They want to see Buckingham Palace become a mosque

Simple solution. Send those that complain with radical motives back to their own country. Those that accept the lifestyle/laws of their new homeland are welcome anyone else can bugger off. Wouldn't that be an insult to the royal family?

The British are to soft.

So are you suggesting that Anjem Choudary is deported from Ilford back to Bexley?
Should the british state pay for his bus fare or should they make him walk?

[NeonSamurai]

@Tribesman

I do not know the origins of the term "Redneck", nor do I particularly care to be honest. It is not something that is relevant to me. As such I have not followed the intricacies of the discussion here on that topic, nor have I entered into it. My comments to you were more of a general observation of the posts of yours that I have read.

I have to ask, do you think your approach is effective? By effective I mean, are you successfully conveying your message, are people 'listening' to what you write, and considering what you 'say'? From my own observations I would have to say the answer is no.

For one thing, ridicule and insult shut down real communication between people. No one will care what you have to say if you deride them and their opinions, no matter how correct you may be. Second, hinting at knowledge with out providing evidence of it, is not a proper form of argumentation. For one thing, you could well be bluffing. A lot of people when faced with an argument they cannot 'win' will turn to trying to bluff their way out of it by suggesting they know something the other person does not, but with out demonstrating any of it. Also that method it puts you in an intelectual tower from which you can leer at the 'ignorant' peasantry below you.

You have to provide some 'meat' to your arguments if you want people to take you seriously. We don't expect vast treatises on the subject at hand, a condensed version would suffice. But you have to offer something more then cryptic hints, or you will just be ignored. Furthermore if you really want people to consider what you have to say, and do further investigation into the subject. You have to create the right kind of mental and emotional environment for that to happen.


@Skybird

That has to be one of the nicest compliments anyone has ever payed me. I would certainly never say that your statements lack determination. I have often wondered how much the language barrier contributes negatively to what you write. You write very well in English, and I enjoy reading what you have to say, even if I may not agree. But your structuring of sentences can be odd at times, and you sometimes make incorrect use of words. Such things unfortunately can corrupt the intended message.

I usually take a lot of time composing what I have to say. I carefully weigh every sentence to make sure it is saying precisely what I want to get across. I also read and reread my posts multiple times to make sure my message is clear, my reasoning is sound, my judgment is fair, and that I am being open minded to what others are saying and have properly considered what they have said. Unfortunately its a very time consuming process, this post for example, will have taken me about 2-3 hours to complete.



Now on to Karl Marx.. Yep ol Karl was not the nicest of people, and yes a lot of his theories and ideas have been discarded. But not all of them have been. In Sociology he is still a fairly important figure, due to his key contributions to conflict theory and his concepts of the mode of production, the means of production, and the relations of production. Conflict theory is still a major theory in Sociology, and the 3 concepts above are still used to this day (though not in their original form). So he does deserve some credit.


Lastly a small comment on socialism. Socialism is not a bad form of government, it is one of the oldest forms we have. The problem though is that it only works properly on the microscopic scale, in groups of around 50 people or less. Tribal society is a type of socialistic structure. The members of the tribe help one another to survive, and no members have major power over other members. All members contribute, and when a member is unable to, the rest of the band pulls together to help that individual. What is important to understand though, is that corruption does not happen very easily at that scale. Slackers/abusers are quickly found out and ejected from the society, and people cannot easily be greedy and take too much with out getting caught. Unfortunatly though, once you hit a certain population, where people do not know everyone in the community, corruption becomes a real problem.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Lastly a small comment on socialism. Socialism is not a bad form of government, it is one of the oldest forms we have. The problem though is that it only works properly on the microscopic scale, in groups of around 50 people or less. Tribal society is a type of socialistic structure. The members of the tribe help one another to survive, and no members have major power over other members. All members contribute, and when a member is unable to, the rest of the band pulls together to help that individual. What is important to understand though, is that corruption does not happen very easily at that scale. Slackers/abusers are quickly found out and ejected from the society, and people cannot easily be greedy and take too much with out getting caught. Unfortunatly though, once you hit a certain population, where people do not know everyone in the community, corruption becomes a real problem.

