http://rs2img.memecdn.com/logic-in-c..._c_4215613.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Yeah, I realize I'm just spamming at this point.
You know, it's surprisingly hard to find a good roman empire meme.
Printable View
http://rs2img.memecdn.com/logic-in-c..._c_4215613.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Yeah, I realize I'm just spamming at this point.
You know, it's surprisingly hard to find a good roman empire meme.
You think that war is "the past". nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I didn't necessarily mean "the fight" as war per se. That is a component of conflict, but not the only way to fight.
Funny you don't find your slave exmple reductio ad absurdum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
My point is that any enterprise gives work to some people and at the same time inconveniences/disadvantages other people. While Beskar claimed that sports has no positive input whatever into the welfare of a country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It was meant to showcase a much broader point that just having work does not necessarily mean you benefit from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I wasn't even sure whether your point was one, that's why I said "and/or" and put a question mark behind the entire thing, but you are free to ignore that of course.
And my point was that sports is one of the prime examples of the rich exploiting everyone else. Even the players themselves are not good examples for rich people as many of them lack the education to hold on to their wealth for long after their retirement and get stripped of their wealth by hawkish people. So in the end they are often just exploited as well. Also consider that professional sportsmen often demand so much from their bodies that they get health problems in the medium or long term. The US NCAA does also not pay their players and pretends to pay them with education while it signs them up for fake classes where they hardly get educated.1 Meanwhile the league rakes in millions from advertising and merchandise etc. They get a few years of a good time and lots of promises and then often end up as poor as they began. Some also don't of course, but I'm also convinced that some of the money spent on all the sports stuff would advance our societies more if it were spent elsewhere. It's great that it makes people happy and it shouldn't be banned or abandoned, it's the way it is commercialized and the way people are exploited all around it that should be changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Whether it has an effect on the welfare of the country is debatable. If most of the wealth created ends up with rich people who invest it to drain even more wealth from the middle class then it probably just advances our wealthy elites.
1:Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Like I said: not neccessarily "you", but someone surely does. Sometimes the number of those "someone" is so great that whether "you" benefit doesn't matter (on the national scale).Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Any business that attracts so many consumers does it by default. So we might as well be indignant at the rich exploiting others by means of arms production, modern gadgets manufacture, chocolates or movie making... The list is pretty long, so there is no need to be especially hard on sports. It is the way modern world works and I don't see any prospects that it might be otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I'm sure if you do that to sports those who invested the money into it will find other ways of "exploiting the others". This money will not find its way into your or my pockets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
This is the way business is run: one can never stop making money and say "nuff'z'nuff". Business thrives as long as it expands and takes what profit it can wherever it sees it. To change it one's gotta change the whole philosophy of the society of consumption, which is again what isn't gonna happen in the foreseeable future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So how about we try to find a way to stop people from exploiting others and fix sports in the process?
I didn't know that I was especially hard on sports, I said it's a good example, but that doesn't mean it is the only example.
And the change isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future if everybody denies that it will happen and just gives up.
As Americans will surely tell you as well, change is brought about by those brave enough to attempt it against all the odds, it's the American way.
Starting exploiting others was starting the modern civilization as we know it today. To stop it one has to undo millenia of development. I don't think it is possible. And railing against it and demanding fair play is like crying foul that Norway doesn't get as much sunshine and warmth as California.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
100 years ago the idea Europe could peacefully coexist was considered impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
200 years ago the idea Slaves would ever be treated equally in the US was unheard of.
1000 years ago the idea the common man could pick their leader and not just except the noble who held his land was unthinkable.
Things change - they change by railing against them and demanding change.
Exploitation exists much longer than the dates you mentioned. It is so deeply entrenched in minds, social instututions and business that if you start railing today the results will not be felt in the foreseeable future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
And as for people picking up their leader - this forum is most pessimistic about the picking up pointing that in fact there is no choice and all of them are the exploitators (or nominated by the exploitators to protect their interests). Only now they get elected rather than seize the power by force.
Anyway, the world without exploitation was attempted in Russia 100 years ago - the results were lamentable.
