Congratulations Great Britain & Queen Elizabeth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18316899
It's just a shame it rained :(
I watched the River Pageant live on BBC America. I agree that it's a shame that it rained, but in another way it was evocative of Great Britain; rain in early June certainly isn't unheard of, and the choir singing as they got drenched was a nice touch of perseverance, I thought. At least it didn't rain for the entire time. ;)
As well as the big London events there were thousands of local celebrations all over the UK.
Our village had planned a big celebration out of doors, but we had to hold it in the village hall instead - the rain was piddling down.
Still, we had a good time; lots of people turned up in a good spirit. I was on the local history display which attracted a lot of inquiries.
So, not so bad after all.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fslaymyboredom.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F06%2Fqueen-gun.jpg&hash=e2e880fa92780e8a92d6a57f832b5b41112947dc)
Badass.
My Grandmother, when she was alive, always reminded me of the Queen. I'll probably always think fondly of her for that reason.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on June 04, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fslaymyboredom.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F06%2Fqueen-gun.jpg&hash=e2e880fa92780e8a92d6a57f832b5b41112947dc)
This is epic. The white kid gloves pulling the trigger of that big gun is a wonderful visual metaphor.
The queen is not a wuss. She was a mechanic in WWII. She came to the throne the same year I was born (1952), so I've grown up with her, even though I'm no longer a subject. It's nice to have a Great Britain as a relative. She (Britain) was the USA's mother, so to speak.
She is about the most amazing woman in the world. Congratulations, best wishes, and all that good stuff!
:)
Quote from: McQ on June 04, 2012, 10:17:44 PM
She is about the most amazing woman in the world.
:)
Far from it.
I swear Americans like the Queen and royal family more than the English, most people I meet are indifferent about them or like me and like them but not really that bothered (a bit more since Kate has been added as she is something very nice to look at and amazingly well dressed). I was watching the news before when they were talking about the Duke of Edinburgh being taken to hospital and the entire crowd seemed to be made up solely of American tourists, I thought it was great.
That picture is fantastic.
Quote from: Crow on June 04, 2012, 10:50:31 PM
I swear Americans like the Queen and royal family more than the English, most people I meet are indifferent about them or like me and like them but not really that bothered (a bit more since Kate has been added as she is something very nice to look at and amazingly well dressed). I was watching the news before when they were talking about the Duke of Edinburgh being taken to hospital and the entire crowd seemed to be made up solely of American tourists, I thought it was great.
That picture is fantastic.
Of course we do. They are the safest kind of aristocracy. One that isn't ours and is respectable as well as entertaining. Throw in the historical tie and they become irresistible.
Is the Queen of England a leftie? Looking at that awesome picture she appears to be pulling the trigger with her left.
No, it's the forefinger of her right hand - the one you can see. Seems the trigger on that weapon is far forward.
Quote from: OldGit on June 06, 2012, 02:14:48 PM
No, it's the forefinger of her right hand - the one you can see. Seems the trigger on that weapon is far forward.
She's not holding the weapon it's in a clamp. It's an SA80.
Quote from: OldGit on June 06, 2012, 02:14:48 PM
No, it's the forefinger of her right hand - the one you can see. Seems the trigger on that weapon is far forward.
Yeah, you're right. I must have been semi-delirious when I commented.
I was amused by the description by Steve Richards of the UK Independent newspaper of the Queen as a woman who has never said anything interesting in public. He added that he found the celebration of a dysfunctional family which survives on the basis of the hereditary principle an extreme example of irrational worship. In fairness, that kind of blind veneration is largely confined to the older generation, in particular the over- 60s. However, it is worthy of note that a woman born into immense wealth and privilege, who has never done or said anything memorable or admirable, should be so feted and drooled over by some sections of the community.
Quote from: En_Route on June 06, 2012, 11:17:25 PM
I was amused by the description by Steve Richards of the UK Independent newspaper of the Queen as a woman who has never said anything interesting in public. He added that he found the celebration of a dysfunctional family which survives on the basis of the hereditary principle an extreme example of irrational worship. In fairness, that kind of blind veneration is largely confined to the older generation, in particular the over- 60s. However, it is worthy of note that a woman born into immense wealth and privilege, who has never done or said anything memorable or admirable, should be so feted and drooled over by some sections of the community.
QuoteWe lost the American colonies because we lacked the statesmanship to know the right time and the manner of yielding what is impossible to keep.
- Elizabeth II
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/elizabeth_ii.html#pXu4dcMaGGohFczd.99
*Nods knowingly* That was smart. Kind of a "If you love it, let it go..." sort of thing.
Quote from: Ali on June 07, 2012, 12:26:38 AM
Quote from: En_Route on June 06, 2012, 11:17:25 PM
I was amused by the description by Steve Richards of the UK Independent newspaper of the Queen as a woman who has never said anything interesting in public. He added that he found the celebration of a dysfunctional family which survives on the basis of the hereditary principle an extreme example of irrational worship. In fairness, that kind of blind veneration is largely confined to the older generation, in particular the over- 60s. However, it is worthy of note that a woman born into immense wealth and privilege, who has never done or said anything memorable or admirable, should be so feted and drooled over by some sections of the community.
QuoteWe lost the American colonies because we lacked the statesmanship to know the right time and the manner of yielding what is impossible to keep.
- Elizabeth II
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/elizabeth_ii.html#pXu4dcMaGGohFczd.99
*Nods knowingly* That was smart. Kind of a "If you love it, let it go..." sort of thing.
I notice you didn't mention the previous gem about the bible. And anyway have you ever heard of speechwriters?
Well, in defense of the Queen (from a Texan who has no allegiance to her or to her queendom), royalty does provide a sense of stability and continuity that is important to national identity and survival. Every nation needs institutions that promote a sense of permanence and security. In America we have a written Constitution, in the UK you have the Queen. The advantage of royalty is that there is a human face to represent the institution. The Constitution is a document, not a human. I could write a few more paragraphs about this, but my wife (Queen) wants to take a walk.
I would say the Independent article is correct, but the monarchy doesn't really have any power and is more a marketing tool for Britain which if you look at international perceptions is still very successful at doing its job. Personally I like that position but I would like the constitution to be shaken up a bit, they can get rid of "Dieu et mon droit" as I don't think even the Christians believe that one and the lyrics to the national anthem is awful so they can do with a change as well.
I'm sure she's a good person and all, but I just don't understand the insane amount of attention that the royals get. At least the Constitution is still relevant today. What do the royals ultimately do?The way people were fawning over the wedding, the amount of stories that get written about every facet of their lives, I just find it wasteful. There are so many more important things to worry about than what Kate Middleton wore or how nice Pippa's butt looks.
I don't mean to offend those in the UK. This is not a reflection of how I feel about your country; hell, I loved visiting the UK. I just don't get this.
Quote from: Firebird on June 07, 2012, 05:00:12 AM
I'm sure she's a good person and all, but I just don't understand the insane amount of attention that the royals get. At least the Constitution is still relevant today. What do the royals ultimately do?The way people were fawning over the wedding, the amount of stories that get written about every facet of their lives, I just find it wasteful. There are so many more important things to worry about than what Kate Middleton wore or how nice Pippa's butt looks.
I don't mean to offend those in the UK. This is not a reflection of how I feel about your country; hell, I loved visiting the UK. I just don't get this.
Meh, it's just like here in the states where hollywood and the politicos get gossiped and written about ad nauseum.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 07, 2012, 01:20:18 AM
Well, in defense of the Queen (from a Texan who has no allegiance to her or to her queendom), royalty does provide a sense of stability and continuity that is important to national identity and survival. Every nation needs institutions that promote a sense of permanence and security. In America we have a written Constitution, in the UK you have the Queen. The advantage of royalty is that there is a human face to represent the institution. The Constitution is a document, not a human. I could write a few more paragraphs about this, but my wife (Queen) wants to take a walk.
The days of near-universal veneration of the Royal Family have long gone. The UK is devolving power to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland; in the latter case there is the possibility, though currently looking unlikely, that it will become fully independent. Significant sections of society are alienated and disaffected as witnessed by the recent riots; many are indifferent and I for one wouldn't mourn the passing of patriotism.
Quote from: En_Route on June 08, 2012, 11:13:03 PM
The days of near-universal veneration of the Royal Family have long gone. The UK is devolving power to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland; in the latter case there is the possibility, though currently looking unlikely, that it will become fully independent. Significant sections of society are alienated and disaffected as witnessed by the recent riots; many are indifferent and I for one wouldn't mourn the passing of patriotism.
