Upperthong, West Yorkshire Superthread

[Screwtape2]

All they did was showed that some people disagreed. Did those in power care? No. Did those in power make any changes? No. Did the protest movements achieve any tangible results? No. They exercised their free speech and that was it. Economic neoliberalism is a defining characteristic of the present day international order. At the end of the day, to the protest movements, all I have to say is "so what?" Sure, I agree that it's wrong. Standing in the street yelling about it isn't going to right the wrong. Go do something productive.

No. They said this is wrong. They stood up to the people in charge and said this is wrong. That is why history will say it was wrong because of the people that said it was wrong. They served justice and outlined an injustice. That was very productive.

 

[Axver]

These are not vague terms. A revolution is a dream-given will. I can't explain it any better than that. I just told you the plan and how it will be realized. The world is shaped by dreamers. You have to have faith in them.

"Dream-given will"? I don't know what that's meant to mean.

And you're talking in vague generalities, not specifics. Give me a problem in the world, an injustice, and tell me how it can be changed. This is the thing - people talk a lot about change, about revolution, about paradigm shifts, but I don't see enough in the way of "X, Y, and Zed need to be changed, and we'll do it by implementing A, B, and C. To get in a position to viably do this, we must do D, E, and F."

 

[Axver]

For the record, I agree with Axver on most every issue here, but I'm too preoccupied at the moment to be articulate. Hey, just like everyone else in my generation that I've looked down on tonight.

I am starting to wonder if the political divide between you and I isn't as wide as I initially thought it was.

 

[LemonMelon]

I am starting to wonder if the political divide between you and I isn't as wide as I initially thought it was.

The difference between you and I is that my view on social issues is still a bit compromised by my spiritual beliefs. Just slightly. But I believe in a God that doesn't get off on taking away freedom, and this is a recent revelation. My political views change all the time, just as my view of people changes, so that could explain it.

 

[Axver]

No. They said this is wrong. They stood up to the people in charge and said this is wrong. That is why history will say it was wrong because of the people that said it was wrong. They served justice and outlined an injustice. That was very productive.

The history books will record that there was dissent but that it remained a minority position and wielded insufficient influence to make any changes. It was a failure.

I don't need somebody to point out an injustice. I need somebody to rectify an injustice.

 

[Screwtape2]

"Dream-given will"? I don't know what that's meant to mean.

And you're talking in vague generalities, not specifics. Give me a problem in the world, an injustice, and tell me how it can be changed. This is the thing - people talk a lot about change, about revolution, about paradigm shifts, but I don't see enough in the way of "X, Y, and Zed need to be changed, and we'll do it by implementing A, B, and C. To get in a position to viably do this, we must do D, E, and F."

A will that expands as a dream across the universe. Dreams show us who we are and where we are going. A dream is a guiding light. You have a dream and you will it into existence. The dream lives forever.

Say I want out of Iraq, I dream of how to do it so I will that dream into existence. Others will follow you and the revolution begins.

 

[Screwtape2]

The history books will record that there was dissent but that it remained a minority position and wielded insufficient influence to make any changes. It was a failure.

I don't need somebody to point out an injustice. I need somebody to rectify an injustice.

Dissent has to exist for the sake of justice. That is what they gave themselves to, justice.

 

[Screwtape2]

Looks like another 100 post performance on my part.

 

[Axver]

The difference between you and I is that my view on social issues is still a bit compromised by my spiritual beliefs. Just slightly. But I believe in a God that doesn't get off on taking away freedom, and this is a recent revelation. My political views change all the time, just as my view of people changes, so that could explain it.

Ah, right. I should say that I was a leftie before I was an atheist, not the other way around. I always kept my religion and my politics separate, since politics govern a religiously diverse society and I do not believe it appropriate to privilege one particular religious interpretation over another.

Incidentally, we may not be that far apart on some social issues. I avoid abortion discussions for the simple reason I see both sides of the debate and have no opinion. I'd rather avoid the debate entirely by eliminating the demand for abortions in the first place. Go straight to the root cause of the matter (heh heh, pardon the lame pun).

 

[Axver]

A will that expands as a dream across the universe. Dreams show us who we are and where we are going. A dream is a guiding light. You have a dream and you will it into existence. The dream lives forever.

Say I want out of Iraq, I dream of how to do it so I will that dream into existence. Others will follow you and the revolution begins.

This sounds like an almost mystical politics to me. I'm not even sure how to respond to it. I tend to not think in terms of dreams, for one thing, but of ideologies and policies.

