The Conservative Party - Part Two.

[Mister M 1,605]

25 minutes ago, apelike said:

And that is the same argument that terrorists use such as the Suffragette's, IRA, ANC etc.

 

Me bolded. Love the cliche....

 

Your £ may help other Nations and Countries you are able to visit and yet you have stated before you are also against the very globalisation which has allowed you to visit said countries....

 

Me bolded...

 

It's not a new phenomenon though is it. The rich may be richer but the percentage of the relative poor around is much lower. Social conditions, health, housing and general well being are now much better than when workhouses were around and kids swept chimneys and worked down the pits. 

 

Me bolded...

 

Yes we are animals and are still driven by our animal instincts. The trouble is that some people just do not want to own up to that fact. 

 

About the only bit I can agree on so a 4/10 from me!

The rights that Anna was referring to were also fought for by trade unions, Chartists and other such collectives. Nothing wrong with that. Many such collectives campaigned for the end of workhouses and the like - why liken them to terrorist organisations? The Women's Institute has for years campaigned on a number of issues in the political realm. Are they terrorist organisations too?

And the argument that people who campaign against the rise of a transnational class and the power of a financial elite, cannot at the same time fly to other countries because that would be hypocritical is just plain silly.

So if we're all driven by animal instincts, why bother having laws, parliaments, justice and social contracts? Worth pointing out that many mammals display pro social or altruistic behaviour.

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by Mister M

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, Mister M said:

The rights that Anna was referring to were also fought for by trade unions, Chartists and other such collectives. Nothing wrong with that. Many such collectives campaigned for the end of workhouses and the like - why liken them to terrorist organisations?

Me bolded.

 

I didn't. I said the same argument she uses also goes for terrorist organisations in reply to this quote "it's what people are prepared to fight for and defend." 

 

Quote

The Women's Institute has for years campaigned on a number of issues in the political realm. Are they terrorist organisations too?

I don't know, however the Suffragettes who I did mention certainly were.

 

Quote

And the argument that people who campaign against the rise of a transnational class and the power of a financial elite, cannot at the same time fly to other countries because that would be hypocritical is just plain silly.

I didn't say people cannot fly to other countries. What I suggested was that it is somewhat ironic that someone in the past who has complained about globalisation and what that is doing to the planet also admits to flying around to other countries for a visit.

 

Quote

So if we're all driven by animal instincts, why bother having laws, parliaments, justice and social contracts?

Because it gives the illusion of free will and being in control when we are not. The fact is the Human is primarily genetically driven by two things and that is survival and reproduction. The former is born out by the fact that we go to war, love fighting and are tribal in nature. Why do we stock up on armaments and have a military otherwise. The rich also want to keep their wealth and the powerful want to stay in power etc. The latter (reproduction) speaks for itself and the reason why as a planet we are overpopulated.

 

Quote

Worth pointing out that many mammals display pro social or altruistic behaviour.

Yep I've seen Lions display social behavior towards their cubs and then kill them later when they become a threat. Monkeys and apes also do the same as its about what I have said, survival and reproduction and we are no different in that aspect.

Edited June 10, 2021 by apelike

[Anna B 1,401]

29 minutes ago, apelike said:

Me bolded.

 

I didn't. I said the same argument she uses also goes for terrorist organisations in reply to this quote "it's what people are prepared to fight for and defend." 

 

I don't know, however the Suffragettes who I did mention certainly were.

 

I didn't say people cannot fly to other countries. What I suggested was that it is somewhat ironic that someone in the past who has complained about globalisation and what that is doing to the planet also admits to flying around to other countries for a visit.

 

Because it gives the illusion of free will and being in control when we are not. The fact is the Human is primarily genetically driven by two things and that is survival and reproduction. The former is born out by the fact that we go to war, love fighting and are tribal in nature. Why do we stock up on armaments and have a military otherwise. The rich also want to keep their wealth and the powerful want to stay in power etc. The latter (reproduction) speaks for itself and the reason why as a planet we are overpopulated.

 

Yep I've seen Lions display social behavior towards their cubs and then kill them later when they become a threat. Monkeys and apes also do the same as its about what I have said, survival and reproduction and we are no different in that aspect.

We are relatively free although there have to be limits/laws because random freedoms may well  impinge on the wellbeing, freedoms and safety of others. If we choose our lawmakers and politicians with care, in a democratic society, then it shouldn't be a problem, but a neoliberal  system is not wholly democratic though it masquerades as such, which is the problem. It's interesting to note that the one area where rules seemingly don't apply is in the 'free market economy' which largely benefits the big corporations and the wealthiest where the rich get richer at the expense of the poor.

 

Point 2: Does the average person really love fighting and going to war? I very much doubt it.

Half the population are women for a start, who are more concerned with maintaining peace and safety to raise their children. Pity they don't run the world. Wars are caused and decided upon by politicians, the rich, and the powerful, and you hit the nail on the head when you say it is about the rich wanting to hang on to that wealth and power by any means.  

I would argue that the armaments trade is also predominantly about wealth and power, profits, and jobs, not about protecting the innocent.

