14 Jun 06
Originally posted by kmax87so is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Question: Should the British have been given a special status when the sun never set on their empire?
Oops silly me. No. They were not in the business back then of waiting to be given anything were they?
Does anyone get historical irony? Things coming full circle? Chickens coming home to roost? What goes round comes round? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
Any of this ring any bells?
if immigrants are taking over our culture (and im not suggesting that they are - although some on this site might say they are) is that fair given the way our empire acted?
14 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by davidtravellingIs it fair that a plane does not land within a given runway length? We usually are rational in that instance to evaluate the physics of the situation and work out that because of being overloaded or approaching to fast or not flipping on the reverse thrusters or deploying full flaps or spoilers or braking the wheels,.... in short because of a combination of a series of interdependent events, accidents will happen. Whats the point of personalising the event by making mention of the carrier or the location of the crash. How would that have changed the result.
so is that a good thing or a bad thing?
if immigrants are taking over our culture (and im not suggesting that they are - although some on this site might say they are) is that fair given the way our empire acted?
In the very same way when the movements of culture and society and people are finally seen as having a definite vector property that is having both a magnitude and a direction then what should also become increasingly clear is that in any vector sum there is a resultant. In the case of clearly identifiable quantifiable forces, which by definition are vectors the resultant is as easy to plot as laying up the vectors nose to tail. Social vectors are much harder to quantify for obvious reasons. How do you weigh up the relative force of a small population mindset committed to a particular worldview on a collision with a larger population mindset committed to a less intense worldview.
Its a bit like the thermodynamic argument. Would you rather have a litre of water at 100degC(boiling point) or 90litres at 10 degC roughly the same amount of energy but the quality of the energy,now there's two different kettles of fish.
My point( i think i have one therefore i have) is that on a mass consciousness level, the claims of culture and the reactions of organised groups can not be analysed by the criteria you would reasonably apply to individuals in small groups. Its like applying the same language you would employ when attempting to separate two sqabbling kids from both claiming the same toy in a day care centre, when in reality you are busy with two forward packs about to butt heads in a scrum.
15 Jun 06
Cultures are always in motion.
The facist parties over Europe are always claiming they want to cling to "the old way".
Which old way is that?
Is that the punk movement of the 70's, the hippy movement of the 60's, the drugs culture of the late 80's, the child labour of the 1830's, the feudel system of God knows when or the destruction of Celtic culture by Roman influence?
Which bloody old way are they talking about?
The anglo-saxon way of living or the Celtic way of living? How far back and why?
Everything changes.
It always has, it always will.
Things that don't change break.
They always have done and always will.
That's evolution.
15 Jun 06
Originally posted by kmax87It appears from the posts on this thread so far that only 'davidtravelling' is free from bigotry and recognises that Mr Bains is speaking for the vast majority of UK citizens, immigrant and indigenous alike.
Question: Should the British have been given a special status when the sun never set on their empire?
Oops silly me. No. They were not in the business back then of waiting to be given anything were they?
Does anyone get historical irony? Things coming full circle? Chickens coming home to roost? What goes round comes round? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
Any of this ring any bells?
15 Jun 06
Originally posted by NargagunaWait, how does thinking this guy is a bit of a burke make someone a bigot? Personally, I think the bigot in this thread is you, perhaps if you were to adjust your hood slightly you'd see that.
It appears from the posts on this thread so far that only 'davidtravelling' is free from bigotry and recognises that Mr Bains is speaking for the vast majority of UK citizens, immigrant and indigenous alike.
15 Jun 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZIt is typical of a person like you to shout his mouth off about something he knows nothing about.
Wait, how does thinking this guy is a bit of a burke make someone a bigot? Personally, I think the bigot in this thread is you, perhaps if you were to adjust your hood slightly you'd see that.
You must be pretty feeble-minded if you think calling someone a 'burke' is an adequate response to his argument.
15 Jun 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe Guardian can be a bit of a woolly liberal rag, but at least half the letters in its letters page aren't from people who's names start "Major General (Retd)" or "the Earl of".