To each his own. I, on the other hand, am a patriot. Love of country is an important aspect of my sense of self. Even if the royals just end up being the royals of England, so be it. They are a connection to the past, which provides a sense of continuity and stability. But, that's your issue, not mine. I'm a Texan. For me, remember the Alamo!
Quote from: En_Route on June 08, 2012, 11:13:03 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 07, 2012, 01:20:18 AM
Well, in defense of the Queen (from a Texan who has no allegiance to her or to her queendom), royalty does provide a sense of stability and continuity that is important to national identity and survival. Every nation needs institutions that promote a sense of permanence and security. In America we have a written Constitution, in the UK you have the Queen. The advantage of royalty is that there is a human face to represent the institution. The Constitution is a document, not a human. I could write a few more paragraphs about this, but my wife (Queen) wants to take a walk.
The days of near-universal veneration of the Royal Family have long gone. The UK is devolving power to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland; in the latter case there is the possibility, though currently looking unlikely, that it will become fully independent. Significant sections of society are alienated and disaffected as witnessed by the recent riots; many are indifferent and I for one wouldn't mourn the passing of patriotism.
You're Irish right? ;)
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2012, 07:09:03 AM
Quote from: En_Route on June 08, 2012, 11:13:03 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 07, 2012, 01:20:18 AM
Well, in defense of the Queen (from a Texan who has no allegiance to her or to her queendom), royalty does provide a sense of stability and continuity that is important to national identity and survival. Every nation needs institutions that promote a sense of permanence and security. In America we have a written Constitution, in the UK you have the Queen. The advantage of royalty is that there is a human face to represent the institution. The Constitution is a document, not a human. I could write a few more paragraphs about this, but my wife (Queen) wants to take a walk.
The days of near-universal veneration of the Royal Family have long gone. The UK is devolving power to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland; in the latter case there is the possibility, though currently looking unlikely, that it will become fully independent. Significant sections of society are alienated and disaffected as witnessed by the recent riots; many are indifferent and I for one wouldn't mourn the passing of patriotism.
You're Irish right? ;)
Do I detect an ad hominem argument in the offing? I'm no proponent of Irish nationalism either.
Quote from: En_Route on June 09, 2012, 12:05:59 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2012, 07:09:03 AM
Quote from: En_Route on June 08, 2012, 11:13:03 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 07, 2012, 01:20:18 AM
Well, in defense of the Queen (from a Texan who has no allegiance to her or to her queendom), royalty does provide a sense of stability and continuity that is important to national identity and survival. Every nation needs institutions that promote a sense of permanence and security. In America we have a written Constitution, in the UK you have the Queen. The advantage of royalty is that there is a human face to represent the institution. The Constitution is a document, not a human. I could write a few more paragraphs about this, but my wife (Queen) wants to take a walk.
The days of near-universal veneration of the Royal Family have long gone. The UK is devolving power to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland; in the latter case there is the possibility, though currently looking unlikely, that it will become fully independent. Significant sections of society are alienated and disaffected as witnessed by the recent riots; many are indifferent and I for one wouldn't mourn the passing of patriotism.
You're Irish right? ;)
Do I detect an ad hominem argument in the offing? I'm no proponent of Irish nationalism either.
No. Just a wind up ;D
I've always had an interest in the British monarchy. That interest probably comes from my grandmother, who has loved the Queen since her coronation. I'm not sure I can say I share the 'love' exactly, but I have a lot of respect for the queen. She's done a lot throughout her life, and when I think about it, she's probably the most famous elderly female in the world that I can think of. Her son Charles, I don't have as much respect for. As for the younger generation... William's cute. His wife Kate even moreso. ;)
Anyhow, I'm glad that those who attended the Diamond Jubilee festivities had a good time!
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2012, 01:23:45 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 09, 2012, 12:05:59 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2012, 07:09:03 AM
Quote from: En_Route on June 08, 2012, 11:13:03 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 07, 2012, 01:20:18 AM
Well, in defense of the Queen (from a Texan who has no allegiance to her or to her queendom), royalty does provide a sense of stability and continuity that is important to national identity and survival. Every nation needs institutions that promote a sense of permanence and security. In America we have a written Constitution, in the UK you have the Queen. The advantage of royalty is that there is a human face to represent the institution. The Constitution is a document, not a human. I could write a few more paragraphs about this, but my wife (Queen) wants to take a walk.
The days of near-universal veneration of the Royal Family have long gone. The UK is devolving power to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland; in the latter case there is the possibility, though currently looking unlikely, that it will become fully independent. Significant sections of society are alienated and disaffected as witnessed by the recent riots; many are indifferent and I for one wouldn't mourn the passing of patriotism.
You're Irish right? ;)
Do I detect an ad hominem argument in the offing? I'm no proponent of Irish nationalism either.
No. Just a wind up ;D
And a successful one at that.
Quote from: En_Route on June 10, 2012, 12:31:21 PM
You're Irish right? ;)
Do I detect an ad hominem argument in the offing? I'm no proponent of Irish nationalism either.
[/quote]
No. Just a wind up ;D
[/quote]
And a successful one at that.
[/quote]
The English vs. Irish thing interests me. Between Tank and En Route, what do you think the best course is in Northern Ireland? Given that it is part of the same island, will it eventually become part of the Irish republic, or is it forever part of the UK? And what about Scotland and Wales? Are we eventually headed toward the British Empire simply becoming England? Even if it does, I still think British royals would remain popular worldwide.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 10, 2012, 01:25:30 PM
The English vs. Irish thing interests me. Between Tank and En Route, what do you think the best course is in Northern Ireland? Given that it is part of the same island, will it eventually become part of the Irish republic, or is it forever part of the UK? And what about Scotland and Wales? Are we eventually headed toward the British Empire simply becoming England? Even if it does, I still think British royals would remain popular worldwide.
Personally I think that Ireland should be united but not by force of arms. The really stupid thing is that the fucking morons that constitute the IRA went about uniting Ireland in a way absolutely and utterly guaranteed to keep it partitioned. If the IRA and the Irish government had spent as much time and effort wooing the Northern population as they did vilifying them Ireland would be well on the way to unification by now. If the Irish want a unified Ireland they need to be nice to the Northern Irish not nasty to them. It's that fucking simple!
Quote from: Tank on June 10, 2012, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 10, 2012, 01:25:30 PM
The English vs. Irish thing interests me. Between Tank and En Route, what do you think the best course is in Northern Ireland? Given that it is part of the same island, will it eventually become part of the Irish republic, or is it forever part of the UK? And what about Scotland and Wales? Are we eventually headed toward the British Empire simply becoming England? Even if it does, I still think British royals would remain popular worldwide.
Personally I think that Ireland should be united but not by force of arms. The really stupid thing is that the fucking morons that constitute the IRA went about uniting Ireland in a way absolutely and utterly guaranteed to keep it partitioned. If the IRA and the Irish government had spent as much time and effort wooing the Northern population as they did vilifying them Ireland would be well on the way to unification by now. If the Irish want a unified Ireland they need to be nice to the Northern Irish not nasty to them. It's that fucking simple!
The IRA were far from morons, although I hold no candle for them. Many of their leaders now occupy positions of power and influence in the North which they discharge very capably and they have made steady electoral gains in the Republic through a shrewd and immaculately executed strategy.However, Their paramilitary campaign at the end of the day probably achieved nothing that wouldn't have evolved anyway. Bear in mind too that not far off 50%of the Ni population is what is loosely described as Nationalist. Not all of them would necessarily favour unification, given the parlous finances of the Republic, but very few would feel any allegiance to the Uk. No jubilee street parties round my neighbourhood. You should also bear in mind that the Unionist populationractised a ruthless form of religious apartheid when they were in power here, coupled with flagrant gerrymandering. Catholics were denied their civil rights and unfortunately this spiralled into the troubles. The Unionist majority here are irrevocably committed to remaining within the Uk, and no amount of blandishments or soft soaping would change their mind. Their whole identity is bound up in their Britishness and is an inextricable part of who they are. So the prospects of a United Ireland in the foreseeable future are zero. As in all these situations, the truth is very far from simple.
Quote from: En_Route on June 10, 2012, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 10, 2012, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 10, 2012, 01:25:30 PM
The English vs. Irish thing interests me. Between Tank and En Route, what do you think the best course is in Northern Ireland? Given that it is part of the same island, will it eventually become part of the Irish republic, or is it forever part of the UK? And what about Scotland and Wales? Are we eventually headed toward the British Empire simply becoming England? Even if it does, I still think British royals would remain popular worldwide.