Interesting point. I would counter (more for the sake of argument than because I'm an out-and-out socialist) that you have the exact same problem in any large population regardless of the economic system in place. In fact, as you said, it becomes difficult in a population over 50 people so you get the problem within individual organisations, let alone whole countries. I've worked in two large corporations both of which had more than their fair share of slackers. The management in one of those corporations correctly identified the problem, and correctly identified the solution (lay off 20% of the staff) but then used it as an excuse to fire the 20% who disagreed with the way management were doing things, rather than the 20% who were slacking. As for the abusers, capitalism seems to me to reward them more than anyone else! Take the banking crisis for example. The point I'm making, in a round-about way, is that at no point have I seen capitalism providing a fix/solution to the problems you've highlighted.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

But your structuring of sentences can be odd at times, and you sometimes make incorrect use of words.

Not to mention my many typos! I'm typing too fast, and then am too lazy to correct them.

Lastly a small comment on socialism. Socialism is not a bad form of government, it is one of the oldest forms we have. The problem though is that it only works properly on the microscopic scale, in groups of around 50 people or less. Tribal society is a type of socialistic structure. The members of the tribe help one another to survive, and no members have major power over other members. All members contribute, and when a member is unable to, the rest of the band pulls together to help that individual. What is important to understand though, is that corruption does not happen very easily at that scale. Slackers/abusers are quickly found out and ejected from the society, and people cannot easily be greedy and take too much with out getting caught. Unfortunatly though, once you hit a certain population, where people do not know everyone in the community, corruption becomes a real problem.

Remarkable, becasue I say much the same about democratic principles, I said repeatedly they only work on local (=low, small) levels, and communities of limited size. You hear me, Lance? Maybe one should include the functionality of capitalistic market principles to be community-size-dependent as well.

What have all these assessements in common? Leave the governing, the owing, the entrepreneurs the space to bend rules that are to their subjective disadvantage but in favour of the community, and the probability increases they will do that. Allow the elite to avoid being affected by the consequences of their governing decisions, and they are more likely to act in favour of their interests even if it is at the cost of the interest of the community. the winner in this confrontation of onterests often is the one being richer than the other, which makes him more powerful (to form the rules to his liking, or to walk around them and get away with it), and this "space", the opportunity to evade, is due to the size of the community, and it's regulation mechanisms having become too complex.

I am currently putting together an essay adressing some of these things, amongst others, a bit in the way what you said regarding yourself taking 2-3 hours for a post. Just that it is not only 2-3 hours, but so far occasional work over 2-3 days.

Means: I'll be back at this in the near future. Maybe not exactly this, but you'll recognise some familiar points.

[NeonSamurai]

Oh I would not argue that democracy also works best at the micro scale. Frankly all our forms of governance, even communism, work at their best in the very small scale. The larger the system, the easier it is for corruption to seep into the many cracks.

The problem is how to best escape from the corruption, given human nature. That is something I don't have a solid answer for other then perhaps successive layers of small communities.

[Letum]

The best example of micro nations we have is the Greek polis.
All kinds of government worked somewhat well there; democracy,
oligarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy.
However, with so many national egos, there was not much peace
between the states and they where easily taken advantage of. (i.e. the
Athenian Empire).

@Tribesman

Another interesting post Samurai, but firstly may I suggest that you read it again and then go back and read your first post in this topic.
Secondly I would like you to focus on that first post of yours and then re-read the posts I wrote.
Can you then combine the two stages and apply the criticisms in your last post to your first post.

But I think the problem is illustrated by

My comments to you were more of a general observation of the posts of yours that I have read.

so you were writing in a topic but not about the topic, yet were criticising what was written in the topic because of who had written it not what was written.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Nice to see you again, Tribesman. How was your trip?

I have to confess, I'm a little honored by the fact that you took the time to compose such a thorough response.

Alright, here we go.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

OK Lancecorporal,

Thats simple, Rednecks are seen as backwards idiots with very strange views that they hold strongly and which no amount of reasoning will get them to reconsider or reappraise, just like the muslim fundamentalist idiots in the opening article are.

