[Politics] suffragettes

[Herr Tubthumper]

If you don't get it, you don't get it. No point arguing the toss.

I don’t get it, maybe you can explain?

 

[Normal Rob]

i could, but it would fall on deaf ears. And i'm not that bothered about boosting my post count. Troll someone else.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

i could, but it would fall on deaf ears. And i'm not that bothered about boosting my post count. Troll someone else.

Why don’t you try? I am genuinely interested to understand you. One post is all you need and I promise I will not “argue the toss”, or even reply if you don’t want me to.

 

[Bakero]

Why don’t you try? I am genuinely interested to understand you. One post is all you need and I promise I will not “argue the toss”, or even reply if you don’t want me to.

Being a parent means you have a real stake in the future. According to Andrea Leadsom anyway.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Always interesting how yesterday's 'loonies' become tomorrow's mainstream.

Show's how it's really the agenda of the media that oft stands in the way of progress.

Everyone knows, and was taught about the Suffragettes, but hardly anybody knows about the Suffragists.

The difference being, that Suffragists lobbied, wrote petitions, and used peaceful means to achieve their aim, whereas the Suffragettes were far more radical, chaining themselves up, throwing themselves in front of horses, and being force fed in prisons, after being on hunger strike.

I like to think that both sides achieved the vote for women, so change does not have to come from the 'loonies' but sometimes intelligent and diplomatic means also achieve much.

 

[Chicken Run]

Why don’t you try? I am genuinely interested to understand you. One post is all you need and I promise I will not “argue the toss”, or even reply if you don’t want me to.

Noel, why would any sensible parent want to advocate a society of “Anarchy & Chaos”.

It really is that simple, and don’t come back with the “for the greater good “ argument, your children are for the now not the future!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Noel, why would any sensible parent want to advocate a society of “Anarchy & Chaos”.

It really is that simple, and don’t come back with the “for the greater good “ argument, your children are for the now not the future!

That’s your take. I’d prefer [MENTION=323]Normal Rob[/MENTION] to explain his thinking behind his post and exactly what triggered his response, and a response which is a default for some parents. Anyway. I’ll leave this here so I don’t derail a potentially interesting thread.

 

[Normal Rob]

i'll repeat.

i could, but it would fall on deaf ears. And i'm not that bothered about boosting my post count. Troll someone else.

and i'll take you up on your offer not to reply, either directly, or indirectly. As you say, you would not want to derail a potentially interesting thread.Thanks.

 

[brakespear]

What’s the big deal if you have children or not? It’s as relevant as asking if he had cornflakes for breakfast.

If I understand the comment correctly then I think it is - surely whether or not you have kids would influence how you feel about society descending into anarchy and chaos and their place within that?

 

[pauli cee]

If no response today, then that's an 'owned'

Have I got in on time, or am I 'owned' already

No, I don't have children, but I don't see what that has to wanting a fairer and better world for future generations.

Apologies for your 'normalness', to not see my chaos and anarchy comment was made tongue in cheek, (was obviously expected from chicken run tho)

 

[portlock seagull]

If I understand the comment correctly then I think it is - surely whether or not you have kids would influence how you feel about society descending into anarchy and chaos and their place within that?

We need children to act as cannon fodder on both sides if it’s to be a proper spicy sort of revolution. Old Skool style.

 

[Bob'n'weave]

Not sure anarchy and chaos are all that worrying. Chaos could be described as a loss or lack of societal control, supposedly a good thing if you are trying to break down an oppressive/dis-functional system of societal control. Anarchy could be described as, depending on your opinion -

"the absence of a ruler or rulers, a self-managed society, usually resembling the co-operative commonwealth that most socialists have traditionally sought, and more highly organised than the disorganisation and chaos of the present. An anarchist society would be more ordered because the political theory of anarchism advocates organisation from the bottom up with the federation of the self-governed entities – as opposed to order being imposed from the top down upon resisting individuals or groups."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/07/anarchism

As a dad of two, I am good with that.

 

[brakespear]

edit: changed my mind.

 

[Spicy]

Always interesting how yesterday's 'loonies' become tomorrow's mainstream.

Not always - didn't David Icke say he was the son of God. Think he still has a way to go on that one.

 

[Spicy]

i'll repeat.

i could, but it would fall on deaf ears. And i'm not that bothered about boosting my post count. Troll someone else.

and i'll take you up on your offer not to reply, either directly, or indirectly. As you say, you would not want to derail a potentially interesting thread.Thanks.

Well I would like you to explain but only in words of one syllable as I am female.

 

[Normal Rob]

Have I got in on time, or am I 'owned' already

No, I don't have children, but I don't see what that has to wanting a fairer and better world for future generations.

Apologies for your 'normalness', to not see my chaos and anarchy comment was made tongue in cheek, (was obviously expected from chicken run tho)

 

[Normal Rob]

Well I would like you to explain but only in words of one syllable as I am female.

Not sure where the sexism viewpoint comes from, but I still can't be bothered to explain myself.

 

[beorhthelm]

Not sure anarchy and chaos are all that worrying. Chaos could be described as a loss or lack of societal control, supposedly a good thing if you are trying to break down an oppressive/dis-functional system of societal control. Anarchy could be described as, depending on your opinion -

"the absence of a ruler or rulers, a self-managed society, usually resembling the co-operative commonwealth that most socialists have traditionally sought, and more highly organised than the disorganisation and chaos of the present. An anarchist society would be more ordered because the political theory of anarchism advocates organisation from the bottom up with the federation of the self-governed entities – as opposed to order being imposed from the top down upon resisting individuals or groups."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/07/anarchism

As a dad of two, I am good with that.

yeah lovely in theory, but bobbins in practice. small collectives can/do work but at some size the tensions and conflicts within a such a group mean self-governing will fail, tending towards fuedalism.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

yeah lovely in theory, but bobbins in practice. small collectives can/do work but at some size the tensions and conflicts within a such a group mean self-governing will fail, tending towards fuedalism.

It’s a difficult one. I remember being at an anti-cap demo and the organisers strictly had no hierarchy. On the day, the non-hierarchical decision making was problematic. Thankfully someone ran out of patience and took it upon themselves to put a brick through the window of the local MacDonalds so the demo could start properly. Whilst I agree with non-hierarchical structures sometimes you need a leader.

This was the day Winston got a green Mohican and a Northern riot cop informed me he earned more money than me.

 

[looney]

What’s the big deal if you have children or not? It’s as relevant as asking if he had cornflakes for breakfast.

2 reasons.

1, you take a longer view of the future beyond your time on the planet.

2 Childlessness helps mediocre women have a head start, take Merkel and May for starters.