Statue of disabled pregnant woman in Trafalgar Square...

[DJ Leon]

I don't think so.

At least there is a good measure of blunt honesty in your posts, which although I hardly ever agree with them, is at least worthy of respect.

Wow! You get LI's repsect! You should feel honoured.

The way you treat other posters LI, 'respect' really isn't a word you should play about with.

 

[London Calling]

Where can you start with self-delusion like this?

When did empire get turned around in your mind to beome "democracy"?

And stuff like the American Declaration of Indepedence mainly came from French ideas but yes, some of is owed to guys like Tom Paine, who usually had to be looking over his shoulder waiting to be arrested by the democracy-loving George III

Actually, the very English Magna Charter has formed the basis of their Constitution.

Apart from Ireland, I would be interested to know whether the British before 1917 actually crushed any democracies or democratic movements, in our imperialistic strive to take over the world.

Lc

 

[London Irish]

Your POV seems to ignore this and judge everything and everybody by modern definitions.

Nice try, but that historical relativism bullshit is at tedious as the debate over politixcal correctness.

My guys would have been the Diggers, the Levellers, the Peterloo marchers, the Chartists - I judge the empire and their apologists by their standards

 

[London Calling]

Nice try, but that historical relativism bullshit is at tedious as the debate over politixcal correctness.

My guys would have been the Diggers, the Levellers, the Peterloo marchers, the Chartists - I judge the empire and their apologists by their standards

Whose ideas (excluding the Chartists) not only greatly affected the Declaration of Indepedence, but a proportion of settlers in America in the C17th had escaped from Cromwell purges on the diggers and levellers.
LC

 

[Race]

back to reality.i think she's got nice baps!

 

[Yorkie]

back to reality.i think she's got nice baps!

You would.

 

[Race]

You would.

no comment.....YET

 

[Tom Bombadil]

200 years compared with centuries and centuries and over a more widespread area.

But it comes back to the fact the the numbers taken by the Arabs just don't compare to the industrial quantities transported across the atlantic to work the plantations.

 

[Yorkie]

But it comes back to the fact the the numbers taken by the Arabs just don't compare to the industrial quantities transported across the atlantic to work the plantations.

You are joking? The Arabs traded in Ethiopa, East Africa, the Arabian states, the Middle East and the Mediterranean after the Roman empire failed and were trading in slaves before the Greeks had their empire.

 

[Bakesy]

You are joking? The Arabs traded in Ethiopa, East Africa, the Arabian states, the Middle East and the Mediterranean after the Roman empire failed and were trading in slaves before the Greeks had their empire.

Evening Google, or do you prefer Jeeves, Yorks??
The Coventry lads seemed a bit quieter after the game...........

 

[Yorkie]

Evening Google, or do you prefer Jeeves, Yorks??
The Coventry lads seemed a bit quieter after the game...........

 

[Race]

Wow I actually agree with you fungus chops as it is art, although a gainsborough is more to my taste. Dont now about your localist mentality though.


Maybe in the name of Modern art they should of piled up slabs of lard and called it butters.

cor yeah i love lard.all over my roast spuds that my chef has cooked.YUM

 

[DJ Leon]

Nice try, but that historical relativism bullshit is at tedious as the debate over politixcal correctness.

My guys would have been the Diggers, the Levellers, the Peterloo marchers, the Chartists - I judge the empire and their apologists by their standards

The Diggers, the Levellers, the Peterloo marchers, the Chartists - now what do they all have in common? Well done LI - it's a good argument against yourself.

If historical relativism is bullshit, then why not condemn the Levellers and the Chartists for not wanting votes for women? These people were great liberal thinkers of their time, but in today's terms their position on the political spectrum would be quite different. Still not up for some relativism?

 

[London Irish]

The Diggers, the Levellers, the Peterloo marchers, the Chartists - now what do they all have in common? Well done LI - it's a good argument against yourself.

If historical relativism is bullshit, then why not condemn the Levellers and the Chartists for not wanting votes for women? These people were great liberal thinkers of their time, but in today's terms their position on the political spectrum would be quite different. Still not up for some relativism?

Well, actually the Chartist movement was the first serious political movement in this country to debate the question of women's suffrage. Chartist leaders William Lovett, John Cleave and Henry Hetherington were all in favour of it, so your claim is utterly dishonest right there. The Chartists sewed the seeds for that great struggle too.