 

[LemonMelon]

Ah, right. I should say that I was a leftie before I was an atheist, not the other way around. I always kept my religion and my politics separate, since politics govern a religiously diverse society and I do not believe it appropriate to privilege one particular religious interpretation over another.

Incidentally, we may not be that far apart on some social issues. I avoid abortion discussions for the simple reason I see both sides of the debate and have no opinion. I'd rather avoid the debate entirely by eliminating the demand for abortions in the first place. Go straight to the root cause of the matter (heh heh, pardon the lame pun).

Well, my faith only dips into politics via certain social issues; the Bible doesn't discuss economics and foreign policy much.

My stance on abortion is incredibly vague and varies from situation to situation. I think it's a horrible and very sad issue to discuss, but I also acknowledge it as part of life. People really do need it to be available on occasion, and whenever I discuss it, my opinions reflect this.

 

[Axver]

Dissent has to exist for the sake of justice. That is what they gave themselves to, justice.

This brings me back to our original discussion. I see these people talking, I see them point out injustice, I see them using free speech to offer dissent.

But I don't see them actually making any changes, I don't see them impacting policy, and I don't see them achieving ideological goals. So I write them off as a bunch of noisy people on the ideological fringe who have nice objectives but no action to achieve them.

And this is probably why we see so much apathy.

 

[Screwtape2]

This sounds like an almost mystical politics to me. I'm not even sure how to respond to it. I tend to not think in terms of dreams, for one thing, but of ideologies and policies.

Your spirit has to drive you to insanity to fight for something. Only a dream-given will could do such a thing. It isn't mystical. It is giving yourself to the spirit of the revolution. It will take you where you need to go.

 

[Screwtape2]

This brings me back to our original discussion. I see these people talking, I see them point out injustice, I see them using free speech to offer dissent.

But I don't see them actually making any changes, I don't see them impacting policy, and I don't see them achieving ideological goals. So I write them off as a bunch of noisy people on the ideological fringe who have nice objectives but no action to achieve them.

And this is probably why we see so much apathy.

How are you not understanding this? They did what is just. You can't ask anymore of them. They acted as a force of justice.

 

[Axver]

Well, my faith only dips into politics via certain social issues; the Bible doesn't discuss economics and foreign policy much.

My stance on abortion is incredibly vague and varies from situation to situation. I think it's a horrible and very sad issue to discuss, but I also acknowledge it as part of life. People really do need it to be available on occasion, and whenever I discuss it, my opinions reflect this.

Its main influence on me was the whole "do unto others as you would have done unto you" thing - which I still hold as a secular virtue and which underpins basically my entire political ideology. It's why I'm a pacifist. A weak pacifist (i.e. I believe violence used in self-defence is legitimate), but a pacifist nonetheless.

I'm torn on abortion in a way I have found unreconcilable thus far, simply because the debate is so heated and contested that I don't feel I have adequate facts to reconcile my competing attitudes. On the one hand, I accept all the arguments of women's rights. On the other hand, as a pacifist, I place an incredibly high value on human life and oppose any action that will take life without the consent of the individual (in other words, I support euthenasia but not the death penalty). I have yet to ascertain when life begins, not being a scientist, and the heated debate about when it begins just leaves me more confused, so that throws a massive spanner in the works. Do I err on the side of caution and refuse to take what may be a life ... or what? I don't know. Since the debate has little personal relevance to me, I keep my distance for now.

 

[Axver]

How are you not understanding this? They did what is just. You can't ask anymore of them. They acted as a force of justice.

They got no results. They did not influence the decisions made.

 

[coolian2]

So what's really going on here is a bit of a circle jerk.

 

[Screwtape2]

They got no results. They did not influence the decisions made.

They didn't have to. They showed that the action was wrong. They acted as a force of justice.

 

[Axver]

So what's really going on here is a bit of a circle jerk.

I'm starting to feel like Screwtape and I are talking past each other a bit.

 

[LemonMelon]

Its main influence on me was the whole "do unto others as you would have done unto you" thing - which I still hold as a secular virtue and which underpins basically my entire political ideology. It's why I'm a pacifist. A weak pacifist (i.e. I believe violence used in self-defence is legitimate), but a pacifist nonetheless.

Oh, wait...I'm a (rather leftist) Republican. Forgot about the requisite bloodlust for a minute there.