Personally I think that Ireland should be united but not by force of arms. The really stupid thing is that the fucking morons that constitute the IRA went about uniting Ireland in a way absolutely and utterly guaranteed to keep it partitioned. If the IRA and the Irish government had spent as much time and effort wooing the Northern population as they did vilifying them Ireland would be well on the way to unification by now. If the Irish want a unified Ireland they need to be nice to the Northern Irish not nasty to them. It's that fucking simple!
The IRA were far from morons, although I hold no candle for them. Many of their leaders now occupy positions of power and influence in the North which they discharge very capably and they have made steady electoral gains in the Republic through a shrewd and immaculately executed strategy.However, Their paramilitary campaign at the end of the day probably achieved nothing that wouldn't have evolved anyway. Bear in mind too that not far off 50%of the Ni population is what is loosely described as Nationalist. Not all of them would necessarily favour unification, given the parlous finances of the Republic, but very few would feel any allegiance to the Uk. No jubilee street parties round my neighbourhood. You should also bear in mind that the Unionist populationractised a ruthless form of religious apartheid when they were in power here, coupled with flagrant gerrymandering. Catholics were denied their civil rights and unfortunately this spiralled into the troubles. The Unionist majority here are irrevocably committed to remaining within the Uk, and no amount of blandishments or soft soaping would change their mind. Their whole identity is bound up in their Britishness and is an inextricable part of who they are. So the prospects of a United Ireland in the foreseeable future are zero. As in all these situations, the truth is very far from simple.
It's interesting to get an insiders' perspective on this. Thanks for that :)
Quote from: En_Route on June 10, 2012, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 10, 2012, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 10, 2012, 01:25:30 PM
The English vs. Irish thing interests me. Between Tank and En Route, what do you think the best course is in Northern Ireland? Given that it is part of the same island, will it eventually become part of the Irish republic, or is it forever part of the UK? And what about Scotland and Wales? Are we eventually headed toward the British Empire simply becoming England? Even if it does, I still think British royals would remain popular worldwide.
Personally I think that Ireland should be united but not by force of arms. The really stupid thing is that the fucking morons that constitute the IRA went about uniting Ireland in a way absolutely and utterly guaranteed to keep it partitioned. If the IRA and the Irish government had spent as much time and effort wooing the Northern population as they did vilifying them Ireland would be well on the way to unification by now. If the Irish want a unified Ireland they need to be nice to the Northern Irish not nasty to them. It's that fucking simple!
The IRA were far from morons, although I hold no candle for them. Many of their leaders now occupy positions of power and influence in the North which they discharge very capably and they have made steady electoral gains in the Republic through a shrewd and immaculately executed strategy.However, Their paramilitary campaign at the end of the day probably achieved nothing that wouldn't have evolved anyway. Bear in mind too that not far off 50%of the Ni population is what is loosely described as Nationalist. Not all of them would necessarily favour unification, given the parlous finances of the Republic, but very few would feel any allegiance to the Uk. No jubilee street parties round my neighbourhood. You should also bear in mind that the Unionist populationractised a ruthless form of religious apartheid when they were in power here, coupled with flagrant gerrymandering. Catholics were denied their civil rights and unfortunately this spiralled into the troubles. The Unionist majority here are irrevocably committed to remaining within the Uk, and no amount of blandishments or soft soaping would change their mind. Their whole identity is bound up in their Britishness and is an inextricable part of who they are. So the prospects of a United Ireland in the foreseeable future are zero. As in all these situations, the truth is very far from simple.
Did they get what they wanted? No. QED they were/are morons.
They may have
appeared to be have been very astute politically aware operators but in practice they simply were not. They lost. They did not achieve their objective of a united Ireland and IMO reduced the possibility of it happening and in the process killed, maimed, disfigured and injured thousands of people. The IRA were fundamentally a terrorist organisation pure and simple and ALL terrorists are ultimately morons as any 'victory' they achieve can only be pyrrhic in nature. It's just a shame the British government didn't officially instigate a 'shoot to kill' policy because IRA scum deserved nothing better IMO. Once you start actively targeting
civilians to propagate political ends you lose the right to protection from the law as such. Killing avowed/actual terrorists comes under the heading of self defence.
Nothing in the Irish/NI problem is simple. It's similar to the issues in the Middle East. But whatever long term solutions do come about they will only come about through peaceful means. The IRA was never a peaceful organisation.
If everyone who failed to achieve their objectives was therefore automatically a moron......
The high command of the IRA were intelligent people but the troubles took on a sinister and bloody dynamic of their own. Now that many of them are in government they have demonstrated their strategic and organisational talents. Their post –ceasefire
political project has been implemented very successfully. They now jointly hold the levers of power in the North, so their "defeat" is not quite what it seems. In fact it was more of a stalemate as the UK Government failed to defeat the IRA militarily or politically and under the Good Friday agreement ceded a number of their demands.. And of course it is a truism that terrorism is killing in the name of a cause of which you don't approve. Sinn Fein enjoyed considerable popular and political support even at the height of the troubles and many here would reject roundly the idea that the IRA were terrorists. It is not difficult either to identify atrocities sponsored or condoned by agents of the State. As for "terrorists" only ever obtaining Pyrrhic victories, this is one of those sententious platitudes politicians love to expound. History shows it is not true. Indeed the original IRA succeeded in evicting the UK from the 26 counties that now make up the Republic. As for a shoot-to-kill policy, that seems rather at odds with your proposition that resolution depends on peaceful means. The IRA had far too much grassroots support to be capable of being beaten by force. State-sponsored or state-instigated violence such as Bloody Sunday would only have ever radicalised more of the Nationalist population and exacerbated the cycle of carnage. I agree that a lot of blood was spilt and agony inflicted, all for little gain and that the IRA campaign was misguided. But crude characterisation of those you regard as terrorists as being stupid and senseless and whose threat could be disposed off by a few judicious bullets is a travesty of the truth, which is, as in all human affairs ,complex and multi-layered.
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
If everyone who failed to achieve their objectives was therefore automatically a moron......
Generally yes. But it's a question of degree
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
The high command of the IRA were intelligent people but the troubles took on a sinister and bloody dynamic of their own. Now that many of them are in government they have demonstrated their strategic and organisational talents. Their post –ceasefire
political project has been implemented very successfully. They now jointly hold the levers of power in the North, so their "defeat" is not quite what it seems. In fact it was more of a stalemate as the UK Government failed to defeat the IRA militarily or politically and under the Good Friday agreement ceded a number of their demands.. And of course it is a truism that terrorism is killing in the name of a cause of which you don't approve. Sinn Fein enjoyed considerable popular and political support even at the height of the troubles and many here would reject roundly the idea that the IRA were terrorists. It is not difficult either to identify atrocities sponsored or condoned by agents of the State. As for "terrorists" only ever obtaining Pyrrhic victories, this is one of those sententious platitudes politicians love to expound. History shows it is not true. Indeed the original IRA succeeded in evicting the UK from the 26 counties that now make up the Republic. As for a shoot-to-kill policy, that seems rather at odds with your proposition that resolution depends on peaceful means. The IRA had far too much grassroots support to be capable of being beaten by force. State-sponsored or state-instigated violence such as Bloody Sunday would only have ever radicalised more of the Nationalist population and exacerbated the cycle of carnage. I agree that a lot of blood was spilt and agony inflicted, all for little gain and that the IRA campaign was misguided. But crude characterisation of those you regard as terrorists as being stupid and senseless and whose threat could be disposed off by a few judicious bullets is a travesty of the truth, which is, as in all human affairs ,complex and multi-layered.
Terrorism = stupidity
If you have a problem with this concept consider Nelson Mandela and Gandhi they were intelligent men who achieved their victories without proposing or sanctioning terrorist acts.
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2012, 06:07:03 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
If everyone who failed to achieve their objectives was therefore automatically a moron......
Generally yes. But it's a question of degree
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
The high command of the IRA were intelligent people but the troubles took on a sinister and bloody dynamic of their own. Now that many of them are in government they have demonstrated their strategic and organisational talents. Their post –ceasefire
political project has been implemented very successfully. They now jointly hold the levers of power in the North, so their "defeat" is not quite what it seems. In fact it was more of a stalemate as the UK Government failed to defeat the IRA militarily or politically and under the Good Friday agreement ceded a number of their demands.. And of course it is a truism that terrorism is killing in the name of a cause of which you don't approve. Sinn Fein enjoyed considerable popular and political support even at the height of the troubles and many here would reject roundly the idea that the IRA were terrorists. It is not difficult either to identify atrocities sponsored or condoned by agents of the State. As for "terrorists" only ever obtaining Pyrrhic victories, this is one of those sententious platitudes politicians love to expound. History shows it is not true. Indeed the original IRA succeeded in evicting the UK from the 26 counties that now make up the Republic. As for a shoot-to-kill policy, that seems rather at odds with your proposition that resolution depends on peaceful means. The IRA had far too much grassroots support to be capable of being beaten by force. State-sponsored or state-instigated violence such as Bloody Sunday would only have ever radicalised more of the Nationalist population and exacerbated the cycle of carnage. I agree that a lot of blood was spilt and agony inflicted, all for little gain and that the IRA campaign was misguided. But crude characterisation of those you regard as terrorists as being stupid and senseless and whose threat could be disposed off by a few judicious bullets is a travesty of the truth, which is, as in all human affairs ,complex and multi-layered.
