Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2015 7:55:06 GMT -5
The course of British and European history was determined on 18 June 1815 here at the gates of Hougoumont, a walled farmyard in quiet fields at Waterloo, some 10 miles south of Brussels. This place was inadvertently caught up in momentous events: the Duke of Wellington himself declared that ‘the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo depended upon the closing of the gates at Hougoumont’. Landmark Trust - Director's Blog - At WaterlooTo be honest, I generally avoid visiting the sites of great battles! Nevertheless, I commend Hougoumont to everyone reading ' The Third'! Landmark Trust - Hougoumont, Waterloo
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Sept 26, 2015 5:04:50 GMT -5
One supposes one could say that Wellington was out of bounds after hours, was he not. Certainly not at home, nor invited by M. et Mme. Hougoumont either one might presume.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2015 14:35:06 GMT -5
You are, however, Gerard! Join us!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 0:19:01 GMT -5
Who will be there kc? Of course Belgium did not exist when Wellington was there. Was it not a great mistake once it did to introduce universal suffrage for women in 1949? Few men and fewer women have ever known anything about political questions. Actions taken by such a horrid conglomerate are guaranteed to be wrong. What essential difference is there between "government by the people" and rabble-rule? Now that education of Belgians is compulsory for their first eighteen years it is high time is it not for that mistaken introduction to be reversed and for government to be henceforward carried out by experts specifically educated and tested for the purpose. Not necessarily Belgian experts of course.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 30, 2015 3:33:37 GMT -5
Of course Belgium did not exist when Wellington was there. Was it not a great mistake once it did to introduce universal suffrage for women in 1949? Certainly not! Few men and fewer women have ever known anything about political questions. On what grounds do you assert "fewer women" in this instance? Have you conducted a substantial and reliable surveytht proves this? I accept that not all men and women have sufficient understanding of various political questions, but you seem not to advocate withdrawing the vote from men who don't know enough about such matters (assuming that they could be reliably identified in the first place). Shortcomings in political expertise could be argued to apply even to some who function in government anyway! However, you're effectively seeking to address two separate issues here, the one concerning women's rights to vote and the other being who shall govern. Taking the two together momentarily, I suppose that you would also advocate withdrawing women's rights to stand as MPs, ministers, &c. and (in Britain - although I accept that Belgium is your target here) in the House of Lords; what's your view of the rights of women to act as political advisers, researchers, academics and the rest? Actions taken by such a horrid conglomerate are guaranteed to be wrong. What essential difference is there between "government by the people" and rabble-rule? Now that education of Belgians is compulsory for their first eighteen years it is high time is it not for that mistaken introduction to be reversed and for government to be henceforward carried out by experts specifically educated and tested for the purpose. Not necessarily Belgian experts of course. The reversal of such an arrangement would inevitably land the Belgian government in the European Court of Human Rights which would disallow it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 7:10:25 GMT -5
Shortcomings in political expertise could be argued to apply even to some who function in government anyway! Indeed so. The reversal of such an arrangement would inevitably land the Belgian government in the European Court of Human Rights which would disallow it. The solution to that problem is to abolish Belgium. It is bound to happen before long, so sooner rather than later would obviously be best do you not agree?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 30, 2015 11:16:47 GMT -5
The reversal of such an arrangement would inevitably land the Belgian government in the European Court of Human Rights which would disallow it. The solution to that problem is to abolish Belgium. It is bound to happen before long, so sooner rather than later would obviously be best do you not agree? I do not. First of all, who would have the authority to abolish Belgium? Secondly, whatever it might become upon such abolition and the country of which its citizens will become citizens thereafter will still be part of EU and subject the the European Court of Human Rights (which applies not only to the 28 EU member states but also to an additional 19 non-EU members states that are members of the Council of Europe, so I don't see what difference such abolition would make. Why Belgium in any case? - unless you believe (as I suspect you do not) that only Belgian women rather than those of other states should have the fundamental human right to vote withdrawn from them...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2015 8:25:25 GMT -5
