The ULTIMATE question. ???

[Bookworm]

Well said, that man/woman/deity of one's choosing.

[Pen]

tez, I totaly disgree. I don't feel politacaly dis-empowered at all, people are only dis empoyered if they want to be.

 

There is a awful lot of injustice in this world that most of socioty know nothing about. hence our own the offical secrets act to name but one. this Act was not created by the public to protect their interest, it was created by a minority to protect their own interest and to stop anicky that does not mean it's not happening you do not know what you do not know so how can you fight against that which you are not awere is happening in the first place.

[gyzmo]

If I know there's a nuclear bomb coming my way, there's not a lot that I can do about it. Knowledge is fine, but one also needs to have the means to do something about it. Most people are not, and will not, be in that position.

[Tezcatlipoca]

government does not listen to protests or pressure groups unless they have a ulterior motive to do so.

 

in contrast with

 

I don't feel politacaly dis-empowered at all,

 

seems a touch contradictory.

 

In addition, the Official Secrets Act - hereafter the OSA - has very little to do with the point being made; viz. that major social and political change is - as a rule - ultimately brought about by the protest of the populous. That's not the same as saying it is always successful, or that it is necessarily change for the better, but it is change nonetheless.

 

Mention of the OSA, and the continued tangent that "how can you fight against that which you are not awere is happening in the first place" isn't actually addressing the point, rather, it's straying somewhat off it and into the generalised - if probably sincere - idea that 'evil is going on even if we don't know about it, so what's the point of being good?'.

 

There is indeed a great deal of injustice in the world, I've experienced more of it than I care to first hand, but at no point does it shake my knowledge of - or belief that - the fundamental decency of the majority of human beings will ultimately be a force for beneficial change.

 

Additionally, and only since you mention it, I for one would be very interested to hear you expand on your theory that the OSA was "created by a minority to protect their own interest and to stop anicky [anarchy]".

Is this based on anything verifiable, or just supposition?

 

If you could also touch on your earlier statement that "government does not listen to protests or pressure groups unless they have a ulterior motive to do so", I'd be grateful.

[gyzmo]

I think Geroge Orwell raised these issues rather well in 1984 - a reading and understanding of that, I believe, should be made compulsory.

 

As to that last point raised. Iraq? Eveyone wants the troops out but they're not coming back (nd indeed they probably would not have got there if the public had been listened to). And there are loads of examples of local government holding "public consultations" that are lead by "thought leaders" (private companies - that is what they ectually called themselves) telling the selected crowd what they should do - it has happened. And even where the overwhelming voice is "no", if it is against the interests of the government, that voice is ignored.

 

And we only need to look to America to see what a government will do to stop a majority from voicing its opinion. I am of course referring to George Bush Jr getting his buddies to declare the majority of the black vote illegal.

[Pen]

No! I'm knowledgeable about all sorts of things. I am not always going to be able to use it but it's nice to have in reserve.

 

and I would like to know if a nuclear bomb was heading our way. I would like to give hubby and the kids a kiss bye bye and hold their hand if I could. who wants to die alone not me.

[Tezcatlipoca]

As to that last point raised. Iraq?

 

This has already been touched on in this post.

 

if it is against the interests of the government, that voice is ignored

 

In the short-term or for the short-sighted, perhaps, but I say again that ultimately - and historically - the general trend of protest has invariably been to force change for the better. Neither of you has yet touched on - much less been able to refute - my points that it is "through protest that we have the right to be judged by our peers in criminal trials", that "by protest that few of us work a full week", and that "through protest that women can vote." And I could very easily add the abolition of the slave trade and consequental emancipation of the blacks, the creation of habeas corpus (arguably one of the single most important keystones for modern society), the right in in England in particular to practice religious freedom, and many other examples at the drop of a hat, but they all serve to illustrate the same basic truth; that human society, regardless of how it might appear to an individual at a given moment, has - except in cases of exterior intervention - ultimately resulted in the populous bringing about change outside the control of - and often at odds with - its government.

[Pen]

Gyzmo I also think you can add China to that as well

 

Tez. sorry mate I did not read your last post, my computer is playing up. I also wonder who would be anual enough to correct my grammar, some one always is. bad habit sorry.

 

anyway back to your post. it was through protest that Margret Thacher made a law against it re secondary picketing.

 

Rightly or wrongly the people of Lpool voted in a militant party and what happend to the leader. sacked by the labour party

 

The government push through laws/ legislation before the public can have a chance to protest, you only have to take a look at Gorden Brown and his recent exploits on the EU situation to realise that.