Terrorism = stupidity
If you have a problem with this concept consider Nelson Mandela and Gandhi they were intelligent men who achieved their victories without proposing or sanctioning terrorist acts.
You haven't addressed any of the specific points which I raised and which illustrate that it is simply not true that terrorism (or what you decide merits that label) never achieves any results for its perpetrators. Instead you simply repeat your mantra "Terrorism=Stupidity" as if your unquestioning faith in the belief of your statement is sufficient, and that the mere assertion by you makes it true without any recourse to evidence or reasoned debate. Sound eerily familiar?
You do put forward the obviously fallacious syllogism that because Mandela and Gandhi were intelligent and advocated non-violence. therefore anyone who advocates violence must not be intelligent.As it happens, even your premises are incorrect. Mandela did sanction acts of sabotage and while preferring the non-violent route where it was feasible, was not opposed to the idea of armed struggle if this was the only available option to achieve one's aims.
This is all really interesting.
One thing that I am not sure of when it comes to the IRA/Northern Ireland. I understand that historically, the British sent Protestants to Ireland to take it from the Catholics. I think my own family on my mom's side was involved in this, as they come from Scotland by way of Ireland and are Protestant. Interestingly enough my mom is all about "Irish Pride" and totally would not accept that I suspect her family was on the wrong side of history if I tried to explain it to her. :D Anyway, so Protestant Scots "settle" (if you want to call it that) Ireland, but then get kicked out of everywhere except NI. Protestants turn Catholics into second class citizens. The IRA fights to throw the British (sort of, the Scottish? Don't Scots kind of kind hate England too?) out of NI. Have I got all that right?
Here's the part I don't understand. Whoever their ancestors were, aren't all Northern Ireland citizens now Irish? Just like, yeah, my mom is all "Irish Pride" but if Ireland and the US went to war, she would support the US first. Probably. So now that their families have lived in NI for however many generations, aren't you guys all Irish? That's what I don't get about the fighting - like are Catholics still oppressed, and if not, does that mean you're fighting over something that can't be changed (who your ancestors were?)
Sorry, I know I sound like a dumb American. That's because I am.
Quote from: Ali on June 11, 2012, 09:35:46 PM
This is all really interesting.
One thing that I am not sure of when it comes to the IRA/Northern Ireland. I understand that historically, the British sent Protestants to Ireland to take it from the Catholics. I think my own family on my mom's side was involved in this, as they come from Scotland by way of Ireland and are Protestant. Interestingly enough my mom is all about "Irish Pride" and totally would not accept that I suspect her family was on the wrong side of history if I tried to explain it to her. :D Anyway, so Protestant Scots "settle" (if you want to call it that) Ireland, but then get kicked out of everywhere except NI. Protestants turn Catholics into second class citizens. The IRA fights to throw the British (sort of, the Scottish? Don't Scots kind of kind hate England too?) out of NI. Have I got all that right?
Here's the part I don't understand. Whoever their ancestors were, aren't all Northern Ireland citizens now Irish? Just like, yeah, my mom is all "Irish Pride" but if Ireland and the US went to war, she would support the US first. Probably. So now that their families have lived in NI for however many generations, aren't you guys all Irish? That's what I don't get about the fighting - like are Catholics still oppressed, and if not, does that mean you're fighting over something that can't be changed (who your ancestors were?)
Sorry, I know I sound like a dumb American. That's because I am.
Northern Ireland (NI) is part of the UK.Typically, the descendants of the Scottish Protestant settlers will hold British passports and will have a very strong allegiance to Crown and country (GB). The descendants of the native Catholic Irish will typically hold Irish passports and identify with the Republic. So eg gifted NI protestant footballers will play for NI while gifted Catholic footballers will usually play for the Republic. The two communities don't mix. My children have no friends or even acquaintances from the Unionist Community.
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2012, 06:07:03 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
If everyone who failed to achieve their objectives was therefore automatically a moron......
Generally yes. But it's a question of degree
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
The high command of the IRA were intelligent people but the troubles took on a sinister and bloody dynamic of their own. Now that many of them are in government they have demonstrated their strategic and organisational talents. Their post –ceasefire
political project has been implemented very successfully. They now jointly hold the levers of power in the North, so their "defeat" is not quite what it seems. In fact it was more of a stalemate as the UK Government failed to defeat the IRA militarily or politically and under the Good Friday agreement ceded a number of their demands.. And of course it is a truism that terrorism is killing in the name of a cause of which you don't approve. Sinn Fein enjoyed considerable popular and political support even at the height of the troubles and many here would reject roundly the idea that the IRA were terrorists. It is not difficult either to identify atrocities sponsored or condoned by agents of the State. As for "terrorists" only ever obtaining Pyrrhic victories, this is one of those sententious platitudes politicians love to expound. History shows it is not true. Indeed the original IRA succeeded in evicting the UK from the 26 counties that now make up the Republic. As for a shoot-to-kill policy, that seems rather at odds with your proposition that resolution depends on peaceful means. The IRA had far too much grassroots support to be capable of being beaten by force. State-sponsored or state-instigated violence such as Bloody Sunday would only have ever radicalised more of the Nationalist population and exacerbated the cycle of carnage. I agree that a lot of blood was spilt and agony inflicted, all for little gain and that the IRA campaign was misguided. But crude characterisation of those you regard as terrorists as being stupid and senseless and whose threat could be disposed off by a few judicious bullets is a travesty of the truth, which is, as in all human affairs ,complex and multi-layered.
Terrorism = stupidity
If you have a problem with this concept consider Nelson Mandela and Gandhi they were intelligent men who achieved their victories without proposing or sanctioning terrorist acts.
You haven't addressed any of the specific points which I raised and which illustrate that it is simply not true that terrorism (or what you decide merits that label) never achieves any results for its perpetrators. Instead you simply repeat your mantra "Terrorism=Stupidity" as if your unquestioning faith in the belief of your statement is sufficient, and that the mere assertion by you makes it true without any recourse to evidence or reasoned debate. Sound eerily familiar?
You do put forward the obviously fallacious syllogism that because Mandela and Gandhi were intelligent and advocated non-violence. therefore anyone who advocates violence must not be intelligent.As it happens, even your premises are incorrect. Mandela did sanction acts of sabotage and while preferring the non-violent route where it was feasible, was not opposed to the idea of armed struggle if this was the only available option to achieve one's aims.
En_route you seem to be under some strange misapprehension that I give a shit about your opinion. I don't. If you don't like that I'm sorry.
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2012, 10:01:50 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2012, 06:07:03 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
If everyone who failed to achieve their objectives was therefore automatically a moron......
Generally yes. But it's a question of degree
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
The high command of the IRA were intelligent people but the troubles took on a sinister and bloody dynamic of their own. Now that many of them are in government they have demonstrated their strategic and organisational talents. Their post –ceasefire
political project has been implemented very successfully. They now jointly hold the levers of power in the North, so their "defeat" is not quite what it seems. In fact it was more of a stalemate as the UK Government failed to defeat the IRA militarily or politically and under the Good Friday agreement ceded a number of their demands.. And of course it is a truism that terrorism is killing in the name of a cause of which you don't approve. Sinn Fein enjoyed considerable popular and political support even at the height of the troubles and many here would reject roundly the idea that the IRA were terrorists. It is not difficult either to identify atrocities sponsored or condoned by agents of the State. As for "terrorists" only ever obtaining Pyrrhic victories, this is one of those sententious platitudes politicians love to expound. History shows it is not true. Indeed the original IRA succeeded in evicting the UK from the 26 counties that now make up the Republic. As for a shoot-to-kill policy, that seems rather at odds with your proposition that resolution depends on peaceful means. The IRA had far too much grassroots support to be capable of being beaten by force. State-sponsored or state-instigated violence such as Bloody Sunday would only have ever radicalised more of the Nationalist population and exacerbated the cycle of carnage. I agree that a lot of blood was spilt and agony inflicted, all for little gain and that the IRA campaign was misguided. But crude characterisation of those you regard as terrorists as being stupid and senseless and whose threat could be disposed off by a few judicious bullets is a travesty of the truth, which is, as in all human affairs ,complex and multi-layered.
