Soldato
Some may indeed be spouting boil, but it doesn't automatically mean they don't understand the politics - just they are not concerned with the sensitivity of the subject.
Baroness Thatcher has died.
- Thread starter psd99
- Start date
- Status
Some may indeed be spouting boil, but it doesn't automatically mean they don't understand the politics - just they are not concerned with the sensitivity of the subject.
Soldato
I think that the point is that society is built up from individuals who group together out of largely self interest. But often that self interest is met by a group interest which is better.
If people were motivated by self interest to get ahead and not rely on others or the state to solve their problems the better and stronger the group or society as a whole would be.
Whereas if we say that we can do little as individuals, we need to band together in our tribes, we need to blame the rest for giving us the mucky end of the stick, we are not going far.
So the question should be what have you done today for yourself, because ultimately you better yourself and you better your family and you better your neighbourhood and society generally.
As a philosophy, it is a good one and I think that that is what she was trying to get across. Society is too abstract and too large for any individual to influence in any form but individual actions are much easier to do and influence the country in a positive way
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
Soldato
Some may indeed be spouting boil, but it doesn't automatically mean they don't understand the politics - just they are not concerned with the sensitivity of the subject.
its not a straw man, its a fact. You can't rationally discuss something that you only have emotional feelings over as it completely clouds your judgement and allows you to skate over facts in order to reach a conclusion that sits well with your emotional connection to the subject.
It is simply not conducive to have a rational political discussion when people come in emtionally charged because their dad told them that thatcher snatched all the milk for example....... or on the other hand coming in saying she was a hero because my mum told me she broke the unions. Most people that say these things in the younger age bracket say them without knowing the facts and are simply regurgitating something they heard somewhere.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
You think Maggie reduced social mobility? Really?
The miners weren't fighting for promotions, they were fighting to maintain the two tier class system that existed in the 80s, the us and them culture of workers and bosses. They wanted the kids to inherit their jobs and for nothing to change. It was the opposite of social mobility.
Then look at the City, before Thatcher you couldn't work there unless you were born into the elite that ran it. Your average comprehensive kid who was brilliant at maths couldn't ever hope to work there, you were just expected to do whatever your dad did. Before Maggie an aspirational hard working person from the working classes was stuck having to go through life in the same job as the lazy, lower producing member of staff.
Whilst there was also going to martyrs who in the short term experienced a lower quality of life (in this case mining communities) there are far more people who benefited and moved up the social ladder thanks to her policies.
Last edited:
Soldato
But excessive greed has a real impact on the rest of society (or being indifferent to changes with don't directly impact you or your family) ends up being the economic tyranny of the majority.
If we had a much smaller difference in incomes & opportunity I'd agree in some part (but we don't).
Regarding individuism VS collectivism - some elements of individuism I agree are important & worthwhile - but it's to our peril to ignore the benefits of collectivism (which is also very important).
Besides, socially the Conservatives have been pretty much opposed to individuism (in being against equal rights for all minority groups & most recently gay people), but in favour of economic collectivism.
I'd argue for social individualism (on personal rights) but economic collectivism (as the economic is a collective entity).
Caporegime
Same with everything that has ever happened really, why should we look at it and study it when we can just ask someone who lived through it what it was 'actually' like, obviously really silly of people to study for a degree or spend their lives and careers dedicated to things that have happened in the past.
Just ask wildman, as obviously other people looking at it just spout bile their teachers, parents and 'adults' tell them.
She isn't objectively wrong at all, it depends on how you see society, do you see it as a separate construct or is it actually made up of a bunch of individual people? Society as an entity doesn't exist, so "society" doesn't have money and "society" cannot give support. Everything "society" does is actually done by individuals, everything "society" has was made by individuals.
Which is where your own personal ideology comes in to play, your preference to behaviourism over constructivism. In that particular argument I find Pagiet to be more persuasive than Skinner. Am I objectively wrong?
The fact that few do something doesn't mean it is impossible, maybe if we educated people better to actually think for themselves rather than follow the crowd we might actually have a working political system.
