap
His comment seems to me to be referring to some who voted leave, although I see how it could be interpreted as meaning all.
Perhaps you might like to ask NE to clarify.
As far as my own view goes, I have no doubt that some 'leave' voters are racists and xenophobes. Indeed, you only have to look at some of the things said and done during the campaign, never mind subsequently. And I'm not unhappy to label those calling for Gina Millar to be publicly hanged 'foaming at the mouth'. Nor do I think it wide of the mark that someone who argues (following yesterdays legal judgement) that the best way forward now is for the army to stage a coup should be described as 'swivel eyed'.
That's my opinion.