Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 5:48:29 GMT -5
If I may address your final point directly, Alistair: If I may address your point directly, Alistair: So you have no desire to "rise up" against the present British "régime", Alistair? You further have no desire for North Koreans to "rise up" against the present North Korean "régime"? Where did I write that - or indeed the opposite? I did not declare what desires I have in respect of either, so you ought not to make assumptions in the absence of such declarations. For the record, The current UK régime is to all intents and purposes a democratic, so the way to "rise up" against it is not to vote for its continuation in the next General Election (although the way in which it continues to mishandle Brexit might suggest that it will bring about itgs own demise); NK, on the other hand, is a dictatorship, so the only way to topple its régime is for its citizens to overthrow it by whatever means they can and, if they don't they will continue to suffer as a consequence both of the maintenance of the régime and any adverse consequences visited upon it by other nations - and let's remember that it has one of the world's worst reputations for human rights abuses of its own citizens. I simply asked two questions, Alistair. If any assumptions have been made, you must have made them!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 12, 2017 9:01:04 GMT -5
If I may address your final point directly, Alistair: Where did I write that - or indeed the opposite? I did not declare what desires I have in respect of either, so you ought not to make assumptions in the absence of such declarations. For the record, The current UK régime is to all intents and purposes a democratic, so the way to "rise up" against it is not to vote for its continuation in the next General Election (although the way in which it continues to mishandle Brexit might suggest that it will bring about itgs own demise); NK, on the other hand, is a dictatorship, so the only way to topple its régime is for its citizens to overthrow it by whatever means they can and, if they don't they will continue to suffer as a consequence both of the maintenance of the régime and any adverse consequences visited upon it by other nations - and let's remember that it has one of the world's worst reputations for human rights abuses of its own citizens. I simply asked two questions, Alistair. If any assumptions have been made, you must have made them! Not at all! Yes, what you wrote was in the form of two questions but, since they were "So you have no desire to "rise up" against the present British "régime", Alistair?" and "You further have no desire for North Koreans to "rise up" against the present North Korean "régime"?" it is hardly unreasonable to interpret them as expressing some doubt, at the very least, as to my desires for the fate of the UK and NK régimes when I had carefully avoided expressing them one way or the other which, however, as I have subsequently done so for both, should clarify for you what I think about those subjects. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not in any case need to make assumptions about my own thoughts since I already know what they are, insofar as I have them!
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Henry on Sept 12, 2017 10:21:01 GMT -5
NK, on the other hand, is a dictatorship . . . The member keeps saying that, but its name has long been "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea", and I have seen no evidence that it is any less "democratic" than Great Britain. The British democracy (aka rule by the stupid mob) is fine if it corresponds more or less with what the fortunate individual inhabitant wants. But in my whole life I have never agreed with the policies of any regime by which I have been governed, so all I feel for the "democratic" system is contempt. Besides, the British version of democracy is a fraud: the "people" do not decide what will be discussed by the parliament. Most of the members are first and foremost party members, and it is their party that decides the subject that will be discussed or "debated", not the individuals who are said to be "represented". The party members do just what the party tells them to do. So, all in all, for me the British system of government is just as much a "dictatorship" as the Korean one. And the whole able-bodied male population is forced, like it or not, to "work" for five days a week; latterly the females as well! Money-slaves are they not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 10:28:18 GMT -5
Your argument is totally unreasonable, Alistair. As for Uncle Henry, you are writing a lot of rubbish!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 12, 2017 11:24:54 GMT -5
NK, on the other hand, is a dictatorship . . . The member keeps saying that, but its name has long been "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea", and I have seen no evidence that it is any less "democratic" than Great Britain. The British democracy (aka rule by the stupid mob) is fine if it corresponds more or less with what the fortunate individual inhabitant wants. But in my whole life I have never agreed with the policies of any regime by which I have been governed, so all I feel for the "democratic" system is contempt. Besides, the British version of democracy is a fraud: the "people" do not decide what will be discussed by the parliament. Most of the members are first and foremost party members, and it is their party that decides the subject that will be discussed or "debated", not the individuals who are said to be "represented". The party members do just what the party tells them to do. So, all in all, for me the British system of government is just as much a "dictatorship" as the Korean one. And the whole able-bodied male population is forced, like it or not, to "work" for five days a week; latterly the females as well! Money-slaves are they not? The larger of the two Congos in Africa calles itself the "Democratic Republic" thereof; that doesn't make it a democracy. Using the same word in the name of NK doesn't make it one either! I agree that very recetnt measures in UK risk removing some powers from Parliament and this represents a most worrying trend, but your suggestion that the UK government is broadly similar to that in NK is beyond absurd! UK's human rights record isn;t the best by any means but that of NK is one of the world's worst - so much so, indeed, that it's a wonder that it's not been expelled from UN. In UK, "the whole able-bodied population" is not "forced" to work other than by necessity and some members thereof (including me) work for more than five days per week in any case, either out of said necessity or by choice.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 12, 2017 11:26:55 GMT -5