I'm torn on abortion in a way I have found unreconcilable thus far, simply because the debate is so heated and contested that I don't feel I have adequate facts to reconcile my competing attitudes. On the one hand, I accept all the arguments of women's rights. On the other hand, as a pacifist, I place an incredibly high value on human life and oppose any action that will take life without the consent of the individual (in other words, I support euthenasia but not the death penalty). I have yet to ascertain when life begins, not being a scientist, and the heated debate about when it begins just leaves me more confused, so that throws a massive spanner in the works. Do I err on the side of caution and refuse to take what may be a life ... or what? I don't know. Since the debate has little personal relevance to me, I keep my distance for now.

I think that's a solid viewpoint (or lack thereof). I figure, at some point, the mother should have complete control over what happens to her. This is why I believe it should remain legal. Problem is, like you, I want the baby to be safe. And yes, it may just be a blob of cells for now, but in all likelihood the baby will one day become a human being, one that craves love and deserves to have a life, just like anyone else. It's a painful subject, isn't it? Hmm.

 

[Axver]

They didn't have to. They showed that the action was wrong. They acted as a force of justice.

SO WHAT?

This is what I've been saying all along. People look at protest movements and say "so what?"

 

[coolian2]

Can we move past this activist stuff?

It's just going around in circles now. And i don't think abortion is a great topic to move onto because i have the same confused views as Ax and LM.

 

[Screwtape2]

SO WHAT?

This is what I've been saying all along. People look at protest movements and say "so what?"

They acted as a force of justice.

They were being noble. If you can't respect that then I don't think you understand what being noble is.

 

[LemonMelon]

Can we move past this activist stuff?

It's just going around in circles now. And i don't think abortion is a great topic to move onto because i have the same confused views as Ax and LM.

Yeah, it's basically glorified spam at this point. I've certainly said my piece by now, as have you.

 

[Axver]

Oh, wait...I'm a (rather leftist) Republican. Forgot about the requisite bloodlust for a minute there.

And the hatred of poor people and the sexism and racism ...

But seriously, you seem keen on Mr Obama. Obama vs McCain, where do you fall?

I think that's a solid viewpoint (or lack thereof). I figure, at some point, the mother should have complete control over what happens to her. This is why I believe it should remain legal. Problem is, like you, I want the baby to be safe. And yes, it may just be a blob of cells for now, but in all likelihood the baby will one day become a human being, one that craves love and deserves to have a life, just like anyone else. It's a painful subject, isn't it? Hmm.

I see a lot of legitimacy in the argument that "the baby is within the woman's body with the permission of the woman, and this permission can be revoked at any time". However, I can also see a counter-argument that if somebody's survival were dependent on you and you wilfully abandoned them, you would be charged with wilful neglect or manslaughter. So ... I just feel more of that "I don't know what to think!" sensation.

I think I would define life as starting at sentience. I have no real problem with the morning-after pill. At that point, there is no guarantee that what's there is even going to become a viable life. But yeah ... it's such a hard, difficult subject and a total mess all too often. As I've said, I think the best policy by far is to stop the need for abortions in the first place. If nobody wants an abortion, we don't need to have this debate at all.

 

[Axver]

They acted as a force of justice.

They were being noble. If you can't respect that then I don't think you understand what being noble is.

They need a coherent plan to achieve their goals. Shouting in the street won't do that. They need to find more productive methods. They may have a good point, but simply having a good point isn't enough.

All I ask are results.

And with that, I shall side with Ian in agreeing this is going nowhere and bow out of the debate. Maybe the thread too, since I probably should be writing an essay ...

 

[Axver]

Hey, can one of you premium members please post the top ten poster stats? I'm rather closing in on 48,000 here. I need to slow down on the posting.

 

[coolian2]

I would suppose i'm more in favour of abortions than not, simply because of the horrific abuse inflicted on children here that have been had by people who are in no way fit to be parents, although that links more towards the point Ax made of removing the need for abortions in the first place. Simply because, to take another perspective, is it better to kill the child (i can't believe i'm writing this) before it has to live through years of abuse before being beaten to death?


But this is opening up quite the can of worms. Stop it before it becomes an issue, simply.

 

[Screwtape2]

Hey, can one of you premium members please post the top ten poster stats? I'm rather closing in on 48,000 here. I need to slow down on the posting.

What's wrong about being one of the top ten posters?

 

[coolian2]

WildHoney 53338
Sicy 49040
LarryMullen's_48063
Axver 47904
tiny dancer 46137
Sad_Girl 42011
Carek1230 39192
Bonochick 39039
VintagePunk 38449
Lila64 35936