Terrorism = stupidity
If you have a problem with this concept consider Nelson Mandela and Gandhi they were intelligent men who achieved their victories without proposing or sanctioning terrorist acts.
You haven't addressed any of the specific points which I raised and which illustrate that it is simply not true that terrorism (or what you decide merits that label) never achieves any results for its perpetrators. Instead you simply repeat your mantra "Terrorism=Stupidity" as if your unquestioning faith in the belief of your statement is sufficient, and that the mere assertion by you makes it true without any recourse to evidence or reasoned debate. Sound eerily familiar?
You do put forward the obviously fallacious syllogism that because Mandela and Gandhi were intelligent and advocated non-violence. therefore anyone who advocates violence must not be intelligent.As it happens, even your premises are incorrect. Mandela did sanction acts of sabotage and while preferring the non-violent route where it was feasible, was not opposed to the idea of armed struggle if this was the only available option to achieve one's aims.
En_route you seem to be under some strange misapprehension that I give a shit about your opinion. I don't. If you don't like that I'm sorry.
An odd reaction from a moderator of what is supposed to be a discussion forum, where it might be expected people would be encouraged to voice their opinions, rather than being sworn at for doing so?
Harsh Tank! I think it's fair to admit that ER probably has a more nuanced view of the history his own country!
So are Unionists the Protestants? Like you wouldn't be my friend if my family hadn't moved to the US and gotten all muddled up with other cultures? :)
Quote from: Ali on June 11, 2012, 10:17:34 PM
Harsh Tank! I think it's fair to admit that ER probably has a more nuanced view of the history his own country!
So are Unionists the Protestants? Like you wouldn't be my friend if my family hadn't moved to the US and gotten all muddled up with other cultures? :)
As you might imagine, I don't buy into any of that stuff.My two best friends here are from a unionist background.
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 10:17:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2012, 10:01:50 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2012, 06:07:03 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
If everyone who failed to achieve their objectives was therefore automatically a moron......
Generally yes. But it's a question of degree
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
The high command of the IRA were intelligent people but the troubles took on a sinister and bloody dynamic of their own. Now that many of them are in government they have demonstrated their strategic and organisational talents. Their post –ceasefire
political project has been implemented very successfully. They now jointly hold the levers of power in the North, so their "defeat" is not quite what it seems. In fact it was more of a stalemate as the UK Government failed to defeat the IRA militarily or politically and under the Good Friday agreement ceded a number of their demands.. And of course it is a truism that terrorism is killing in the name of a cause of which you don't approve. Sinn Fein enjoyed considerable popular and political support even at the height of the troubles and many here would reject roundly the idea that the IRA were terrorists. It is not difficult either to identify atrocities sponsored or condoned by agents of the State. As for "terrorists" only ever obtaining Pyrrhic victories, this is one of those sententious platitudes politicians love to expound. History shows it is not true. Indeed the original IRA succeeded in evicting the UK from the 26 counties that now make up the Republic. As for a shoot-to-kill policy, that seems rather at odds with your proposition that resolution depends on peaceful means. The IRA had far too much grassroots support to be capable of being beaten by force. State-sponsored or state-instigated violence such as Bloody Sunday would only have ever radicalised more of the Nationalist population and exacerbated the cycle of carnage. I agree that a lot of blood was spilt and agony inflicted, all for little gain and that the IRA campaign was misguided. But crude characterisation of those you regard as terrorists as being stupid and senseless and whose threat could be disposed off by a few judicious bullets is a travesty of the truth, which is, as in all human affairs ,complex and multi-layered.
Terrorism = stupidity
If you have a problem with this concept consider Nelson Mandela and Gandhi they were intelligent men who achieved their victories without proposing or sanctioning terrorist acts.
You haven't addressed any of the specific points which I raised and which illustrate that it is simply not true that terrorism (or what you decide merits that label) never achieves any results for its perpetrators. Instead you simply repeat your mantra "Terrorism=Stupidity" as if your unquestioning faith in the belief of your statement is sufficient, and that the mere assertion by you makes it true without any recourse to evidence or reasoned debate. Sound eerily familiar?
You do put forward the obviously fallacious syllogism that because Mandela and Gandhi were intelligent and advocated non-violence. therefore anyone who advocates violence must not be intelligent.As it happens, even your premises are incorrect. Mandela did sanction acts of sabotage and while preferring the non-violent route where it was feasible, was not opposed to the idea of armed struggle if this was the only available option to achieve one's aims.
En_route you seem to be under some strange misapprehension that I give a shit about your opinion. I don't. If you don't like that I'm sorry.
An odd reaction from a moderator of what is supposed to be a discussion forum, where it might be expected people would be encouraged to voice their opinions, rather than being sworn at for doing so?
I have no interest in discussing this issue with you any more. Is that plain enough for you?
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2012, 10:26:15 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 10:17:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2012, 10:01:50 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 11, 2012, 06:07:03 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
If everyone who failed to achieve their objectives was therefore automatically a moron......
Generally yes. But it's a question of degree
Quote from: En_Route on June 11, 2012, 05:54:53 PM
The high command of the IRA were intelligent people but the troubles took on a sinister and bloody dynamic of their own. Now that many of them are in government they have demonstrated their strategic and organisational talents. Their post –ceasefire
political project has been implemented very successfully. They now jointly hold the levers of power in the North, so their "defeat" is not quite what it seems. In fact it was more of a stalemate as the UK Government failed to defeat the IRA militarily or politically and under the Good Friday agreement ceded a number of their demands.. And of course it is a truism that terrorism is killing in the name of a cause of which you don't approve. Sinn Fein enjoyed considerable popular and political support even at the height of the troubles and many here would reject roundly the idea that the IRA were terrorists. It is not difficult either to identify atrocities sponsored or condoned by agents of the State. As for "terrorists" only ever obtaining Pyrrhic victories, this is one of those sententious platitudes politicians love to expound. History shows it is not true. Indeed the original IRA succeeded in evicting the UK from the 26 counties that now make up the Republic. As for a shoot-to-kill policy, that seems rather at odds with your proposition that resolution depends on peaceful means. The IRA had far too much grassroots support to be capable of being beaten by force. State-sponsored or state-instigated violence such as Bloody Sunday would only have ever radicalised more of the Nationalist population and exacerbated the cycle of carnage. I agree that a lot of blood was spilt and agony inflicted, all for little gain and that the IRA campaign was misguided. But crude characterisation of those you regard as terrorists as being stupid and senseless and whose threat could be disposed off by a few judicious bullets is a travesty of the truth, which is, as in all human affairs ,complex and multi-layered.
Terrorism = stupidity
If you have a problem with this concept consider Nelson Mandela and Gandhi they were intelligent men who achieved their victories without proposing or sanctioning terrorist acts.
You haven't addressed any of the specific points which I raised and which illustrate that it is simply not true that terrorism (or what you decide merits that label) never achieves any results for its perpetrators. Instead you simply repeat your mantra "Terrorism=Stupidity" as if your unquestioning faith in the belief of your statement is sufficient, and that the mere assertion by you makes it true without any recourse to evidence or reasoned debate. Sound eerily familiar?
You do put forward the obviously fallacious syllogism that because Mandela and Gandhi were intelligent and advocated non-violence. therefore anyone who advocates violence must not be intelligent.As it happens, even your premises are incorrect. Mandela did sanction acts of sabotage and while preferring the non-violent route where it was feasible, was not opposed to the idea of armed struggle if this was the only available option to achieve one's aims.
En_route you seem to be under some strange misapprehension that I give a shit about your opinion. I don't. If you don't like that I'm sorry.
An odd reaction from a moderator of what is supposed to be a discussion forum, where it might be expected people would be encouraged to voice their opinions, rather than being sworn at for doing so?
I have no interest in discussing this issue with you any more. Is that plain enough for you?
It's certainly plain enough that your pettiness comfortably exceeds your capacity to debate. I think you've made rather a sorry exhibition of yourself, having plainly lost the argument, by resorting to verbal aggression. Ironic when these are the very kind of tactics you would denounce when employed by theists.
I have to agree with En_Route that was a bit unnecessary Tank. I'm not getting drawn into the English-Irish bullshit though.
I think this discussion needs to end now. It's already become far too personal and aggressive.
Quote from: Firebird on June 12, 2012, 12:40:12 AM
I think this discussion needs to end now. It's already become far too personal and aggressive.
Well it didn't turn out to be much of a discussion, but I would say that it has ended .
I don't see either party as having "won" or "lost" in the exchange of views here. Those views are clearly passionately held on both sides and neither party is blameless for how the discussion developed. I do agree with Firebird in that the chances are very slim that any good would come from continuing on this topic.