Your argument is totally unreasonable, Alistair. As for Uncle Henry, you are writing a lot of rubbish! Which "argument", kc? I was unaware that I was making one! I first declined to reveal anything that I feel about the régimes in UK and NK and subsequently made my thoughts on them both reasonably clear, I had thought! As for "Uncle Henry", what he has written on the same subject is beyond astonishing!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 11:52:29 GMT -5
Here is your argument, Alistair! " ... Not at all! Yes, what you wrote was in the form of two questions but, since they were "So you have no desire to "rise up" against the present British "régime", Alistair?" and "You further have no desire for North Koreans to "rise up" against the present North Korean "régime"?" it is hardly unreasonable to interpret them as expressing some doubt, at the very least, as to my desires for the fate of the UK and NK régimes when I had carefully avoided expressing them one way or the other which, however, as I have subsequently done so for both, should clarify for you what I think about those subjects. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not in any case need to make assumptions about my own thoughts since I already know what they are, insofar as I have them!" It is totally unreasonable to interpret them as expressing some doubt, or at the very least, as to your desires for the UK and NK régimes when you had carefully avoided expressing them one way or the other which, however, as you have subsequently done so for both, should clarify for me what you think about those subjects! (sic)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 15:33:34 GMT -5
Jason Palmer is on the case tonight: Serious Topics - General ChatLord Byron is contacting GCHQ as I write, Uncle Henry. Slightly Optimistic has lost it! Alistair Hinton has lost the argument completely as well. He is out of it for the count, Uncle Henry! We have won!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 18:30:30 GMT -5
The Far East is ready, Uncle Henry! Are you?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 13, 2017 1:03:46 GMT -5
Jason Palmer is on the case tonight: Serious Topics - General ChatLord Byron is contacting GCHQ as I write, Uncle Henry. Slightly Optimistic has lost it! Alistair Hinton has lost the argument completely as well. He is out of it for the count, Uncle Henry! We have won! I've never known it to be possible to lose an argument in which one has not participated; to be clear, I am not suggesting that I did not participate but that what I participated in was not an argument! As to the rest of your post, I must admit that I haven't a clue what you're writing about!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 1:09:12 GMT -5
Your sentence construction is so complex, Alistair, it is difficult to know whether even you know what you are writing about. North Korea, Uncle Henry?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 13, 2017 2:14:22 GMT -5
Your sentence construction is so complex, Alistair, it is difficult to know whether even you know what you are writing about. Witrh which bit of that not especially long sentence are you having problems? And yes, I do know what I'm writing about, otherwise I'd not write it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 2:25:49 GMT -5
When Ludwig Wittgenstein returned to Cambridge University in 1929 John Maynard Keynes declared, "Well, God has arrived. I met him on the 5:15 train". Was Alistair Hinton on the same train? Certainly Wittgenstein is a towering figure in 20th century thought but he had problems with the whole idea of philosophy. At one point he decided that Philosophy cannot answer any of the questions it sets itself and so gave the whole thing up to teach in his native Austria and take up gardening. In his Blue Book (1958) he referred to his own work as "one of the heirs of the subject that used to be called philosophy". Wittgenstein felt that previous philosophers had tied themselves in knots by asking the wrong sorts of questions. They thought philosophical problems were to do with understanding the nature of the world but Wittgenstein thought they were all problems of language. Sort language out and you could knock philosophy on the head. Wittgenstein thus pondered how language related to the world, what the limits of language were and what this all meant for the philosopher. He came to two different conclusions; firstly, as outlined in The Tractatus, that language had a logical structure that accurately reflected the structure of reality; secondly, as outlined in the later Philosophical Investigations, that language was a game - full of tricks, jokes and subtleties - the meaning of which was derived from social context as much as logical analysis. Ultimately, however, Wittgenstein wasn't sure that anything could be said about how language related to the world because that was necessarily beyond the scope and meaning of language itself. Thus he concluded that some things remain unsayable and declared "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time - The Greatest Philosopher
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Henry on Sept 13, 2017 2:44:35 GMT -5
The Far East is ready, Uncle Henry! Are you? I have not yet visited the northern part of Korea, but the uncooth southern I have. I went to the cinema, and at some point all the audience rose up for the national song or anthem (as in a church service - this was also done in England and her colonies until the nineteen-fifties). Well I did not feel like remaining seated since it would draw unwelcome attention, but on the other hand I did not feel like rising because I had no idea of in honour of what or whom I would be doing it. So I performed a kind of halfway stand, my arms remaining on the arm-rests. By the way, with what vicious intensity do the Great Britons of the present day hate hearing the word "colony"!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 3:02:30 GMT -5
Are you a colonial, Uncle Henry?
|
|