What annoys me about the historical relativism practised by imperial apologists like youself is that its effect is no different to French post-modernist airhead philosophy, you hide behind it to make no value judgements about historical events. That's intellectually fraudulent behaviour.

The fact is, of course you must take account of historical context in making value judgements. This is what you do in politics all the time, is it the very art of politics. But where slippery little eels like you go wrong is to imagine that progressive ideas like democracy and human rights only exist in a modern context - that's bullshit. These ideas shined a very piecing light on to the nineteenth century empires you now seek to half-mystify and fully glorify.

 

[DJ Leon]

Well, actually the Chartist movement was the first serious political movement in this country to debate the question of women's suffrage. Chartist leaders William Lovett, John Cleave and Henry Hetherington were all in favour of it, so your claim is utterly dishonest right there. The Chartists sewed the seeds for that great struggle too.

So it was in the Charter then? No, it wasn't - it was Universal Manhood Suffrage wasn't it? What a lofty liberal aim that is by today's standards. We want the vote for men only. Sewn the seeds for that struggle it might have done, but that according to your own argument means nothing. You really should have a think about this.

What annoys me about the historical relativism practised by imperial apologists like youself is that its effect is no different to French post-modernist airhead philosophy, you hide behind it to make no value judgements about historical events. That's intellectually fraudulent behaviour.

"imperial apologists like youself" - on what evidence do you base this? Have I mentioned the empire anywhere? have I said how jolly good it was that we subjugated and opressed half the planet for economic gain? I haven't have I? The problem is LI, you have an argument which is going to stay the same whatever anyone else argues. You are convinced that anyone with a slightly differing opinion to yours must be directly going against what you said. Try taking some time to read what people actually write.

There is of course nothing wrong with making moral judgements about historical events, but you need to keep some context. William Lovett, John Cleave and Henry Hetherington were all great reformers. But what do you they thought about gay people? Now, I don't know what they thought, but I would ahve thought they were bigots. So should we condemn them?

The fact is, of course you must take account of historical context in making value judgements. This is what you do in politics all the time, is it the very art of politics. But where slippery little eels like you go wrong is to imagine that progressive ideas like democracy and human rights only exist in a modern context - that's bullshit. These ideas shined a very piecing light on to the nineteenth century empires you now seek to half-mystify and fully glorify.

"Slippery little eels like you" Nice, well done for descending this from your usual patronising tone to outright insult. Very classy, for a man who puts so much value on argument. Maybe we could meet for a pint (and an argument) some time and you could try calling me a "slippery eel" to my face?

In response to your argument however I would say this - where you go wrong is to suggest that democracy and human rights have been static concepts. Our understanding of democracy 200 years ago was radically different from what is is today. Our understanding of human rights has changed immeasurably in the last 50 years, let alone the last 200. What was liberal in 1850 is certainly not what is liberal today - how can you make historical moral judgements without taking that into consideration?

Anyway, I have kind of enjoyed this argument and it's been interesting to hear what you say LI. It's a good debate, but one which you are probably one of the few people in the world to think is black and white. I say 'kind of enjoyed', because you are both one of the most interesting posters on NSC and one of the most patronising and insulting. There's no need for it really. I think I'll leave this debate now.

Ta ra.

 

[Race]

her 'arris don't look too bad either

 

[London Irish]

Well, DJ Leon, the reason why I earlier said I had more respect for HampshireSeagulls is simply this, whenever I exchange with him, we can usually at least agree on the facts of something and then from that can flow our honest disagreement on the politics arising from those set of facts.

I think that process of agreeing ANYTHING factual would be very hard to achieve with slippery old you.

While rather piously berating me for my postings, you indulge in a myriad of rhetorical parlour games, humbug assertions and fake disagreements.

And what's worse, like the postmodernist/relatavist that you are, you don't end up arguing in favour of anything - so what point do you make? Other than that "we can't make any points" about history?

But let's clear this all up bit by bit.

But in reality we have defined what freedom and democracy is today.

You object very strongly being called an imperial apologist, even though you say "we have defined what freedom and democracy is about" in the world.