Quote from: Recusant on June 12, 2012, 06:10:25 AM
I don't see either party as having "won" or "lost" in the exchange of views here. Those views are clearly passionately held on both sides and neither party is blameless for how the discussion developed. I do agree with Firebird in that the chances are very slim that any good would come from continuing on this topic.
Well, if "I don't give a shit about your opinion" counts as a measured, rational rebuttal of a detailed argument, it would seem to follow that it is equally impossible to counter the claims of theism by any process of logic or reasoning. Theists hold their views passionately too, usually with the same purblind fervour and refusal to engage in any logical exchange and with the same blithe disregard for the facts that Tank used to express his declarations.The original argument is of course dead. The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the blind prejudices and lack of intellectual rigour of theists while exhibiting exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 12:31:08 PM
The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the blind prejudices and lack of intellectual rigour of theists while exhibiting exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.
Very true, I think all of us are guilty of this in someway; for some people its there children, for others its political views or religion, it may even be fanboy mentality over a brand of instant coffee.
In regards to the commotion I'm not interested in the argument over who did what as both sides are as bad as each other in my opinion, or if the leaders of the IRA are morons or not. What did interest me was the difference in opinion on whether the IRA were terrorists or not. Personally I think yes but like everything its not that simple, the primary reason I say they were terrorists is how they got funding, how they dealt with members with outspoken differing opinions, and how they inflicted terror into those that opposed them or were neutral. On the other hand they had every right to rebel and fight for independence but using the method of terror on the public not just the enemy soldiers is why I say they were terrorists. I was in Manchester city center with my parents the day the bomb went off, and I tell you what I was terrified and that was nothing when you think of what happened in Ireland.
Quote from: Crow on June 12, 2012, 01:17:29 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 12:31:08 PM
The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the blind prejudices and lack of intellectual rigour of theists while exhibiting exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.
Very true, I think all of us are guilty of this in someway; for some people its there children, for others its political views or religion, it may even be fanboy mentality over a brand of instant coffee.
In regards to the commotion I'm not interested in the argument over who did what as both sides are as bad as each other in my opinion, or if the leaders of the IRA are morons or not. What did interest me was the difference in opinion on whether the IRA were terrorists or not. Personally I think yes but like everything its not that simple, the primary reason I say they were terrorists is how they got funding, how they dealt with members with outspoken differing opinions, and how they inflicted terror into those that opposed them or were neutral. On the other hand they had every right to rebel and fight for independence but using the method of terror on the public not just the enemy soldiers is why I say they were terrorists. I was in Manchester city center with my parents the day the bomb went off, and I tell you what I was terrified and that was nothing when you think of what happened in Ireland.
Personally, I have no sympathy for their either their ends (Irish unity) or the means employed (not least their resort to indiscriminate killing). Of course this was a dirty war, and it has now been disclosed that several senior members of the IRA hierarchy were in fact double-agents working for British Intelligence,so things are never totally black-and-white.
Quote from: Crow on June 12, 2012, 01:17:29 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 12:31:08 PM
The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the blind prejudices and lack of intellectual rigour of theists while exhibiting exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.
Very true, I think all of us are guilty of this in someway; for some people its there children, for others its political views or religion, it may even be fanboy mentality over a brand of instant coffee.
In regards to the commotion I'm not interested in the argument over who did what as both sides are as bad as each other in my opinion, or if the leaders of the IRA are morons or not. What did interest me was the difference in opinion on whether the IRA were terrorists or not. Personally I think yes but like everything its not that simple, the primary reason I say they were terrorists is how they got funding, how they dealt with members with outspoken differing opinions, and how they inflicted terror into those that opposed them or were neutral. On the other hand they had every right to rebel and fight for independence but using the method of terror on the public not just the enemy soldiers is why I say they were terrorists. I was in Manchester city center with my parents the day the bomb went off, and I tell you what I was terrified and that was nothing when you think of what happened in Ireland.
I found that interesting too (how we define terrorism.) I was thinking that probably the colonists that wanted to remain part of Great Britain during the American Revolution probably thought that the Revolutionaries were terrorists (assuming they had a concept for terrorism back then). But they won, so at least in the US, they are considered heroes. Which also makes me wonder: when they teach about the American Revolutionary War in GB (I assume they do, since it's part of your history too) how are the Revolutionaries portrayed?
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 12:31:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 12, 2012, 06:10:25 AM
I don't see either party as having "won" or "lost" in the exchange of views here. Those views are clearly passionately held on both sides and neither party is blameless for how the discussion developed. I do agree with Firebird in that the chances are very slim that any good would come from continuing on this topic.
Well, if "I don't give a shit about your opinion" counts as a measured, rational rebuttal of a detailed argument, it would seem to follow that it is equally impossible to counter the claims of theism by any process of logic or reasoning. Theists hold their views passionately too, usually with the same purblind fervour and refusal to engage in any logical exchange and with the same blithe disregard for the facts that Tank used to express his declarations.The original argument is of course dead. The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the blind prejudices and lack of intellectual rigour of theists while exhibiting exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.
As has been said now a couple of times, this needs to end. You do not need to keep trying to get the last word in. Understood?
The topic needs to get back on track.
Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2012, 02:30:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 12:31:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 12, 2012, 06:10:25 AM
I don't see either party as having "won" or "lost" in the exchange of views here. Those views are clearly passionately held on both sides and neither party is blameless for how the discussion developed. I do agree with Firebird in that the chances are very slim that any good would come from continuing on this topic.
Well, if "I don't give a shit about your opinion" counts as a measured, rational rebuttal of a detailed argument, it would seem to follow that it is equally impossible to counter the claims of theism by any process of logic or reasoning. Theists hold their views passionately too, usually with the same purblind fervour and refusal to engage in any logical exchange and with the same blithe disregard for the facts that Tank used to express his declarations.The original argument is of course dead. The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the blind prejudices and lack of intellectual rigour of theists while exhibiting exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.
As has been said now a couple of times, this needs to end. You do not need to keep trying to get the last word in. Understood?
The topic needs to get back on track.
I'll decide what I need to do. You in turn can decide how you choose to respond to that.None of it of course matters in the least. Meanwhile, I stick to my position that in a forum supposedly devoted to the free expression of ideas and which prides itself on its enlightenment and rationality,it is bizarre that the chief moderator's idea of open debate is to tell you to piss off.
Can we stop this pissing contest so that I can get an answer to my question. *Gives you all my best wide eyed Mom-Stare*
Seriously curious - how is the American Revolutionary war portrayed in the UK. I'm picturing something along the lines of
QuoteChapter 1: Leading Up To The War
For the record, we were totally going to break up with that buncha cunts first. But France told them that we were kind of seeing Australia (although "seeing" is kind of a euphamism for "throwing it in them", amiright?) so they were all "Blah blah blah taxes blah blah blah something about the Creator yada yada yada we want to mispell color and humor yakity yakity Sincerely, John Hancock." Haha, "Hancock." That's what she said.
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2012, 02:30:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 12:31:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 12, 2012, 06:10:25 AM
I don't see either party as having "won" or "lost" in the exchange of views here. Those views are clearly passionately held on both sides and neither party is blameless for how the discussion developed. I do agree with Firebird in that the chances are very slim that any good would come from continuing on this topic.
Well, if "I don't give a shit about your opinion" counts as a measured, rational rebuttal of a detailed argument, it would seem to follow that it is equally impossible to counter the claims of theism by any process of logic or reasoning. Theists hold their views passionately too, usually with the same purblind fervour and refusal to engage in any logical exchange and with the same blithe disregard for the facts that Tank used to express his declarations.The original argument is of course dead. The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the blind prejudices and lack of intellectual rigour of theists while exhibiting exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.
As has been said now a couple of times, this needs to end. You do not need to keep trying to get the last word in. Understood?
The topic needs to get back on track.
I'll decide what I need to do. You in turn can decide how you choose to respond to that.None of it of course matters in the least. Meanwhile, I stick to my position that in a forum supposedly devoted to the free expression of ideas and which prides itself on its enlightenment and rationality,it is bizarre that the chief moderator's idea of open debate is to tell you to piss off.
And I was responding as an unbiased moderator to your seeming need to continue the pissing contest without provocation. We have rules of civility, which, while they may have been stepped on by more than one person here, only continue to be stepped over by you right now. First warning for failing to comply with the directives of a moderator.