 

The current situation of the welfare state, it's not what the people voted for when it was introduced how many protest and marches have there been in relation to it, has it change yes for the worse.

 

Why will this or any other Government in this country not have a memorandum on the death penalty?? because they are worried that most people will be in favour of it that's why.

 

I could go on and on with examples but I don't think this was the aim of the poster why writing this thread also my fingers will not allow a heavy writing debate on site so lets agree to disagree hey

[Bookworm]

Neither of you has yet touched on - much less been able to refute - my points that it is "through protest that we have the right to be judged by our peers in criminal trials", that "by protest that few of us work a full week", and that "through protest that women can vote." And I could very easily add the abolition of the slave trade and consequental emancipation of the blacks, the creation of habeas corpus (arguably one of the single most important keystones for modern society), the right in in England in particular to practice religious freedom, and many other examples at the drop of a hat,

Another very good example would be abortion in France: In order to force the change in law, 100 women -writers, politicians, actresses, resistance heroins - very publicly declared that they had had an abortion, forcing a mainly catholic country to either prosecute them all (!) or make abortion legal. The law was passed in 1975.

[honey5]

strange debate, but so are politics personally i was taught never to argue either (dad was a pitman)

the God isssue (notice i used a capitlal!!) no i dont believe at all. it was a case of mum did dad didnt and stories from the bible ran no more truth than aesops fables. I have 3 kids of my own and have never dictated, hmmmmmmm i have one that thinks like mum, one that would like gods phone number to speak to grandma (anyone got it???) and one that definately believes but ermmmm is pure evil, seriously she is give me a house full of boys anyday

honey x

[Tezcatlipoca]

Another very good example would be abortion in France.

 

Absolutely. Or the French Revolution; just about as violent and dramatic a force of social change as it's possible to get.

 

I also wonder who would be annual enough to correct my grammar

 

It's not a question of being anal in correcting your spelling. I singled out 'aniky' because it was, for me at least, not as clear in meaning as some of the more common spelling errors. I wanted to make the statement to which I was responding quite clear, hence the correction. If I'd been anal, I'd have taken the time to correct the nine other errors in that post.

 

Reading your last post, you appear - whilst correct in your assertions that recent history in this country might well appear to have been a steady degradation in civil liberties and the rights of the populous - to be arguing on a different point. Please take the time to re-read my posts. What I am saying in them is that where widespread oppression has occurred, mankind as a social animal has ultimately brought about social, religious or political change through continued - and often very bloody - protest. This has happened repeatedly throughout our history and I see no reason to assume it will not continue to happen, indeed, I see it increasingly exponentially as the population at large become increasingly (a) aware of their rights, and, (b) willing to fight.

I am not suggested, nor for a moment do suggest, that our current social fabric is without flaws, but in the end - as I have repeatedly stated - our inherent dignity and desire for justice within society will rise against any government, no matter how violently oppressive it might be.

 

You have said you disagree (post 1395435) with this, but are yet to actually address it. When asked to expand on certain areas (two concluding paragraphs of post 1395482), your response was "No! I'm knowledgeable about all sorts of things", which doesn't really give much of an answer.

I'm afraid we are unlikely to "agree to disagree" as you have neither countered the points I've made, or expanded upon some of your own points when requested to do so.

 

I have 3 kids of my own and have never dictated

 

And this, I personally feel, is just about the most admirable thing a parent can do for a child. As I've already discussed, children are by their nature least able to defend themselves against psychosocial conditioning, especially religious conditioning (the concepts of which often contain some very psychologically attractive ideas).

By not dictating, and by allowing a child to decide for themselves, you are benefiting not only them, but almost always society as a whole.

[honey5]

yeah , cant dictate at all, that part of their life doesnt "belong" to me at all. My youngest being autistic would like me to tell him "what he should think" nope sorry still cant do, its not my decision to make (the same one that NEEDS gods phone number to phone grandma)

honey x

[Pen]

Bookworn only 100 women, powerful ones at that!!. French at that, they get away with anything what about the thousands upon thousands of women in Ireland who had to come here for a abortion or who had to die because of illegal back street abortions hmm it puts it in prospective a bit.

 

If the people of this country were worked up enough to undertake a major protest one that could possibly over throw the government I am sure a new law would quickly be put through to make some aspect of it illegal. As was the case with the petrol rises/shortages and the mass protest by the lorry drives blocking roads and motorway's hmm what did the government do, well what they didn't do was given in to presure and lower prices that's for sure. They did however make the blockade's illegal.

