I agree with both of you ! Sadly.
Greedy MPs
-
Dave Wells
- Posts: 2717
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Greedy MPs
Dave Wells
http://www.dave-wells.co.uk
http://www.dave-wells.co.uk
-
Dave Wells
- Posts: 2717
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Greedy MPs
I think the best anology of this is 'it's a bit like a drug cheat getting caught having won an Olympic gold or something' - great while he or she are getting away with it but once caught - CUNT !
So I think they should be treated like the drug cheat and be an outcast of society.
Those that aren't on the fiddle should be hailed as hero's.
By the way I finally got watch Zeitgeist all the way through this week. Stunning is what I say. Everyone should watch it.
Ban religon and royalty for a start.
So I think they should be treated like the drug cheat and be an outcast of society.
Those that aren't on the fiddle should be hailed as hero's.
By the way I finally got watch Zeitgeist all the way through this week. Stunning is what I say. Everyone should watch it.
Ban religon and royalty for a start.
Dave Wells
http://www.dave-wells.co.uk
http://www.dave-wells.co.uk
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Difference with Tories
Reggie Perrin wrote:
> I think you need to temper your enthusiasm for National
> Socialism with a talk with some people who lived through it.
> Some reading would help too...lol
Now it gets condescending...
Listen, I am German, I have family members who lived through it. We covered that period from ear to ear at school...
All I was complaining about that you used an unsound line of reasoning in your original post. Either everything the Nazis were doing was evil - and then vegetarianism is evil, or you have to look at a balance of all their deeds, but then your original deduction used an unsound proof rule. Which I say as someone who is teaching formal logic.
> I think you need to temper your enthusiasm for National
> Socialism with a talk with some people who lived through it.
> Some reading would help too...lol
Now it gets condescending...
Listen, I am German, I have family members who lived through it. We covered that period from ear to ear at school...
All I was complaining about that you used an unsound line of reasoning in your original post. Either everything the Nazis were doing was evil - and then vegetarianism is evil, or you have to look at a balance of all their deeds, but then your original deduction used an unsound proof rule. Which I say as someone who is teaching formal logic.
Re: Greedy MPs
Been some interesting posts and some bollocks as usual.
It's the rules that allow this which needs to be addressed.
The bollocks is a bit of a worry.
It shows media led inspiration to rant which suggest support for the same media who when they are looking at the goings on in porn are rightly told to go away.
Anyone guilty of braking the law should be prosecuted.
The paying back if guilty being an absolute minimum.
Those playing within the rules can be identified but they should not be slated in the manner they are if the rules allow what they have done.
Those moaning just for the sake of a rant should also have a look at themselves I don't believe for one minute that any of you wouldn't turn down the chance to claim if you could do it.
I am not condoning what's been done I am bloody livid about most of it I just feel most rants are being done by those who would do exactly the same if the opportunity existed.
I'd love to see the expenses claimed by the BBC reporters and their crew for example when they attend party conference.
It's the rules that allow this which needs to be addressed.
The bollocks is a bit of a worry.
It shows media led inspiration to rant which suggest support for the same media who when they are looking at the goings on in porn are rightly told to go away.
Anyone guilty of braking the law should be prosecuted.
The paying back if guilty being an absolute minimum.
Those playing within the rules can be identified but they should not be slated in the manner they are if the rules allow what they have done.
Those moaning just for the sake of a rant should also have a look at themselves I don't believe for one minute that any of you wouldn't turn down the chance to claim if you could do it.
I am not condoning what's been done I am bloody livid about most of it I just feel most rants are being done by those who would do exactly the same if the opportunity existed.
I'd love to see the expenses claimed by the BBC reporters and their crew for example when they attend party conference.
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Difference with Tories
Reggie Perrin wrote:
> You still don't accept that an entire culture
> was conned by a man who was mentally ill.
No, I do accept that. What I don't accept are lazy proof rules such
as "everything the Nazis did was bad", complete with usual elimination rule for universal quantifiers you applied in your first posting. Because that rule is only sound if you can look at all the things the Nazis did in isolation; if you cannot, the rule is not sound because the consequence removes the context of the antecedent.
It's not entirely unconnected to the medieval theological dilemma whether God can create a stone he cannot lift, because either way one answers the question his universal powers seem limited. Which in that case is caused because the concept of universal power is logically unsound.
The connection to the Nazi question is that people like to make universal claims for emphasis, even if its technically/logically wrong.
> I'll give you modern day example. I was talking to quite a
> young German girl at a reception, she was about 20 and I was
> shocked at the arrogant way she talked about the Dutch people
> over the border who with their liking of travelling and camping
> drive their caravans on 'our' roads. All of this was said with
> disdain as though they were inferior limited people. She also
> said that German people refer to the Dutch as 'cheese-heads'.
> It was ironic that such a level of arrogance was being
> displayed about people who are quite similar to the Germans and
> live just over the border.
That isn't even ironic. These sort of cliches are just part of being a neighbour, e.g. not entirely dissimilar to British attitudes about the French. They also exist within countries between regions, though usually in milder form, e.g. Southern Germans refer to Nothern Germans often as 'fish-heads'. I do not take that kind of neighbourly disdain very seriously.
There exist much more worrying attitudes towards outsiders in both the UK and Germany.