Lol. I don't think there are many groups that aren't viewed that way by some group or the other.
I get your point, but I think you're making a bit of a logical leap, there. I can't recall any information suggesting that theocracy and suicide bombings are indicative of Rednecks(or Christian Fundamentalists, whicever you prefer), nor are they generally guilty of trying to impose their religion upon others by force. Certainly there are some who do that, I've met a couple, but most of them don't. The fact that they are politically (if not morally) tolerant of other religions suggests that they might not be so impervious to reason as you suggest.

Etymology notwithstanding, modern "rednecks" are generally independent persons with strong moral convictions (amongst other things), but they rarely assault others' beliefs or freedoms with anything more dangerous than sermonizing or general b-ing.
I suppose the argument could be made that their vehement defense of anti-abortion and anti-biomed research laws could be construed as an assault upon the freedoms and beliefs of others, but it is still a far cry from trying to massacre people in defense of forced religious rule.

My point is that they are not "just like" Islamic fundamentalists. Compared to Islamic fundamentalists, Socialists, and the variety of other "ists" and "isms" they are relatively forward thinkers in that they stalwartly defend individual rights, even if that is just because they are more interested in the preservation of their own rights.

I am a redneck. I ride horses and shoot guns. I know how to steer-wrestle and tie a calf. My mom lives in a trailer. I have a personalized "yee-haw" and a rebel yell that I am particularly proud of. I have a reasonably developed work ethic. I strongly believe that there is a God, and that he is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and merciful. I believe in the preservation of personal liberty for everyone at any cost, because life is nothing without freedom. Does this somehow equate me with radicals who blindly seek to impose their societal and belief structures upon everyone without exception through the indiscriminate use of deadly force?

Call them what you will, but "rednecks" are remarkably prevalent in the central and southern US - regions which are, coincidentally, considered economic powerhouses, even within the US. Ironic, considering that the more liberal, and therefore, "educated" regions have suffered from a mass migration of industry, commerce, and the associated prosperity, don't you think? Do you suppose that may be due to the backwards and strange views that rednecks held, reflected in their legislature? Very curious.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Back to the etymology of the term .
You refer to late 19th early 20th century and call it of questionable provenance.
The term in America is established in the early 19th century, there are at least 3 publications from the same decade which use it specificly in that manner, though as an interesting side note "cracker" which has even earlier origins was being applied specificly to scottish and ulster-scots presbyterian settlers in Georgia 70 years earlier than the 1830s use of redneck to describe them.
Also of interest with the link to the confederacy is that one of those 1830s literary references to rednecks was written by an anglican minister whose descendant became a rather famous confederate general.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the General was either Stuart or Forrest; Stuart, because of the Scottish name, or Forrest, because I suspect you might seek to equate rednecks with the KKK. How far off was I? I enjoy a bit of trivia.

Back to the etymology question. During your absence I actually found two credible references to the term "redneck" that pre-dated my supposition, so I'm going to give you that point. It seems that you've learned this redneck something.

Visit the Knights party website, I am unsure if it is permissible to post link to it on this forum due to the nature of the material it contains. Or look at a certain ulster-scots presbyterian minister giving a speech to the EU.

I found a white supremacist site, which appears to be the political face of the KKK.
I deduce from your statement that you are equating the actions of Scottish clergy with those of extremist groups in the US. May I humbly suggest that the work of clergymen in a relatively racially homogenous nation might not reflect the political attitude of a completely different group of people in a much larger and racially, politically, and ethically heterogenous nation?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That would take a post which would make Skybirds longest contributions seem like mere footnotes.

I'd like to read that post. Skybird's contributions sometimes exceed the text limit, and I've had the privilege of reading some of his .pdf essays, which are much longer, I assure you. I have no fear of reading.

I would be very interested in a post which somehow divorces the cause of the Three Kingdoms' Wars from the political desire to impose universal religious beliefs.

If you have the time to write it, I have the time to read it.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

There were many contributing factors, State rights were the main issue but also the issue over new states and the issue of slavery in territories which wanted statehood. Bleeding Kansas is a good example of a precursor to the war.