 

And as to being able to be judged by our peers in a court of law is this always he case Tez?? maybe for the common man but not for the corporate giants who have committed manslaughter by negligence??? many times over and never set foot near a court room never mind being judge for it.

 

Wasn't a Russian KGB Spy allow to leave our country not so long ago after a case of poisoning???

[Pen]

nine, no way wow I am getting sloppy Tez I get the point your making as to regards historical events and yes I agree, there has been very major events whereby by the accumulated actions of society have brought about change. who can argue with that. You only need to pick up a history book or look about your as to the roles women now play in society, Education etc you do not have to look far to evidence that fact.

 

what I don't agree with is your comments in post #61. I see no reason to assume it will not continue to happen, indeed, I see it increasingly exponentially as the population at large become increasingly (a) aware of their rights, and, (b) willing to fight.

 

It would have to be something so extreme for this to happen again and would not be one countries fight but all countries. The reason I say this is because if we take England for instance a vast majority of our countrymen are emigrating because of they way our country is being run. The rights we once enjoyed ie free speech, peaceful protesting etc are slowly being eroded. People are sick of fighting, yes major changers have occurred throughout history because of it but not now, we have a Big Brother system in place now which changers the whole ball game and puts the power firmly in the hands of the government.

 

There was a news article today about Britain being the major players in DNA collecting, we were told if we have broken no laws, committed no crimes then we have nothing to fear of our DNA being stored. Can you imagine what the future could be like for all of us if every persons DNA was stored on a data basis, what scientists could do with that information. In 50 years time we could all be programmed to except anything and everything. just imagine if through scientific experiments they could destroy our aggressive gene without us knowing, who would fight for us then.

 

Tez reason I have not elaborated on the posts as you have requested is for a few reasons. One I don't want this to be a 121 debate which is what is happening, secondly it would take to long and to much of my time to go into detail my reasoning and thirdly I would have to read through the whole thread again to distinguish what posts you are referring to. and finaly I would like to hear the views from other members on other issues and not get roped in to one long debate.

[Bookworm]

Bookworn only 100 women, powerful ones at that!!. French at that, they get away with anything what about the thousands upon thousands of women in Ireland who had to come here for a abortion or who had to die because of illegal back street abortions hmm it puts it in prospective a bit.

Not sure what you're getting at, Pen. :-? I gave the above example as one case where public protest very much made the government take action.

[honey5]

abortions are surely something that everyone should have a right to concieve? (sorry not a pun) if youre sure that its "happened" and cant manage then isnt that a choice you should make rather than relieing on the state?

IMHO id rather see someone hold their hands up and say than to not cope later on when its too late

its life everyones opinions will differ, i had twins at 24 weeks and was told "they are technically abortions" ???? theyre 11 now so......................

honey x

[Pen]

Hi bookworm. What I was trying to say is 1975 100 women in France, very powerful women who were able to make their government change their stance on abortion.

So why could not 100 women in Ireland do they same. it had to take thousdands and many died before the government would do anything about it.and it's still shunned today! It's about being powerful and using that power to influence others not about mass protests.

 

Honey how loverly God you must have been worried sick!!!

 

tez I hope I'm not a unsuspected part of your game????

[Tezcatlipoca]

Not sure what you're getting at, Pen.

 

I confess myself to be a little uncertain of exactly what Pen is meaning to say at times; the comments seem to range from the inaccurate ("vast majority of our countrymen are emigrating because of they way our country is being run"), to the confused ("tez I hope I'm not a unsuspected part of your game???"), and the contradictory ("It's about being powerful and using that power to influence others not about mass protests"), to the downright bizarre ("through scientific experiments they could destroy our aggressive gene without us knowing").

 

abortions are surely something that everyone should have a right to concieve?

 

Absolutely. Not only is it - or at least should be - a woman's right to choose, but those against abortion rarely if ever take into account the wider picture. The classic, but still relevant, argument is for children conceived as the result of rape. It astounds me that anybody can be opposed to abortion in this situation and still consider themselves educated.

 

if youre sure that its "happened" and cant manage then isnt that a choice you should make rather than relieing on the state?

 

Indeed, there's the question of pragmatism to be considered, financial or otherwise. On one level, I think it's an act of cruelty to bring a child into the world if you are unable to care for it, regardless of whether such inadequacies are your fault or not.