I say it is impossible to hold that latter position (freedom/democracy catalysts) without practising the former (prettifying the reality of empire). I believe you to be engaged in a piece of historical myth-making that the activities of our empire strengthened the advance of "freedom and democracy" in the world. Of course it did no such thing, just as the 21st century American empire is doing no such thing, even though it employs the very same ideological mystificatory words you employ.

But let's concentrate on your most mischievous debating trick, the fake disagreement on method.

I put forward this argument to you: "the fact is, of course you must take account of historical context in making value judgements".

And your strong disagreement is this: "There is of course nothing wrong with making moral judgements about historical events, but you need to keep some context."

A devastating critique, eh?

But rather than actually admit we might ACTUALLY AGREE on applying context to historical situations, you engage in more deliberate muddying of the waters with your factual examples.

Take the issue of woman's suffrage you raised. You put forward the view (devil's advocate no doubt) that the Chartists should be faulted for holding the same position on women voting as the British establishment had at the time.

But then I pointed out to you that the Chartists, in fact, were the centre of the most advanced discussions anywhere in Britain in the 1830s/1840s on woman's suffrage. If you apply the appropriate historical context, you will see the Chartists deserve great praise for this. But what do you rather woodenly do? You criticise them for not including it in the final People's Charter. :thud: Yep, you've completely contradicted your own method that historical context should be weighed when making judgements!

And then you make another facetious point about the Chartists. Oh, they weren't in favour of gay rights, pretending that this was, in some conceivable way, a similar discussion to the women's suffrage debate. Utterly facetious because there was no 1830s/1840s political debate about gay rights, but there was about woman's suffrage (which you forgot about or didn't research properly )

There is actually an interesting contemporary and controversial parallel on the question of context vis-a-vis gay rights, which is Ken Livingstone's championing of a dialogue with moderate Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Ken's opponents attack him for talking to someone who doesn't have liberal pro-gay rights views. Ken responds that in the context of the Muslim world, Qaradawi is a moderate on gay rights as he opposes those who want gays criminalised.

It was this very example I was thinking of when I replied to you earlier that "of course you must take account of historical context in making value judgements. This is what you do in politics all the time, is it the very art of politics".

Ken is practicising the art of politics by making judgements when taking context into account. This is what Ken's critics, wrongly, don't do, similar to your flawed criticism of the Chartists and women's suffrage.

Then you move on to mischaracterising my position on democracy by errecting an idiot Aunt Sally position for me thus:

where you go wrong is to suggest that democracy and human rights have been static concepts. Our understanding of democracy 200 years ago was radically different from what is is today. Our understanding of human rights has changed immeasurably in the last 50 years, let alone the last 200. What was liberal in 1850 is certainly not what is liberal today - how can you make historical moral judgements without taking that into consideration?

The reason why this is so tedious is that I gave you a list of contextual examples of champions of democracy from the 17th century onwards to demonstrate how we can begin to apply judgements on democracy leavened by specific historical contexts. So can we put that idiot Aunt Sally back were you found her, yeah?

You conclude your post with another choice piece of humbug, berating me for being patronising, yet in the very next sentence you say I am "one of the few people in the world to think [the democracy context debate] is black and white".

Resist the temptation to patronise so obviously after making the same accusation, it looks hypocritical.

This, though, has to be my favourite bit of your post:

Maybe we could meet for a pint (and an argument) some time and you could try calling me a "slippery eel" to my face?

Yep, the traditional mesageboard invitation so beloved of excitable types to meet and sort it out Out of interest, if I did sit opposite you and said you were arguing like a slippery eel, how would you seek to resolve that awful insult to your dignity?

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

Well, DJ Leon, the reason why I earlier said I had more respect for HampshireSeagulls is simply this, whenever I exchange with him, we can usually at least agree on the facts of something and then from that can flow our honest disagreement on the politics arising from those set of facts.

I think that process of agreeing ANYTHING factual would be very hard to achieve with slippery old you.

While rather piously berating me for my postings, you indulge in a myriad of rhetorical parlour games, humbug assertions and fake disagreements.

And what's worse, like the postmodernist/relatavist that you are, you don't end up arguing in favour of anything - so what point do you make? Other than that "we can't make any points" about history?

But let's clear this all up bit by bit.



You object very strongly being called an imperial apologist, even though you say "we have defined what freedom and democracy is about" in the world.