Would you rather it were a rag called the Guardian?
The Telegraph has its target audience, and that's fair enough, but to expect a serious debate around a letter in the Telegraph is just daft. These people have no idea what is going on in the real world.
In particular, a letter from this individual, who seems to have nothing better to do - he is never off the letters page of the Telegraph or the Times (he must be unemployed, eh Nara).
15 Jun 06
Originally posted by RedmikeThe Telegraph is conservative and the Guardian is liberal. If a conservative poor guy is going to write to the Guardian, they're as likely to publish it as a liberal rich guy writing to the Telegraph. So, to say that one is more in touch with the "real" world than the other is disingenous.
The Guardian can be a bit of a woolly liberal rag, but at least half the letters in its letters page aren't from people who's names start "Major General (Retd)" or "the Earl of".
The Telegraph has its target audience, and that's fair enough, but to expect a serious debate around a letter in the Telegraph is just daft. These people have no idea what is goi ...[text shortened]... ever off the letters page of the Telegraph or the Times (he must be unemployed, eh Nara).
15 Jun 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerMy point is about their general readership, and the people who generally get published on their letters page.
The Telegraph is conservative and the Guardian is liberal. If a conservative poor guy is going to write to the Guardian, they're as likely to publish it as a liberal rich guy writing to the Telegraph. So, to say that one is more in touch with the "real" world than the other is disingenous.
Sure, there might be occasions when a poor tory gets published in the Telegraph and a rich liberal in the Guardian.
But the point is, in general, the Telegraph letters page is stuffed full of contributions from people who's title, never mind the contents of their letters, make it clear they've little contact with the real world.
These people are entitled to express their opinions, but the Telegraph letters page might just as well be from another planet.
15 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by RedmikeReally?
My point is about their general readership, and the people who generally get published on their letters page.
Sure, there might be occasions when a poor tory gets published in the Telegraph and a rich liberal in the Guardian.
But the point is, in general, the Telegraph letters page is stuffed full of contributions from people who's title, never mind th ress their opinions, but the Telegraph letters page might just as well be from another planet.
Here's the link for today's Letters page from the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule=0
Of the 18 letters on the site, only four have any form of titles. Of those four, one is a fisherman, one is a radio show host, one is a Psychiatry professor and one is a Director of RSPB.
Here's the corresponding Guardian page (the letters are in a link on the left sidebar):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment
The first set of writers include a Bishop of London, a Residents' Association member, a Schools minister and an MP.
The third link is a letter co-signed by 10 MPs/MEPs and various other Union and Labour Party members.
The fourth link is a letter co-signed by 10 representatives of various NGOs.
The fifth link is written by the Editor of a Medical journal.
The sixth link includes a letter by a BBC director.
In all, there are 16 letters - two less than the Telegraph today.
Want to tell me again which paper uses "titles" more often? Does a whole load of MPs and MEPs know what's going on in the "real" world better than a fisherman?
15 Jun 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI really intended to mean aristocratic or military titles - not any old title like 'breakfast show host'.
Really?
Here's the link for today's Letters page from the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule=0
Of the 18 letters on the site, only four have any form of titles. Of those four, one is a fisherman, one is a radio show host, one is a Psychiatry professor and o ...[text shortened]... load of MPs and MEPs know what's going on in the "real" world better than a fisherman?
I accept, though, that based on today's editions, there are really no people claiming titles which would suggest they were out of touch. But you'd really need to look at more than one day's editions.
Have a look though, at the Sunday Telegraph letters page - there's a link on the page you gave (I can't see previous Daily Telegraph editions) .
There you will find a Maj Gen, a 'Sir' and a 'Lord'.
15 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeIs 'Sir' and 'Lord' worse off than 'Bishop' and 'MP'?
There you will find a Maj Gen, a 'Sir' and a 'Lord'.
And what's wrong with 'Maj Gen'? It represents a person who has entered a very difficult profession and risen to the very top. Is it worse off than 'Dr.' or 'Prof.' or 'Headmaster'?
EDIT: And virtually anyone with any kind of achievement can be a 'Sir'.