Quote from: Ali on June 12, 2012, 04:09:58 PM
Can we stop this pissing contest so that I can get an answer to my question. *Gives you all my best wide eyed Mom-Stare*
Seriously curious - how is the American Revolutionary war portrayed in the UK. I'm picturing something along the lines of
QuoteChapter 1: Leading Up To The War
For the record, we were totally going to break up with that buncha cunts first. But France told them that we were kind of seeing Australia (although "seeing" is kind of a euphamism for "throwing it in them", amiright?) so they were all "Blah blah blah taxes blah blah blah something about the Creator yada yada yada we want to mispell color and humor yakity yakity Sincerely, John Hancock." Haha, "Hancock." That's what she said.
Its not really covered, well I didn't do history past what I had to as it was ridiculously boring, everything I know about it really came from when I became interested, what was covered in greater depth whilst I was at school was the Atlantic slave trade. Otherwise its along the lines of Britain had an empire, we had colonies in the Americas, got into a brawl with France that lasted a good while thanks to George Washington, after the war was won the land it was over was given back to the natives, the colonies didn't like that, the colonies wanted representation in parliament and the Tories (or was it the Whigs, I cant remember) said "nah blud", because the war cost loadsa money the government introduced a tax which really pissed everyone off, some shit happened, there was lots of different wars, lost to what would then become the USA but beat all the rest. People are generally not fused about it.
Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2012, 06:04:14 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2012, 02:30:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 12:31:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 12, 2012, 06:10:25 AM
I don't see either party as having "won" or "lost" in the exchange of views here. Those views are clearly passionately held on both sides and neither party is blameless for how the discussion developed. I do agree with Firebird in that the chances are very slim that any good would come from continuing on this topic.
Well, if "I don't give a shit about your opinion" counts as a measured, rational rebuttal of a detailed argument, it would seem to follow that it is equally impossible to counter the claims of theism by any process of logic or reasoning. Theists hold their views passionately too, usually with the same purblind fervour and refusal to engage in any logical exchange and with the same blithe disregard for the facts that Tank used to express his declarations.The original argument is of course dead. The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the blind prejudices and lack of intellectual rigour of theists while exhibiting exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.
As has been said now a couple of times, this needs to end. You do not need to keep trying to get the last word in. Understood?
The topic needs to get back on track.
I'll decide what I need to do. You in turn can decide how you choose to respond to that.None of it of course matters in the least. Meanwhile, I stick to my position that in a forum supposedly devoted to the free expression of ideas and which prides itself on its enlightenment and rationality,it is bizarre that the chief moderator's idea of open debate is to tell you to piss off.
And I was responding as an unbiased moderator to your seeming need to continue the pissing contest without provocation. We have rules of civility, which, while they may have been stepped on by more than one person here, only continue to be stepped over by you right now. First warning for failing to comply with the directives of a moderator.
I can't see what was uncivil, as opposed to say trenchant, about my last posting, but anyway, I've made my point and am content to leave it there. You may therefore decommission your fearful armament of sanctions for the time being.
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 06:12:33 PM
Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2012, 06:04:14 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2012, 02:30:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 12:31:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 12, 2012, 06:10:25 AM
I don't see either party as having "won" or "lost" in the exchange of views here. Those views are clearly passionately held on both sides and neither party is blameless for how the discussion developed. I do agree with Firebird in that the chances are very slim that any good would come from continuing on this topic.
Well, if "I don't give a shit about your opinion" counts as a measured, rational rebuttal of a detailed argument, it would seem to follow that it is equally impossible to counter the claims of theism by any process of logic or reasoning. Theists hold their views passionately too, usually with the same purblind fervour and refusal to engage in any logical exchange and with the same blithe disregard for the facts that Tank used to express his declarations.The original argument is of course dead. The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the blind prejudices and lack of intellectual rigour of theists while exhibiting exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.
As has been said now a couple of times, this needs to end. You do not need to keep trying to get the last word in. Understood?
The topic needs to get back on track.
I'll decide what I need to do. You in turn can decide how you choose to respond to that.None of it of course matters in the least. Meanwhile, I stick to my position that in a forum supposedly devoted to the free expression of ideas and which prides itself on its enlightenment and rationality,it is bizarre that the chief moderator's idea of open debate is to tell you to piss off.
And I was responding as an unbiased moderator to your seeming need to continue the pissing contest without provocation. We have rules of civility, which, while they may have been stepped on by more than one person here, only continue to be stepped over by you right now. First warning for failing to comply with the directives of a moderator.
I can't see what was uncivil, as opposed to say trenchant, about my last posting, but anyway, I've made my point and am content to leave it there. You may therefore decommission your fearful armament of sanctions for the time being.
The warning stands, as you seem to want to continue to have the final word, even with me. You may drop the sarcasm and the attitude and move on to something else.
Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2012, 06:21:20 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 06:12:33 PM
Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2012, 06:04:14 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2012, 02:30:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 12:31:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 12, 2012, 06:10:25 AM
I don't see either party as having "won" or "lost" in the exchange of views here. Those views are clearly passionately held on both sides and neither party is blameless for how the discussion developed. I do agree with Firebird in that the chances are very slim that any good would come from continuing on this topic.
Well, if "I don't give a shit about your opinion" counts as a measured, rational rebuttal of a detailed argument, it would seem to follow that it is equally impossible to counter the claims of theism by any process of logic or reasoning. Theists hold their views passionately too, usually with the same purblind fervour and refusal to engage in any logical exchange and with the same blithe disregard for the facts that Tank used to express his declarations.The original argument is of course dead. The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the blind prejudices and lack of intellectual rigour of theists while exhibiting exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.
As has been said now a couple of times, this needs to end. You do not need to keep trying to get the last word in. Understood?
The topic needs to get back on track.
I'll decide what I need to do. You in turn can decide how you choose to respond to that.None of it of course matters in the least. Meanwhile, I stick to my position that in a forum supposedly devoted to the free expression of ideas and which prides itself on its enlightenment and rationality,it is bizarre that the chief moderator's idea of open debate is to tell you to piss off.
And I was responding as an unbiased moderator to your seeming need to continue the pissing contest without provocation. We have rules of civility, which, while they may have been stepped on by more than one person here, only continue to be stepped over by you right now. First warning for failing to comply with the directives of a moderator.
I can't see what was uncivil, as opposed to say trenchant, about my last posting, but anyway, I've made my point and am content to leave it there. You may therefore decommission your fearful armament of sanctions for the time being.
The warning stands, as you seem to want to continue to have the final word, even with me. You may drop the sarcasm and the attitude and move on to something else.
"Even with me". You need to get over yourself.
Now exercise the power that obviously gives you such a thrill, and lends you that sense of importance which it is safe to assume is lacking elsewhere in your life, and exclude me from your charmed circle.
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 06:30:30 PM
Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2012, 06:21:20 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 06:12:33 PM
Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2012, 06:04:14 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2012, 02:30:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 12:31:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 12, 2012, 06:10:25 AM
I don't see either party as having "won" or "lost" in the exchange of views here. Those views are clearly passionately held on both sides and neither party is blameless for how the discussion developed. I do agree with Firebird in that the chances are very slim that any good would come from continuing on this topic.
Well, if "I don't give a shit about your opinion" counts as a measured, rational rebuttal of a detailed argument, it would seem to follow that it is equally impossible to counter the claims of theism by any process of logic or reasoning. Theists hold their views passionately too, usually with the same purblind fervour and refusal to engage in any logical exchange and with the same blithe disregard for the facts that Tank used to express his declarations.The original argument is of course dead. The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the blind prejudices and lack of intellectual rigour of theists while exhibiting exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.
As has been said now a couple of times, this needs to end. You do not need to keep trying to get the last word in. Understood?
The topic needs to get back on track.
I'll decide what I need to do. You in turn can decide how you choose to respond to that.None of it of course matters in the least. Meanwhile, I stick to my position that in a forum supposedly devoted to the free expression of ideas and which prides itself on its enlightenment and rationality,it is bizarre that the chief moderator's idea of open debate is to tell you to piss off.
And I was responding as an unbiased moderator to your seeming need to continue the pissing contest without provocation. We have rules of civility, which, while they may have been stepped on by more than one person here, only continue to be stepped over by you right now. First warning for failing to comply with the directives of a moderator.
I can't see what was uncivil, as opposed to say trenchant, about my last posting, but anyway, I've made my point and am content to leave it there. You may therefore decommission your fearful armament of sanctions for the time being.
The warning stands, as you seem to want to continue to have the final word, even with me. You may drop the sarcasm and the attitude and move on to something else.
"Even with me". You need to get over yourself.
Now exercise the power that obviously gives you such a thrill, and lends you that sense of importance which it is safe to assume is lacking elsewhere in your life, and exclude me from your charmed circle.