Good afternoon to you all! I trust that all is well with all of you. If I may address all four of your questions directly, Sydney: Well, my mother organised this particular family holiday, and we shall all be leaving tomorrow. So if you want to come for dinner, you have to come tonight! I have just prepared Beef Wellington, and it will go in the oven at around seven this evening! I doubt that anyone reading ' The Third' can make it at such short notice, but if you can, come at dusk (19:25 local time)! The question is not so much who will be here, as who will not be here? Landmark Trust - Hougoumont, WaterlooIf you fancy a self-catering holiday at another time, The Landmark Trust has some very interesting places to stay! b. Of course Belgium did not exist when Wellington was there. Was it not a great mistake once it did to introduce universal suffrage for women in 1949? No, of course not, Sydney! c. Few men and fewer women have ever known anything about political questions. Actions taken by such a horrid conglomerate are guaranteed to be wrong. What essential difference is there between "government by the people" and rabble-rule? At some point, Sydney, democracy, or 'rule by the people', has to be delegated to some competent executive. Interestingly, the great philosopher Plato rejected democracy and used 'The Republic' to criticise it for its alleged flaws, such as susceptibility to demagogues, rule by unfit 'barbarians' etc. The concepts of democracy and of Utopia as depicted in 'The Republic' are tied to the city-states of ancient Greece and their relevance to modern states is questionable. So what is justice? Justice is defined as a state where everyone is to do their own work while not interfering with the work of others. This conception of justice, striking to the modern reader, is closely linked to the Greek conception of fate or necessity, such as that embodied later in Aristotle's final cause. This definition of justice leads to a social structure radically different from most previous and subsequent states. The ideal city as depicted in 'The Republic' should be governed by philosopher-kings; disinterested persons who are to rule not for their personal enjoyment but for the good of the City-State. Socrates points out the human tendency to corruption by power and thus tyranny; therefore ruling should only be left to a certain class of people whose only purpose is to govern in what is deemed a just manner, and who are somehow immune to corruption. This is hardly new or recent conservatism, as it was first proposed well over two thousand years ago. You might say that 'The Republic' stands for the conviction that inquiry really does not cease until death, because every question is connected to every other question. For example, Plato begins with the straightforward question, "What is justice?" That leads on to the question, "Is justice a benefit to its possessor?" The central task of 'The Republic' is in fact to demonstrate that justice is ultimately a benefit to its possessor; it is what you need most of all if you are to be happy, whereas the unjust person is the most miserable of all creatures. The onus is not on everyone else to improve their behaviour. It is on everyone to improve their behaviour. What matters is how we both act and react. And what the greatest of philosophers, Plato, aspired to do, Sydney, modern science has in a way done. If you want to do justice to the complexities of our cosmos, where materialism is giving too simple a story, Plato's programme for gaining an understanding of the world and our place in it can be very interesting indeed. In the words of one of the greatest of Europeans, Sir Winston Churchill, democracy expects extraordinary things of ordinary people. Perhaps this is one way in which 'rule by the people' can be made to work. Democracy expects extraordinary things of you, Sydney! d. Now that education of Belgians is compulsory for their first eighteen years it is high time is it not for that mistaken introduction to be reversed and for government to be henceforward carried out by experts specifically educated and tested for the purpose. Not necessarily Belgian experts of course. I did once apply for a job with the European Union (EU), Sydney, I never worked there, but it strikes me that that the EU or even some form of world government could eventually supplant Belgium! In today's ' Times', Lord Lawson of Blaby argues that David Cameron’s attempt to renegotiate our EU membership is doomed. It only wants more power over us, not less! The Times - For Britain’s sake, let’s get out of EuropeBetter still, the gates of Hougoumont will open in four hours' time! Join us!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2015 0:36:27 GMT -5
Having arrived there kc what might one do apart from think about battlings? The Keeper's Cottage has as well as a "centre" of prey birds a collection of "vintage airplanes". What on earth is an "airplane"? Is it a kind of wine? Or a sop? Or a make of motor carriage?
The Guardian tells us that "A ‘veteran’ is any car made before December 31, 1904. From January 1, 1905 to December 31, 1910, the definition..is ‘Edwardian’, and from then to December 31, 1930, cars are classified as ‘Vintage’."
A day or two on Lundy would be pleasant, provided there were only Englishmen.