 

Since time immemorial tribes have traded and rubbed along together until some wealthy baron decided on a land grab or a bit of pillaging and called his serfs to arms, all for his benefit not theirs. Was ever thus until the first world war (which most soldiers didn't have a clue about why they were fighting,) however because of advanced technology it dragged entire populations into the fray leading to excessive loss of life.  

 

Finally, the planet is not overpopulated, in fact scientists are seriously concerned about the drop in populations. As societies progress there is always a trend towards women having fewer babies and that brings its own problems.  Distribution of resources is the cause of many problems which are erroniously blamed on 'overpopulation.' Much of this is again caused by neoliberalism and a cut- throat culture of competition rather that cooperation.    

 

Finally, If animals are all about survival and reproduction, explain the human trait of altruism and self sacrifice. Humans are more than the sum of our parts, we are complex creatures capable of great things, but held back by baser instincts which are being actively encouraged by certain powerful individuals for their own gain. 

[Mister M 1,605]

Anyway as fascinating this philosophical discussion is, it shouldn't detract from yesterday's news the High Court has ruled that the government’s award of a coronavirus contract to a market research company whose bosses were friends of government adviser Dominic Cummings was unlawful.

 

Michael Gove broke law over Covid contract for friends of Dominic Cummings, court rules | The Independent

 

I did notice in Cummings evidence last week about the cack handling of the pandemic, that he didn't say a word against Michael Gove.....Hmmm what's going on there I wonder 

[apelike 10]

14 hours ago, Mister M said:

Anyway as fascinating this philosophical discussion is, it shouldn't detract from yesterday's news the High Court has ruled that the government’s award of a coronavirus contract to a market research company whose bosses were friends of government adviser Dominic Cummings was unlawful.

 

Michael Gove broke law over Covid contract for friends of Dominic Cummings, court rules | The Independent

 

I did notice in Cummings evidence last week about the cack handling of the pandemic, that he didn't say a word against Michael Gove.....Hmmm what's going on there I wonder 

Just one point about that article. Gove didn't break the law, what he did was found to be unlawful but not illegal.

[Mister M 1,605]

42 minutes ago, apelike said:

Just one point about that article. Gove didn't break the law, what he did was found to be unlawful but not illegal.

I doubt whether it would matter had he done anything illegal

[Longcol 594]

9 hours ago, apelike said:

Just one point about that article. Gove didn't break the law, what he did was found to be unlawful but not illegal.

So why is murder described as "unlawful killing"?

[the_bloke 17]

On 10/06/2021 at 22:40, Mister M said:

Anyway as fascinating this philosophical discussion is, it shouldn't detract from yesterday's news the High Court has ruled that the government’s award of a coronavirus contract to a market research company whose bosses were friends of government adviser Dominic Cummings was unlawful.

 

Michael Gove broke law over Covid contract for friends of Dominic Cummings, court rules | The Independent

 

I did notice in Cummings evidence last week about the cack handling of the pandemic, that he didn't say a word against Michael Gove.....Hmmm what's going on there I wonder 

In related news, Cummings still hasn't given any documentary evidence to the enquiry.

 

I know the left have spent a long time trying to discredit Cummings before he was sacked - to suddenly believe everything he says post sacking -  but maybe the left's claims of dishonesty were right all along.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/08/dominic-cummings-fails-provide-evidence-accusations-boris-johnson

 

How hard can it be to back up a claim with evidence when you say you have evidence?

[whiteowl 54]

45 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

In related news, Cummings still hasn't given any documentary evidence to the enquiry.

 

I know the left have spent a long time trying to discredit Cummings before he was sacked - to suddenly believe everything he says post sacking -  but maybe the left's claims of dishonesty were right all along.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/08/dominic-cummings-fails-provide-evidence-accusations-boris-johnson

 

How hard can it be to back up a claim with evidence when you say you have evidence?

To be fair, the right spent the same amount of time saying how honest and trustworthy he was - to suddenly not believe anything he says post sacking 😂

 

I personally think the guy is a weasel who will say anything to achieve his goals (whatever they are!)

 

 I also noted the lack of anything said against Michael Gove, who will quite possibly be the leader following Johnson. Probably just trying to line up his next job.

[hackey lad 3,937]

5 hours ago, the_bloke said:

In related news, Cummings still hasn't given any documentary evidence to the enquiry.

 

I know the left have spent a long time trying to discredit Cummings before he was sacked - to suddenly believe everything he says post sacking -  but maybe the left's claims of dishonesty were right all along.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/08/dominic-cummings-fails-provide-evidence-accusations-boris-johnson

 

How hard can it be to back up a claim with evidence when you say you have evidence?

I remember a few weeks ago Sir Starmer quizzing Johnson at PMQs and finishing with " I will leave it there for now" .  I guess he is still waiting and hoping for something from Cummings .   How long is "for now" ?

[crookesey 625]

It would be good if there was a political party that represented working none public sector employees. One looking at age 55 as being their normal retirement age, the other having to work into their late 60’s, well someone has to pay for the public sector retirees.

[Anna B 1,401]

2 hours ago, crookesey said:

It would be good if there was a political party that represented working none public sector employees. One looking at age 55 as being their normal retirement age, the other having to work into their late 60’s, well someone has to pay for the public sector retirees.

Try joining a union. Most advances/advantages for workers have been won by unions not politicians.