You're now attributing something to me as a personal attack. It also happens to be completely untrue. "Even with me" refers to "me" being an unbiased third party in this thread, which you have now completely torched. You completely misunderstood the meaning, choosing to act with pettiness, rather than with reasoned and measured response. That's strike two.
Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2012, 06:35:32 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 06:30:30 PM
Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2012, 06:21:20 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 06:12:33 PM
Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2012, 06:04:14 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 03:09:20 PM
Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2012, 02:30:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 12:31:08 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 12, 2012, 06:10:25 AM
I don't see either party as having "won" or "lost" in the exchange of views here. Those views are clearly passionately held on both sides and neither party is blameless for how the discussion developed. I do agree with Firebird in that the chances are very slim that any good would come from continuing on this topic.
Well, if "I don't give a shit about your opinion" counts as a measured, rational rebuttal of a detailed argument, it would seem to follow that it is equally impossible to counter the claims of theism by any process of logic or reasoning. Theists hold their views passionately too, usually with the same purblind fervour and refusal to engage in any logical exchange and with the same blithe disregard for the facts that Tank used to express his declarations.The original argument is of course dead. The interesting point is how this little kerfuffle illustrates the unconscious doublethink of many atheists in condemning the blind prejudices and lack of intellectual rigour of theists while exhibiting exactly those characteristics when defending their own favoured positions.
As has been said now a couple of times, this needs to end. You do not need to keep trying to get the last word in. Understood?
The topic needs to get back on track.
I'll decide what I need to do. You in turn can decide how you choose to respond to that.None of it of course matters in the least. Meanwhile, I stick to my position that in a forum supposedly devoted to the free expression of ideas and which prides itself on its enlightenment and rationality,it is bizarre that the chief moderator's idea of open debate is to tell you to piss off.
And I was responding as an unbiased moderator to your seeming need to continue the pissing contest without provocation. We have rules of civility, which, while they may have been stepped on by more than one person here, only continue to be stepped over by you right now. First warning for failing to comply with the directives of a moderator.
I can't see what was uncivil, as opposed to say trenchant, about my last posting, but anyway, I've made my point and am content to leave it there. You may therefore decommission your fearful armament of sanctions for the time being.
The warning stands, as you seem to want to continue to have the final word, even with me. You may drop the sarcasm and the attitude and move on to something else.
"Even with me". You need to get over yourself.
Now exercise the power that obviously gives you such a thrill, and lends you that sense of importance which it is safe to assume is lacking elsewhere in your life, and exclude me from your charmed circle.
You're now attributing something to me as a personal attack. It also happens to be completely untrue. "Even with me" refers to "me" being an unbiased third party in this thread, which you have now completely torched. You completely misunderstood the meaning, choosing to act with pettiness, rather than with reasoned and measured response. That's strike two.
Just ban me will you.Please.
Quote from: Crow on June 12, 2012, 06:10:17 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 12, 2012, 04:09:58 PM
Can we stop this pissing contest so that I can get an answer to my question. *Gives you all my best wide eyed Mom-Stare*
Seriously curious - how is the American Revolutionary war portrayed in the UK. I'm picturing something along the lines of
QuoteChapter 1: Leading Up To The War
For the record, we were totally going to break up with that buncha cunts first. But France told them that we were kind of seeing Australia (although "seeing" is kind of a euphamism for "throwing it in them", amiright?) so they were all "Blah blah blah taxes blah blah blah something about the Creator yada yada yada we want to mispell color and humor yakity yakity Sincerely, John Hancock." Haha, "Hancock." That's what she said.
Its not really covered, well I didn't do history past what I had to as it was ridiculously boring, everything I know about it really came from when I became interested, what was covered in greater depth whilst I was at school was the Atlantic slave trade. Otherwise its along the lines of Britain had an empire, we had colonies in the Americas, got into a brawl with France that lasted a good while thanks to George Washington, after the war was won the land it was over was given back to the natives, the colonies didn't like that, the colonies wanted representation in parliament and the Tories (or was it the Whigs, I cant remember) said "nah blud", because the war cost loadsa money the government introduced a tax which really pissed everyone off, some shit happened, there was lots of different wars, lost to what would then become the USA but beat all the rest. People are generally not fused about it.
The best description of the Revolutionary war I've ever heard. "Some shit happened." LMAO <3 Crow
I'm sorry I ever brought the English/Irish question up. It appears that there are rather deep emotions involved that I did not understand.
This whole thread brought out the people pleasing adult child of an alcoholic in me. Did you see how hard I was working to make people laugh and stop fighting? My next move was going to be tap dancing while wearing a paper hat and going "Yakititah! Yakititah!"
..........I think I'm still doing it. >:(
Quote from: Ali on June 13, 2012, 05:05:47 PM
This whole thread brought out the people pleasing adult child of an alcoholic in me. Did you see how hard I was working to make people laugh and stop fighting? My next move was going to be tap dancing while wearing a paper hat and going "Yakititah! Yakititah!"
..........I think I'm still doing it. >:(
I had something a little more exotic in mind.
Quote from: Ali on June 13, 2012, 05:05:47 PM
My next move was going to be tap dancing while wearing a paper hat and going "Yakititah! Yakititah!"
I'd pay cash for this.
Quote from: McQ on June 13, 2012, 07:41:15 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 13, 2012, 05:05:47 PM
My next move was going to be tap dancing while wearing a paper hat and going "Yakititah! Yakititah!"
I'd pay cash for this.
I'd pay cash to find out what "yakititah" means.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 13, 2012, 08:41:57 PM
Quote from: McQ on June 13, 2012, 07:41:15 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 13, 2012, 05:05:47 PM
My next move was going to be tap dancing while wearing a paper hat and going "Yakititah! Yakititah!"
I'd pay cash for this.
I'd pay cash to find out what "yakititah" means.
I have it in my head that "Yakititah, yakititah" is what old timey entertainers say when they tap dance as a joke. Like, imagine Jimmy Durante tap dancing across a room before saying "Good night Mrs Whoseywhatsits, where ever you are...." I imagine that as he's tap dancing, he's hissing "yakititah, yakititah!" Is that not a real thing?
Quote from: Ali on June 13, 2012, 09:59:11 PM
I have it in my head that "Yakititah, yakititah" is what old timey entertainers say when they tap dance as a joke. Like, imagine Jimmy Durante tap dancing across a room before saying "Good night Mrs Whoseywhatsits, where ever you are...." I imagine that as he's tap dancing, he's hissing "yakititah, yakititah!" Is that not a real thing?
Need audio.
Quote from: Ali on June 13, 2012, 09:59:11 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 13, 2012, 08:41:57 PM
Quote from: McQ on June 13, 2012, 07:41:15 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 13, 2012, 05:05:47 PM
My next move was going to be tap dancing while wearing a paper hat and going "Yakititah! Yakititah!"
I'd pay cash for this.
I'd pay cash to find out what "yakititah" means.
I have it in my head that "Yakititah, yakititah" is what old timey entertainers say when they tap dance as a joke. Like, imagine Jimmy Durante tap dancing across a room before saying "Good night Mrs Whoseywhatsits, where ever you are...." I imagine that as he's tap dancing, he's hissing "yakititah, yakititah!" Is that not a real thing?
This must be demonstrated at the Meetup. We're developing quite the interesting itinerary.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on June 13, 2012, 10:49:47 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 13, 2012, 09:59:11 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 13, 2012, 08:41:57 PM
Quote from: McQ on June 13, 2012, 07:41:15 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 13, 2012, 05:05:47 PM
My next move was going to be tap dancing while wearing a paper hat and going "Yakititah! Yakititah!"
I'd pay cash for this.
I'd pay cash to find out what "yakititah" means.
I have it in my head that "Yakititah, yakititah" is what old timey entertainers say when they tap dance as a joke. Like, imagine Jimmy Durante tap dancing across a room before saying "Good night Mrs Whoseywhatsits, where ever you are...." I imagine that as he's tap dancing, he's hissing "yakititah, yakititah!" Is that not a real thing?
This must be demonstrated at the Meetup. We're developing quite the interesting itinerary.
Haha, ok, deal. Those of you who want to know what the heck I'm talking about have to join Sunday's meet up. And then we'll help DJ choose a dress.
And watch Tank's Brittany dance ;D
Best. Meetup. Ever.
One of Jimmy Durante's catch-phrases was "ha cha cha chaah!" I think I may like Ali's version better though. ;)
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on June 14, 2012, 12:32:02 AM
And watch Tank's Brittany dance ;D
Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it! ;D
Aw man, I can't make the meetup this Sunday. Someone record it? :-D I'll send you a tape of us doing a flash mob at the wedding we're going to on Saturday.
Haha, at the very least I'll try to get a screen print of Tank dancing....