Supid Hollywood Bimbo

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It's not an act. If I say you are acting vulgarly then that's the way I feel.

You're getting your threads mixed up, I think. I'm referring to "OMG HOW DARE YOU JUDGE THE IRA WHEN YOU NEVER HAD YOUR DAD SHOT EXECUTION-STYLE BY A GANG OF PARAMILITARY THUGS IN ULSTER!?!?!!!!ONE" That would be a textbook example of moral indignation, if they published textbooks on ways to act ill-used. And it's not compatible with the statement "I don't believe in morality."

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok


You're getting your threads mixed up, I think. I'm referring to "OMG HOW DARE YOU JUDGE THE IRA WHEN YOU NEVER HAD YOUR DAD SHOT EXECUTION-STYLE BY A GANG OF PARAMILITARY THUGS IN ULSTER!?!?!!!!ONE" That would be a textbook example of moral indignation, if they published textbooks on ways to act ill-used. And it's not compatible with the statement "I don't believe in morality."

I said, "What a bunch of self-rigtheous BS! Let's see how decent you are when foreigners murder your family and friends."

That's not what you are claiming that I said, and it's not contrary to "I don't believe in morality."

My point is that even if morals were something real, you are incapable of making a moral judgement unless you have been in a similar relevent personal situation.

[Elok]

No, that is a type of normative statement. Unless "self-righteous BS" is now synonymous with "factually incorrect." It seems a bit strong for a disinterested assertion on behalf of a style of reasoning you don't believe in from the get-go. For example, I can't recall the last time I said, "No, you moron, Santa has the eight original reindeer from The Night Before Christmas, PLUS Rudolph, for a total of nine! What a jerkoff!"

And your point, as you just rephrased it, is absurd. I can't pass moral judgment on an act unless I have personally committed the act or had it committed on me? Well, I haven't stolen anything or been robbed, I'm not a pederast and I haven't been molested...come to think of it, I've never tried to exterminate an ethnic group, so I shouldn't condemn what's going on in Darfur. Ridiculous.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
No, that is a type of normative statement. Unless "self-righteous BS" is now synonymous with "factually incorrect." It seems a bit strong for a disinterested assertion on behalf of a style of reasoning you don't believe in from the get-go. For example, I can't recall the last time I said, "No, you moron, Santa has the eight original reindeer from The Night Before Christmas, PLUS Rudolph, for a total of nine! What a jerkoff!"

Who said I don't believe strongly about this or other things. Believing strongly is not the same as having moral beliefs. There is no possible way not to have beliefs. You can either call it your personal morality or not, but they are nothing but beliefs really.

And your point, as you just rephrased it, is absurd. I can't pass moral judgment on an act unless I have personally committed the act or had it committed on me? Well, I haven't stolen anything or been robbed, I'm not a pederast and I haven't been molested...come to think of it, I've never tried to exterminate an ethnic group, so I shouldn't condemn what's going on in Darfur. Ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is trying to pass judgement when you have no experience to base it upon. I suppose you look in your Bible for the answers.

Our true beliefs come from our experiences, unless we don't have any. Then we just make up whatever makes us feel better.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
The Iberian Peninsula has been united a few times, to no clearly identifiable detriment of the residents.

i take it you mean the iberian union under philip II (or philip I in portugal). two things. firstly, it wasn't really a united country, more of a personal union, portugal kept its institutions and overseas territories. it was a similar situation to the england and scotland under james I (james VI in scotland). one king but two countries. secondly, the porutguese certainly didn't see it the way you do and kicked the spanish out.

Unity in small land masses is both convenient and useful for both internal and external trade.

given that ireland's biggest trading partner is the UK and that it is part of a 27 member free trade organisation, this is irrelevant.

The end, in itself, is usually desirable, although the specifics of the space can make the idea unacceptable to the many externally interfering elements. The Irish, north and south, have much more in common with each other than either have with anyone on the next island over. Their beliefs in certain Medieval religious structures being the only major difference in the two groups.

the serbs and the croats came out of divisions between those who followed the catholic church and those who were othordox. however, over time these differences became more pronounced, until you ended up with two groups distinct of people with different national identities. the situation in northern ireland is in some ways similar, although the catholics and protestants there tend to have different roots. the catholics tend to be decedents of the native irish, whereas the protestants tend to be descended from english and scots settlers who were 'planted' there between the 16th and 18th centuries. the communities have evolved from there to the situation we see today, where the catholics in the north have more in common with those in the south, and identify with them and the protestants have more in common with the people of great britain, and identify with them.

that's not to say that the two groups can't co-exist peacefully or have a reconciliation about the events of the past, as we are seeing today. however, to dismiss the differences between them as merely 'medieval religious structures' just doesn't cut it.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles


It's not about who started it. It's about the oppression of the Catholic minority. Sure, I'd like to see a united Irish Republic, but the Protestants have the right to national self determination. What they don't have the right to do is treat the Catholics as second class citizens devoid of rights.

Which by and large they have stopped doing, it's not perfect but it's getting better and If the IRA hadn't started blowing up popel in the 70's the British givt would have forced the unionists to improve the lot of catholics a lot sooner.

Now the British govt has made huge mistakes in Northern Ireland including internment and collusion with loyalist thugs, but it has not had some grand imperial stratergy in Irland for over 80 years

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles It's not about who started it. It's about the oppression of the Catholic minority. Sure, I'd like to see a united Irish Republic, but the Protestants have the right to national self determination. What they don't have the right to do is treat the Catholics as second class citizens devoid of rights.

If anyone in Northern Ireland did discriminate because someone was a Catholic did that they'd be breaking multiple laws. The anti-discriminatory laws for employment alone in Northern Ireland are far more stringent than in the rest of the UK. Companies have to be able to actively prove that they aren't hiring people based on their religious background.

Any concept of "the oppression of the catholic minority" in the late 20th Century is mostly IRA fundraising bull****. The IRA were partially civilian targetting terrorists but a lot of their violence was your general every day organised crime type violence. They'd target Catholic businesses with their protection rackets, sell drugs to Catholic kids etc. Now they have basically given up "the struggle" to focus on the organised crime.

I don't know why people in the US have this naive view that they were freedom fighters rather than murdering gangsters. Excellent IRA propoganda probably. And if you can't understand why British people get annoyed, imagine if we said we were happily sending millions of dollars funds to the freedom fighters in Al Qaeda to support their struggle to get the Americans out of Saudi Arabia.

And yes, my family history is Irish. Didn't stop them trying to blow me up.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Of course they should. We, the white people, are still using their land to make profit, and dominate the rest of the world. What makes you think we have a right to do it? Because we've been doing it for a long time? That's absurd.

Thankfully the Naive Americans are a bit smarter than those who say they have the right to go on the war path. They learned long ago that any advancement that they may enjoy will be gotten from peaceful manipulation of the system instead of taking scalps and making famous last stands.

[Elok]

Don't kill, just guilt-trip until they let you run casinos and rob them.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Sprayber

--- the Naive Americans ---

Freudian slip?