No, Bleeding Kansas is a good example of a recruiting incentive for the war. The North was not willing to go to war over slavery, as had been demonstrated on numerous occassions, not the least of which was the Northern tolerance of slave states within its' alliance well after the war had begun, and finished.
The North went to war because the state-industrial complex would not tolerate dissent when it came to eliminating competition from foreign enterprise in the form of a tariff. Special interests were proportionately just as active then as they are today, my friend, as was the inherent immorality of fiat power. Men of power were willing to send other men to their deaths for the preservation of their own selfish interests.

what is funny is that you appear to make assumptions about my views on that topic when I have written nothing about it and then go off on those assumptions.

But you have written things about it. Many of your previous posts indicate that you believe in socialist or centrist ideals. In fact, you support that hypothesis in your next paragraph.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

...though what makes that even funnier is that people were hailing Irelands recent "economic miracle" with its unrestricted free market approach coupled with de-regulation and corporate tax reductions as a great success that other countries should emulate, when the truth is that it is a thoroughly corrupt country

Please allow me to stop you right there. I have no doubt that corruption is a problem in Ireland but why is it a problem? What caused it? What kind of a problem is it?

I'm going to hazard an educated guess and suggest that most of the corruption involves the principle political party and parties that are a lot like it or directly support it. I'm also going to guess that the corruption generally falls under the category of "bribes and political favors". I'll bet that a lot of it also involves corporations "skirting the rules" and using or somehow ignoring legislative barriers to further their own agendas, and I'll bet that most of those actions ultimately serve the purpose of outlawing competition in production, trade, and labor.

I say this because I know that Ireland is a notoriously centrist nation, almost on par with what the US is rapidly becoming. Where political harmony reigns, there is power. Where there is power, there are those who seek it. Where those who seek power are present, there are invariably a number of them who seek it for personal gain, if not all of them. Where power is used for personal gain, there is immorality, because the use of power over others to further one's own agenda is immoral. Where there is immorality, there is corruption.

That is why I say that there is no "third way", an ideal that I know must be championed in Ireland simply because of its' political structure, which I I have deduced from the opinions you have heretofore presented. Isn't it interesting that I could know all that with a very limited understanding of Ireland beyond its' geographical location and government?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

which was following the same path that Thatcher used of an artificial bubble which will inevitably be followed by a massive downturn(though the difference is that Britain had the capacity to ride out the downturn better). Even calling it the Celtic Tiger should have been a clue for those who were hailing it as a success if they had looked at the pattern the asian tigers economies followed.

Corruption or no, Ireland still ranks somewhere in the 30's for GDP, worldwide. Pretty impressive for such a small nation with such limited resources. The Asian Tiger economies are similarly impressive, despite their vulnerability to global economic trends. The standards of living have been improved a great deal, even if they are not yet on par with the US. The US has spent most of its two hundred and thirty-three year history fostering a free market economy. It has spent all of that time fostering a more free-market than nations with comprable resources, so the discrepancy is understandable.

Thatcher's Britain continues to suffer from the exact same malady that your nation does: the continued and increasing presence of an overbearing and corrupt state made of people who seek to impose their will upon others. Economic freedoms can only do so much in the face of overtaxation and plutocracy. Sooner or later, they will slow down and be reversed as an established power structure takes root and grows.

So once again you made an assuption and went off on it, but this time managed to attribute a position to me which was more akin to that which many of the republican(and Democrat) politicians were using.

That is because your position is ultimately the same. You can spout ideals and legislative initiatives all you want, but at the end of the day you are still trusting the person who does the best job of asking you to cede your money and your freedom to them in exchange for the promise that they will "make it all better".

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That is strange since I often just pose questions (sometimes quite cryptic) for people to answer for themselves.

They may seem cryptic to you, but they aren't to some of us. They are just evidence of your inability to defend your position and a perversion of Socratic method. If you're going to use questions to teach, you should probably make them more clear, or at least discontinue the use of emoticons as responses. People aren't going to respond to with introspection, they'll just think you're a dick.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Did I refer to you as such?

Not specifically, but you treat me as such, on occasion, including most of this occassion.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

See above.

See above.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Actually I question just about everything, and if the state told me it was tuesday I would check a calendar before I believed it to be true.

That's probably the wisest thing I've ever seen you type.

Question the state. Question others. Question me. Question yourself. As biological machines, we are only as good as the information we posess. Querying others is sure to enhance our understanding of ourselves and the world, so long as we have the proper means of filtering information.