Or perhaps these changes are merely superficial...Quote:
Things change - they change by railing against them and demanding change.
On the other hand, that aspect of the attempt was superficial too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
And if you start even later than today, the results may never be seen. Your excuse is invalid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
That's why people are still railing for change, the difference is that without the superficial changes we wouldn't have even tried. And a few of the changes did bring improvements, at least temporary ones or ones not related to the core issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
agreed on the minority greievance culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
but not bitter, no, quite elated in fact that we aren't headed in the direction of 40+ percent of GDp on spending.
As far as I understand, you have begun your struggle against exploitation for making the world just and fair. I'll watch your progress closely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yes, please cast skepticism about western European attempts at democratization and meritocracy. Because as we all know, the eastern Europeans that are massively migrating away from their countries simply want to enjoy some sunny weather in Britain.
So, you want to change climate as well? Good luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Whilst Rhy attacked Mhairi Black harshly, calling her a clown, she has just made her maiden speech in Parliament.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-33585087
I don't think it was bad at all. :shrug:
The Sottish accent is horrendous and they should be exterminated.
She needs to slow down when she talks.
"Anyway, the world without exploitation was attempted in Russia 100 years ago - the results were lamentable." When?
While I don't disagree with any of the points made. I do feel they're missing one important nuance about the US Presidential system. From the perspective of the patriots they were just democratizing the system they already lived under in the Colonial governments. Colonial provincial governments until the late 1840's operated much more like Tudor era English/British governments. That is the sovereign (or rather their deputy, the Governor) was supreme and only partially accountable to the local legislature. And the legislature was more of a consultative body. Denizens of the mother islands have little concept of Responsible Government something we dominion residents learn a lot about. If you're not interested in the link it's a top down imposition of the glorious revolution on colonial government. Starting in 1849 in the colonies that formed the nucleus of Canada.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Don't judge us by Mhairi Black's fake put-on ned accent - she's from a middle-class family, her dad's an academic and she went to Glasgow University.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Anyway, I finally made my TV debut:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwsjJwPPvos
I wanna adopt that guy.
Having been defeated in the last referendum the SNP are considering holding another one, how European of them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-33668976
This bollocks is going to make Scotland a toxic country for investment, to say nothing of the repeated battering Scottish and British national identity is getting.
Would James Bond vote Tory or Labour?
Which James Bond?
If we're talking about James Bond as a character, then he almost-certainly wouldn't be voting at all. Though he serves his country to the utmost, he does not do so in the usual civilian capacities.
He could send in a postal vote. All he needs is a UK address and someone to forward the letters to him, and once he's filled in his details and sent them back, he can vote in all his local elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Well let's break it down I guess:
Ian Flaming's Novelization version: Tory or Labour?
Sean Connery's version: ? (lol jk, we know it would be SNP)
Roger Moore's version: ?
Pierce Brosnan's version: ?
Daniel Craig's version: ?
That's beside the point, which is that he specifically functions as a non-existent citizen. That's his life, his sacrifice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
To vote in a UK general election a person must be registered to vote and also:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
. be 18 years of age or over on polling day
. be a British citizen, a qualifying Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland
. not be subject to any legal incapacity to vote
Additionally, the following cannot vote in a UK general election:
. members of the House of Lords (although they can vote at elections to local authorities, devolved legislatures and the European Parliament)
. EU citizens resident in the UK (although they can vote at elections to local authorities, devolved legislatures and the European Parliament)
. anyone other than British, Irish and qualifying Commonwealth citizens
. convicted persons detained in pursuance of their sentences (though remand prisoners, unconvicted prisoners and civil prisoners can vote if they are on the electoral register)
. anyone found guilty within the previous five years of corrupt or illegal practices in connection with an election
http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...neral-election
Nothing there to disqualify Mr. Bond from voting in an election.
Apart from him being fictional, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I want to know how would Robin Hood vote, though. And especially Disney's fox version.
Pannonian I think he's referring to the idea that bond is a non-person, he's been wiped from every record by the Secret Service so legally he doesnt exist. So he wouldnt have citizenship.