I say it is impossible to hold that latter position (freedom/democracy catalysts) without practising the former (prettifying the reality of empire). I believe you to be engaged in a piece of historical myth-making that the activities of our empire strengthened the advance of "freedom and democracy" in the world. Of course it did no such thing, just as the 21st century American empire is doing no such thing, even though it employs the very same ideological mystificatory words you employ.

But let's concentrate on your most mischievous debating trick, the fake disagreement on method.

I put forward this argument to you: "the fact is, of course you must take account of historical context in making value judgements".

And your strong disagreement is this: "There is of course nothing wrong with making moral judgements about historical events, but you need to keep some context."

A devastating critique, eh?

But rather than actually admit we might ACTUALLY AGREE on applying context to historical situations, you engage in more deliberate muddying of the waters with your factual examples.

Take the issue of woman's suffrage you raised. You put forward the view (devil's advocate no doubt) that the Chartists should be faulted for holding the same position on women voting as the British establishment had at the time.

But then I pointed out to you that the Chartists, in fact, were the centre of the most advanced discussions anywhere in Britain in the 1830s/1840s on woman's suffrage. If you apply the appropriate historical context, you will see the Chartists deserve great praise for this. But what do you rather woodenly do? You criticise them for not including it in the final People's Charter. :thud: Yep, you've completely contradicted your own method that historical context should be weighed when making judgements!

And then you make another facetious point about the Chartists. Oh, they weren't in favour of gay rights, pretending that this was, in some conceivable way, a similar discussion to the women's suffrage debate. Utterly facetious because there was no 1830s/1840s political debate about gay rights, but there was about woman's suffrage (which you forgot about or didn't research properly )

There is actually an interesting contemporary and controversial parallel on the question of context vis-a-vis gay rights, which is Ken Livingstone's championing of a dialogue with moderate Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Ken's opponents attack him for talking to someone who doesn't have liberal pro-gay rights views. Ken responds that in the context of the Muslim world, Qaradawi is a moderate on gay rights as he opposes those who want gays criminalised.

It was this very example I was thinking of when I replied to you earlier that "of course you must take account of historical context in making value judgements. This is what you do in politics all the time, is it the very art of politics".

Ken is practicising the art of politics by making judgements when taking context into account. This is what Ken's critics, wrongly, don't do, similar to your flawed criticism of the Chartists and women's suffrage.

Then you move on to mischaracterising my position on democracy by errecting an idiot Aunt Sally position for me thus:



The reason why this is so tedious is that I gave you a list of contextual examples of champions of democracy from the 17th century onwards to demonstrate how we can begin to apply judgements on democracy leavened by specific historical contexts. So can we put that idiot Aunt Sally back were you found her, yeah?

You conclude your post with another choice piece of humbug, berating me for being patronising, yet in the very next sentence you say I am "one of the few people in the world to think [the democracy context debate] is black and white".

Resist the temptation to patronise so obviously after making the same accusation, it looks hypocritical.

This, though, has to be my favourite bit of your post:



Yep, the traditional mesageboard invitation so beloved of excitable types to meet and sort it out Out of interest, if I did sit opposite you and said you were arguing like a slippery eel, how would you seek to resolve that awful insult to your dignity?

Bloody hell - what do you want from that answer - a GCSE?

 

[Yorkie]

Bloody hell - what do you want from that answer - a GCSE?

At least you can't say he doesn't give a comprehensive answer even if you don't agree with what is being said.

 

[DJ Leon]

This, though, has to be my favourite bit of your post:

Yep, the traditional mesageboard invitation so beloved of excitable types to meet and sort it out Out of interest, if I did sit opposite you and said you were arguing like a slippery eel, how would you seek to resolve that awful insult to your dignity? [/B]

"Arguing like a slippery eel"? - no problem. "A slippery eel" - I might not be too happy. It's not really an invite actually (but if YOU would like to that's no problem), it's just a point that I don't think you'd say a lot of the things you write about other people to their face. I have tried in many of my posts to be as patronising as possible to you. It's a reaction to the way you write. Ever noticed how people like to fight back?

By the way, one reason I would like to meet you is to confirm a picture in my head. You are under 5ft 8", aren't you?

ps. Good post argument wise. It would be interesting to continue the debate on this, but why would I do that?