Let ideology cloud reality? I thought that was pretty obvious? Your personal ideology from what you have posted on the boards seems to be left leaning, paternalistic, socialist, behaviourist, anti-capitalist. Most of your posts support that ideology. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I have garnered from your posts.
Though you are a bit sketchy when it comes to behaviourism as you only seem to use it to explain poor choices of the disadvantaged and not the poor choices of the advantaged.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
True, so can you see the problem with the excessive greed of the Unions that existed at the time?
This is another problem with the collectivism vs individualism debate, it's not as simple as saying people who engage in the former are selfless and the the latter are selfish. If you are part of a group (like the miners) that is asking for the rest of society to bank roll your unsustainable industry that is selfishness. At that point the group because an individual entity and starts engaging in the thing you claim to hate.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Thatcher is remembered as The Iron Lady only because she possessed completely negative traits such as persistent stubbornness and a determined refusal to listen to others.
Every move she made was charged by negativity; she destroyed the British manufacturing industry, she hated the miners, she hated the arts, she hated the Irish Freedom Fighters and allowed them to die, she hated the English poor and did nothing at all to help them, she hated Greenpeace and environmental protectionists, she was the only European political leader who opposed a ban on the Ivory Trade, she had no wit and no warmth and even her own Cabinet booted her out. She gave the order to blow up The Belgrano even though it was outside of the Malvinas Exclusion Zone - and was sailing AWAY from the islands.
When the young Argentinean boys aboard The Belgrano had suffered a most appalling and unjust death, Thatcher gave the thumbs up sign for the British press. Iron? No. Barbaric? Yes. She hated feminists even though it was largely due to the progression of the women's movement that the British people allowed themselves to accept that a Prime Minister could actually be female. But because of Thatcher, there will never again be another woman in power in British politics, and rather than opening that particular door for other women, she closed it.
Thatcher will only be fondly remembered by sentimentalists who did not suffer under her leadership, but the majority of British working people have forgotten her already, and the people of Argentina will be celebrating her death. As a matter of recorded fact, Thatcher was a terror without an atom of humanity.
Every move she made was charged by negativity; she destroyed the British manufacturing industry, she hated the miners, she hated the arts, she hated the Irish Freedom Fighters and allowed them to die, she hated the English poor and did nothing at all to help them, she hated Greenpeace and environmental protectionists, she was the only European political leader who opposed a ban on the Ivory Trade, she had no wit and no warmth and even her own Cabinet booted her out. She gave the order to blow up The Belgrano even though it was outside of the Malvinas Exclusion Zone - and was sailing AWAY from the islands.
When the young Argentinean boys aboard The Belgrano had suffered a most appalling and unjust death, Thatcher gave the thumbs up sign for the British press. Iron? No. Barbaric? Yes. She hated feminists even though it was largely due to the progression of the women's movement that the British people allowed themselves to accept that a Prime Minister could actually be female. But because of Thatcher, there will never again be another woman in power in British politics, and rather than opening that particular door for other women, she closed it.
Thatcher will only be fondly remembered by sentimentalists who did not suffer under her leadership, but the majority of British working people have forgotten her already, and the people of Argentina will be celebrating her death. As a matter of recorded fact, Thatcher was a terror without an atom of humanity.
Permabanned
no hotlinking images please!
The more i hear of her views the more i like her.
Edit: Not technically a hot link image, as the website is an image blog? But i have re-uploaded it to tinypic to prevent issue.
The more i hear of her views the more i like her.
Edit: Not technically a hot link image, as the website is an image blog? But i have re-uploaded it to tinypic to prevent issue.
Last edited:
Exclusion zones are for non military vessels, in any conflict military vessels are pretty much fair game if they pose a threat. The Belgrano posed a threat and was a militarily valid target. Of course there is also the very surprising thing about ships, they can turn around!
Soldato
don't hold anything back lad, let it out will you !!!!
and I disagree with pretty much everything you just said, i'm not a sentimentalist, and I grew up on a council estate in Glasgow 70/80's, and I haven't forgotten her, I will always remember my dear 'Maggie'
watching her crush the unions, was for me, one of the best moments in the last 50 years, Hanging Bob Crowe, would make 2nd place, if it ever happens.
- Status