[Pen]

Tez. do you gain enjoyment out of winding people up and name calling, I have not done any of this to you yet you have tried to provoke this decision for your own ends from the very beginning why! for some reason you have latched on to every one of my comments despite me stating I did not want a 121 debate, you have even gone as far as going to one of my other threads to provoke a response from me. how sad is that. is this conversation so important in your live that you can't let it go

 

is there nothing else on this thread of interest to you, I personally thought the other contributors not related to this discussion are very interesting with very different views on our world obviously you must think there views were not worth reading as you have made little comment to them other then the odd few who have spilled over into this discussion

 

I am happy to discuss anything with anyone, how ever I will not be told what to do and criticised just because I have not provided your with the answers you want out of me. What you don't get is I don't have to reply to your bombardment of questioning. I have my own views on subjects and that fine their mine not your views mine, if I want to share them I will off my own accord not because you have told me you wanted me to!!!the criticize me because I haven't relate to them. You can not tell me what to do dictators do that!!!

 

And as regards my spelling who gives a ****! no one is asking you to read it. For all you know I could be disabled, have learning difficulties even on too many drugs so for you to continuously comment on them is not a very christian thing to do now is it, oh sorry re post whatever. christians are all hypocrites, there I have gone back and found the quote for you to save you the bother.

 

I can not beleive you could be so petty as to forse this discusion onto one of my threads just for your own enjoyment. I could also be extremily rude if I wanted to but this is not the aims of the site, basicaly it's a very good site with a lot of nice members who work together as part of a team and if you didn't know the aims of the bear garden is for off topic light hearted bannter and it's for thaat reason I will no longer be reading your posts, slag away at me if it turns you on but please do not expect me to respond. I won't be doing.

 

However I will not be leaving the thread as I really enjoy what other members a lot of whom I would consider friends have to say

 

If on the other hand you would like to discuse this post with me and further then please do so as a PM.

 

Pen

 

i

[honey5]

Honey how loverly God you must have been worried sick!!!

 

most certainly was Pen, (bearing in mind i had an 18mth at home too) at 1lb 6oz and 1lb 9oz, see thru, covered in hair, no ears, webbed fingers/toes etc, strange yet wonderful thing to watch your children developing inside of an incubator, they were born on 28th june and the first time i could take them home was 27th november (scary day for all lol)

there's times i feel like i could send them back now tho

but............... i had a choice that day, theyd fight for them if they thought they were viable, no one need ever fight for these two they have enough fight inside to conquer most things and theyve proved that to the world and everyone in it

 

my main concern being (as no one could tell me why they came so early) was that one or both would have some horrendous deformity (dont ask me why i had those thoughts i really dont know) i spoke of the fears and asked that if either or both had massive problems to just please let them go (not an easy thing to decide)

would i make the same decision again?????????? not sure i presume so but i dont think id have the strength emotionally to do it all again

 

but funnily enough these are the two whereby one believes and the other "wants gods phone number"

honey x

[Tezcatlipoca]

Calm down, Pen. Nobody has engaged in "name calling" against you, so I would be extremely grateful if you would cease making groundless accusations.

 

My last post pointed out an inaccurate statement you'd made. Rather than point out why you didn't think it was inaccurate, you have instead posted - if I may make so bold - a rather childish tirade. This is not helpful; to me, the thread or yourself.

If a person doesn't want their statements examined, then they probably shouldn't be making them.

 

The reason your comments have been responded to more than any other is - very simply - that you have gone out of your way to disagree with my early points. There is no problem with this - this is basis of intelligent discourse - but to loudly disagree yet fail to either justify your points or respond to mine is not very helpful. If you disagree with a point, and state you do, then it is generally the done thing to point out why, and back up each of your points.

 

you have even gone as far as going to one of my other threads to provoke a response from me. how sad is that

 

Don't be so silly. If you are refering to this post, are you saying that a poster is bebarred from posting in another thread simply because you feel they are making you look rather silly in another? Or that you should have the veto on posts as the thread starter? And let's not forget this post.

 

obviously you must think there views were not worth reading

 

Making such suppositions will only serve to undermine yourself, Pen. Stop it.

I'm interested in the views of any person, and if you look back you'll notice that I've responded to those people who have stated their point clearly. If I agree, I'll agree and clearly state why, or vice-versa.

 

Once again, Pen, we are all interested in the views of others, but please calm down before making ad-hominem posts. Attack the point; not the person.