|
jabby posted:This is becoming a really annoying comparison. One common reason for finding a particular argument irritating is because a large part of your brain is actually convinced by it. So you have to expend effort to overrule it each time you hear it. There are of course other reasons; only you can really know if I one of them applies instead.
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:That's interesting I always assumed they'd be for it tbh. On this timeline, it will probably happen, but there will be a Dublin-based terrorist movement trying to reverse unification.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:That's a false dichotomy because we could easily house everyone without wrecking areas of outstanding natural beauty and scientific interest. In fact, we could easily house everyone without destroying any areas of mediocre natural beauty or passing scientific interest. Just, not without tanking the housing 'market' and so losing the next 5 elections on a scale Corbyn could only dream of.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
TheRat posted:If you think this is a shitshow, what do you think would happen if brexit was called off? People would be beating immigrants and leftwing politicans to death with copies of the daily mail on an hourly basis You genuinely think fascism is an overwhelming force that cannot, and so should not, be opposed? Racist street violence reveals some oracular truth as to how society works, and disliking that message doesn't mean you don't have to bow to it? You may want to ponder that for a bit before fully committing to that argument. Because people were hanged at Nuremberg for getting that wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Almost all of the money's going on the "blue water" capability the Navy has been asking for since the Eagle was decommissioned. Given the only thing between us and Trumps's America is blue water, perhaps that's not such a bad thing. radmonger fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Feb 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 11:46
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:No i literally want labour to win the next election. I want Corbyn to remain leader so his followers can witness the consequences of their idiocy. Pretty sure most of his supporters are ok with losing. Once in government you have to actually do stuff, and if you voted, or campaigned for a governing party, you are sort of responsible for what gets done. It's a generational thing; there's one generation whose formative political experience was Iraq, and another where it was Thatcher. They will never see eye to eye on where the really important boundary between 'good thing' and 'bad thing' is.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:maybe the UKMT could become a think tank Tanks are unnecessarily militaristic. Maybe a think train.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Speaking as someone with pretty solid Celtic ancestors, I always like to tell these types that yeah we should totally be kicking all these Romans, Angles, Saxons, Normans etc out. Calling Nigel Farage an arriviste Huguenot oval office makes no actual difference to the world but is still satisfying. I was always kind of annoyed by that BBC Merlin series that had Arthur as an obvious blonde Norman type 500 years too early.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Is this a thing you think happens? TBF there are some guys who are officially on 'benefits' who are transparently on retainers for information of interest to the security services.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
There is a kind of subtle trap that happens in these debates. Asuume the U.K. remains a democracy, wars remain overseas, global warming remains manageable, diseases remain curable, and so on. Then it seems to be the case, according to the relevant experts, that for the meaningful future the best prediction of the number of visible minorities is around 20%. Which means if someone reverses that, and comes to believe It won't be, then that's a statement that one of those assumptions is false, that one of the things that could cause a 30% demographic shift in decades will happen. As those things are all pretty bad, that would not be good. Now, quite often people only believe those false facts because of racial bias; that's what 'bias' means, getting things wrong. But then what happens is people arguing against them, sensing the racism, think there must be something _morally_ wrong with them. When, given their choice of facts, their morality is pretty unremarkable. Sure, you can easily disagree with it, take the moral high ground. But to do so is to put yourself on the losing side in a popularity contest. TLDR; racism cause people to believe false facts, not to become moral monsters.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Fangz posted:
What I meant by it is that there is a clear spectrum from 'would never kill anyone' to 'would kill the innocent for fun', with'would kill to defend their family' in between. If you were an amoral mad scientist, you could find out where someone is on that spectrum with an apparatus involving tram tracks, switches, family members, strangers, and candy bars. A 'moral monster' is someone that scientist would count as in the bottom 0.5% on that spectrum. The thing is, such people are a problem for the police, not politics, because 0.5%. So when you see a mass of people voting for the tram to crush the child, the problem must be something else. Either their children genuinely are on the other track, or they have been fooled into thinking they are.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:I really can't get on board with the idea of internal moral absolutes. Your argument isn't substantiable and doesn't make much internal sense. Where do you fit the slave trade? what about forced national starvations? general nazi members? It makes sense to me to the extent that I see all of those and say 'look, those are good examples of my point'. Obviously not working so well to explain it to you. Morality is individual, reality is collective. We are not, on average, morally better than slaveowners, or morally worse than some kind of Culture citizen. We mostly just believe different things to be true (slavery is unnecessary, resource limits are relevant). Whether those beliefs are true or not is not the point; we could only find out by stopping believing in them. General nazi members are psychologically normal human beings who hold certain false beliefs. Belief's that we can, in fact, be pretty confident are false. Because we did stop believing in them after WWII, and nothing bad happened. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for someone to get their sums wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Feed a man to a fish and you've probably killed the fish, if they are anything like goldfish. Teach a man to become a Bond villain and you have fed a tank-full of piranhas for the rest of his life.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 11:46
|
|