My worry is that you lack those means. Your consistent and casual disregard of others' views on this forum suggests that you do not question or even believe your own views by virtue of the fact that you can't be bothered to defend them with anything more than insult, real or implied. What you usually post implies that you are a product of indoctrination, seeking to prove the truth you have been taught and oblivious to outside influence.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I'd like to see a little proof. The virtues and failings of any person or group are ultimately defined by their actions (heh, kind of like rednecks and jihadists). Show me some real proof of the validity of your views, logical or emprical, and I, as well as others, will be more inclined to adopt your perspectives.

Two quick things Samurai.
If you look at the 3 sources I put as preceeding Hackett then you should see Longstreet was the general and his uncle was the writer.
Secondly, that racist political site you found, was it run by a "christian" pastor who came out of the rocky mountain gospel institute?

[August]

So what makes it ok to use such racist pejoratives anyways?

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Thatcher's Britain continues to...

Excuse me for butting in here but can I ask you to clarify what you mean? I would normally assume that by "Thatcher's Britain" you mean Britain as it was in the 80's, but you followed it with "continues to" which suggests you actually mean Britain today? I'm probably just being dense... but are you saying that Britain today is the same as it was under Thatcher? I'm not trying to disagree with anything you said, I'm just trying to understand that bit of it.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by August

So what makes it ok to use such racist pejoratives anyways?

Are you referring to the OP?

[August]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Are you referring to the OP?

Not in particular but people here do seem to be rather free with using it as a disparaging term don't you think?

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by August

Not in particular but people here do seem to be rather free with using it as a disparaging term don't you think?

Oh right, sorry, I thought you meant something else entirely.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Excuse me for butting in here but can I ask you to clarify what you mean? I would normally assume that by "Thatcher's Britain" you mean Britain as it was in the 80's, but you followed it with "continues to" which suggests you actually mean Britain today? I'm probably just being dense... but are you saying that Britain today is the same as it was under Thatcher? I'm not trying to disagree with anything you said, I'm just trying to understand that bit of it.

Your interjection is most welcome, you are not being "dense" at all, only inquisitive, and I will be happy to address your arguments. Through discussion, we may discover that I am the one who is dense.
In truth, it is I who should be offering apologies, since I did not make my point more clear.

I am not saying that Britain today is the same as it was under Thatcher. What I am saying is that Thatcher's Britain of the 80's has suffered under political agendas since her departure. it still exists, to some degree, but it has been largely destroyed by centrist agenda.

Since Thatcher, new legislation has been imposed and companies both dometstic and extranationial have found ways of taking advantage of that legislation to secure their own positions, not to mention politicians.

For comparison, consider the US. As I said to Tribesman, it has a history of supporting the free market more than other nations. Diregarding its' resources and size, the key word is "more". Business, and the associated prosperity, is always attracted to the most favourable venue. If it cannot establish a place in a social-industrial complex, it will simply seek the next most favourable place, usually a less-established social-industrial complex or a free market. Basically, it goes where the prospects for success are most favorable.

Under Thatcher's reforms, the United Kingdom began to advance in the way that a free-market nation should. Though the advances were rapid, they were not instantaneous, and much of the population became disillusioned with them. They turned instead to promises of prosperity and reform that were never quite delivered.

One of the curiosities of human nature is the willingness to exchange prosperity for the promise of greater and supposedly more expedient prosperity based upon rhetoric alone. I blame it on our genetic nature, which equates positive social interaction with reproductive potential. Actual success can be superceded by the promise of greater success delivered in superior wording. It all comes from being a social species. I'll be happy to explain more along that line of reasoning via PM, but I don't think it responsible to just display it in public. If I am right, it kind of ruins the "fun" for everyone, and if I am wrong it kind of ruins the "fun" for everyone for no reason.

In any case, the point is that Thatcher's reforms never really got a chance to impress themselves upon the public consciousness. I have no doubt that she was mostly right in her views, but the political structure did not change enough in time to vindicate them. Despite the leaps Britain made under Thatcher's reforms, the ingrained power structure managed to mitigate and even reverse them with a yet-undelivered promise for greater success. In short, the success of the free market could not override the public desire for instant gratification.