Plato was right was he not. He planned two and a half thousand years of European civilization one Saturday afternoon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2015 10:09:06 GMT -5
To be honest, Sydney, Hougoumont is a good place to ponder the famous Battle of Waterloo by day and night, and not much else! Of course, you can go into Brussels, and it does make you contemplate the past, present and future of Europe, too. Still, the weather was wonderful for autumnal battlefield walks, the wildlife magnificent and the accommodation superb. I don't think that the Beef Wellington had anything to do with the battle of Waterloo, until last night: Wikipedia - Beef WellingtonAs for the party, well, we did not get the feel that we were in the middle of a battlefield at all! Nevertheless, great fun was had by all! Perhaps Plato was right after all!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2015 0:33:46 GMT -5
. . . who would have the authority to abolish Belgium? The wise, Mr. H. That should be obvious. . . . the country of which its citizens will become citizens thereafter will still be part of EU and subject the TO the European Court of Human Rights . . . The Member has begun to ramble there. Of course the E.U. will also be abolished entirely as such. That too should be obvious. Perhaps not in our misguided times, but sooner or later, yes. . . . the fundamental human right to vote . . . How come there is a "right to vote"? It is not at all obvious. The Member should explain this curious idea. And what makes it "fundamental"? Few people who think for themselves would agree with the Member's use of this provocative term. Is it not on the contrary ridiculous to give the chimney-sweep the right to dictate the deliberations of those wiser than he. Once he has freedom, equality of housing and circumstances with the rest of the world population, and once "money" has been abolished - all those are fundamental rights - he will be satisfied and should not interfere in governance, which will be undertaken by his betters.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 3, 2015 2:59:49 GMT -5
. . . who would have the authority to abolish Belgium? The wise, Mr. H. That should be obvious. It isn't by any means. Firstly, who determines who "the wise" are? Secondly, do you believe there to be no wise Belgians and, if so, why and on what provable grounds? Thirdly, on what or whose authority would "the wise" or anyone else abolish that country and how would they do this without effective resistance? . . . the country of which its citizens will become citizens thereafter will still be part of EU and subject the TO the European Court of Human Rights . . . The Member has begun to ramble there. Of course the E.U. will also be abolished entirely as such. That too should be obvious. Perhaps not in our misguided times, but sooner or later, yes.[/quote] No, the member has merely mistyped one word which you kindly corrected. The same questions apply to the abolition of the EU (which, incidentally, you did not mention when you first wrote of abolishing Belgium). Even were EU to be abolished, what you suggest about Belgium would apply to its other 27 member states in that any or all of them could take whoever abolished EU to the European Court of Human Rights as this institution is separate from EU and copmes under Council of Europe which has 47 member states including the 28 EU member states. Would you expect that the Council of Europe be abolished as well? . . . the fundamental human right to vote . . . How come there is a "right to vote"? It is not at all obvious. The Member should explain this curious idea.[/quote] You may as well question any and all human rights if you do not accept this one; if in all democracies it is accepted that all citizens above a certain age have that right, it will demonstrably have been established as such by common consent. Allowing some citizens to vote but not others would be undemocratic and wholly unacceptable. And what makes it "fundamental"? Few people who think for themselves would agree with the Member's use of this provocative term. For the answer to your question, see my previous paragraph. As to the rest, do you have written evidence of your assumption here? An whom might it provoke and how? Is it not on the contrary ridiculous to give the chimney-sweep the right to dictate the deliberations of those wiser than he. No. Who in any case determines that all members of that profession are unwise and on what grounds? Moreover, what determines the sufficiency of wisdom that should confer upon citizens the entitlement to vote and who determines that all members of a particular profession are or are not wise enough to vote? And which professions' members should be entitled to vote? And should they be forced to vote or left to their own devices on this? What about airline pilots? nurses? bankers? violinists? electricians? car salespeople? women with the surname Grew? Why only "he"? From what? This is unachievable unless all housing be demolished and rebuilt as identical units. and circumstances with the rest of the world population What are they? and once "money" has been abolished Oh, mon Dieu! That again! Where's the evidence that this will happen? all those are fundamental rights - he will be satisfied and should not interfere in governance, which will be undertaken by his betters. Who are his or her "betters" and who decides whether or not they are so? Clearly, the abolition of Belgium carries with it a great deal more wide-ranging action! Somehow, the Belgians would seem to have nothing to worry about here...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2015 23:45:59 GMT -5
The wise, Mr. H. That should be obvious. It isn't by any means. Firstly, who determines who "the wise" are? "Wise" is an adjective Mr. H. Its signification, as determined by the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary, is "having or exercising sound judgement or discernment". "The Wise" is therefore a noun phrase signifying "people having or exercising sound judgement or discernment". That the member finds it necessary to ask for the meaning of "wise" indicates that he is not. The opposite of "wise" is "foolish". And of course there will be the in-betweens will there not such as our unsuitable and unauthorized chimney-sweep.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 4, 2015 2:06:02 GMT -5
It isn't by any means. Firstly, who determines who "the wise" are? "Wise" is an adjective Mr. H. Its signification, as determined by the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary, is "having or exercising sound judgement or discernment". "The Wise" is therefore a noun phrase signifying "people having or exercising sound judgement or discernment". That the member finds it necessary to ask for the meaning of "wise" indicates that he is not. The opposite of "wise" is "foolish". And of course there will be the in-betweens will there not such as our unsuitable and unauthorized chimney-sweep. Dear me! I know what the word means; I merely questioned your use of it and who should determine the level of wisdom of others. All that I now point out in addition is that I note that you refrain from specifying for what you consider chimney-sweeps to be "unsuitable and unauthorised".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2015 3:05:05 GMT -5
Now you're being silly Mr. H! One knows the meaning of a word only if one is, like the aforementioned editors, able to use it correctly. And further, in regard to the sweep we have already pointed out that, not being wise, it is for governance that he is unsuitable and unauthorized.
|
|