> Ok you are a Nazi at heart,
No, I am not - but you are entitled to your belief.
> You lost the war, your
> country was smashed to fuck at the end of it and it was a
> bankrupt philosophy with nothing to show at the end of it.
> Germans who have their eyes open admit this.
Indeed. In a weird sort of way it was a good outcome for Germany, despite all the destruction, death and mayhem, because it meant that not only Nazism was destroyed, but also the remaining autocratic structures that had survived from before WWI. It finally gave democracy a chance in (West) Germany, which it didn't really have in the Weimar Republic.
Not that the Nazis can take any credit for that.
> You still don't accept that an entire culture
> was conned by a man who was mentally ill.
No, I do accept that. What I don't accept are lazy proof rules such
as "everything the Nazis did was bad", complete with usual elimination rule for universal quantifiers you applied in your first posting. Because that rule is only sound if you can look at all the things the Nazis did in isolation; if you cannot, the rule is not sound because the consequence removes the context of the antecedent.
It's not entirely unconnected to the medieval theological dilemma whether God can create a stone he cannot lift, because either way one answers the question his universal powers seem limited. Which in that case is caused because the concept of universal power is logically unsound.
The connection to the Nazi question is that people like to make universal claims for emphasis, even if its technically/logically wrong.
> I'll give you modern day example. I was talking to quite a
> young German girl at a reception, she was about 20 and I was
> shocked at the arrogant way she talked about the Dutch people
> over the border who with their liking of travelling and camping
> drive their caravans on 'our' roads. All of this was said with
> disdain as though they were inferior limited people. She also
> said that German people refer to the Dutch as 'cheese-heads'.
> It was ironic that such a level of arrogance was being
> displayed about people who are quite similar to the Germans and
> live just over the border.
That isn't even ironic. These sort of cliches are just part of being a neighbour, e.g. not entirely dissimilar to British attitudes about the French. They also exist within countries between regions, though usually in milder form, e.g. Southern Germans refer to Nothern Germans often as 'fish-heads'. I do not take that kind of neighbourly disdain very seriously.
There exist much more worrying attitudes towards outsiders in both the UK and Germany.
> Ok you are a Nazi at heart,
No, I am not - but you are entitled to your belief.
> You lost the war, your
> country was smashed to fuck at the end of it and it was a
> bankrupt philosophy with nothing to show at the end of it.
> Germans who have their eyes open admit this.
Indeed. In a weird sort of way it was a good outcome for Germany, despite all the destruction, death and mayhem, because it meant that not only Nazism was destroyed, but also the remaining autocratic structures that had survived from before WWI. It finally gave democracy a chance in (West) Germany, which it didn't really have in the Weimar Republic.
Not that the Nazis can take any credit for that.
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Difference with Tories
Reggie Perrin wrote:
> You call a 'good' outcome a country and most of Europe smashed
> up and millions of people who had no say in the matter dead?
Yes. As one proverb goes in German "besser ein Ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne Ende" (better a terrible end than never-ending terror), and without WWII the Nazis might still be in power. No thanks.
If you were given the choice:
1. history as it happened, with WWII and all the dead and suffering
2. Hitler does not invade Poland, remains in power and continues his internal suppression and murder of Jews, Gypsies, the feeble-minded, communists, gays, social democrats, modern artists, etc. He stays chancellor for another 20 years or so, after which another Nazi takes over , continuing the regime to this day (as an aside: the Nazis would in the meantime have gained access to nuclear weapons).
Which option would you choose? 1 or 2?
> Please list the other positive, fair and equitable things they
> did from 1933 to 1945?
I already mentioned cool SS uniforms. That's all I need to refute your universality claim. Are they worth millions of dead? Of course not, but that is not my point. It's one counter example to a universality claim, and it takes only one.
> You admire the SS and their capacity for frightening people and
> you say you're not a Nazi, come off it!
You generalise much too quickly. As a scientist you would be hopeless.
I don't admire the SS. They are a bunch of poncy arrogant violent lawless idiots. But they had cool uniforms.
> You call a 'good' outcome a country and most of Europe smashed
> up and millions of people who had no say in the matter dead?
Yes. As one proverb goes in German "besser ein Ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne Ende" (better a terrible end than never-ending terror), and without WWII the Nazis might still be in power. No thanks.
If you were given the choice:
1. history as it happened, with WWII and all the dead and suffering
2. Hitler does not invade Poland, remains in power and continues his internal suppression and murder of Jews, Gypsies, the feeble-minded, communists, gays, social democrats, modern artists, etc. He stays chancellor for another 20 years or so, after which another Nazi takes over , continuing the regime to this day (as an aside: the Nazis would in the meantime have gained access to nuclear weapons).
Which option would you choose? 1 or 2?
> Please list the other positive, fair and equitable things they
> did from 1933 to 1945?
I already mentioned cool SS uniforms. That's all I need to refute your universality claim. Are they worth millions of dead? Of course not, but that is not my point. It's one counter example to a universality claim, and it takes only one.
> You admire the SS and their capacity for frightening people and
> you say you're not a Nazi, come off it!
You generalise much too quickly. As a scientist you would be hopeless.
I don't admire the SS. They are a bunch of poncy arrogant violent lawless idiots. But they had cool uniforms.