Use of words / labels - a general discussion

[erol]

Yes....I've always wondered about that!

Sorry but is that an extension of the 'joke' or an actual real question ?

[erol]

In the name of survival you mean?

Survival of Israel or of the Jewish people ?

Let’s say tomorrow Israel decides to allow every Palestinian/Jordanian or whatever they are this week refugees back and do everything asked of them?
How long do you think they’ll survive?

Or you could consider the question, has Israel only ever used the minimum of force and violence and oppression / suppression of others necessary for it's survival or has it at times used such greater than the minimum necessary in the name of ensuring it's survival ? Is it antisemitic to ask such a question ?

[ttoli]

Thanks for your support Enjoyingthe sun, but they are always "having a go" at me, that is why I left the Forum but I though I could still post about dogs and "Disabled". Obviously I was wrong, and it was not safe to come back in the water!


(3) True story that illustrates my point : in a previous existence, I was appointed by my employers to oversee and write a manual on the compliance of a new CCTV system with equal opportunities, and privacy legislation. The powers that be decided they would prove their compliance by using disabled persons to watch the cameras. Unfortunately the engineer had designed the facility (of which he was excessively proud), so that access to the tapes to change them involved crawling under the desk and reaching to the floor level deck. A small fully able bodied person had to be employed just so the tapes could be changed. A very simple example of someone not caring sufficiently to check the needs and abilities of the handicapped.

On a similar note , Prior to leaving the UK in 2005 I worked f or the Metropolitan Police in the control room , Lewisham at the time , The Met having changed its name from Police force (Negative ) to service (Yayy ), I was employed as a comms officer in a civilian role, essentially gathering further info on calls made to 999 for incidences that occured on our Borough(each borough has it's own policies) and then relaying via radio to officers on the ground, I received from a new member of staff a comp message entailing an armed Incident, speed being the key , I put the call out , Armed response etc asking for more details, the coded message was jibberish ,officers running at full notch to the scene (understandably requesting , Nah screaming for more info) , there never was an armed incident at all , A snowflake at Scotland Yard had granted this person a job on the basis of their ethnicity and dyslexia (double points!! ) even though she was unsuitable for the task , employed as such , they could not get rid , so was moved to the CJU (Criminal Justice Unit) , preparing case notes (manually ) for court.

[erol]

A snowflake at Scotland Yard had granted this person a job on the basis of their ethnicity and dyslexia (double points!! ) ....

Sorry but you know this person was given the job solely because of their ethnicity and dyslexia , how exactly? Or because they were given a job they were not suitable for you assume that it was down to their ethnicity and dyslexia ?

For what it is worth I am dyslexic but I can not recall ever being given a job because of it. Is dyslexia a disability ?

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Survival of Israel or of the Jewish people ?

As I believe more Jews live in New York than Israel that will be Israel

Or you could consider the question, has Israel only ever used the minimum of force and violence and oppression / suppression of others necessary for it's survival or has it at times used such greater than the minimum necessary in the name of ensuring it's survival ? Is it antisemitic to ask such a question ?

No it's not antisemitic to question Israel but it's very naive to swallow propaganda wholesale.
I wish I could find the quote but either after the 1967 or 1973 war they realised Israel couldn't be beaten militarily so they try and win the propaganda war. This they have done very successfully with Israel scoring some own goals.
The West Bank and The Gaza Strip have been occupied since 1948 but they became Palestinian heartlands about a week after Israel won the 6 day war. Not a word before but then Palestinians suddenly became this historical nation.

But I wish the UK government dealt with terrorists as efficiently and harshly.
If you want to start a different thread on Israel and start quoting Chomsky and the like but I'd seriously check the original sources as well you may be surprised at how vague and hypocritical Chomsky is.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Gilroy reminds me of Chomsky another darling of the left. Wheel him out ‘look here is a Jew criticising Israel.’
The reality is if you check his research he is notorious for misquoting his sources. So without the Jewish card what is left?

lol. Literally lol.

I know its like me telling you father Christmas doesn't exist but I'm afraid your darling has feet of clay. He has a view/agenda does hundreds of footnotes to make it look a scholarly balanced book but he chooses tenuous and unreliable sources and completely ignore contradictory evidence from more credible sources. Enjoys misquoting as well.

http://chomskywatch.blogspot.com/2004/1 ... ed-in.html


First come across him with his writings on Vietnam although I'm still trying to figure out how being a professor of linguistics rather than political science, history or international relations makes him an expert on Vietnam or the Middle East but I guess he is a Professor so that gives him cachet. I'm assuming if ever you need an operation on your heart you won't mind a chiropodist? They're all doctors after all.

I'll admit Chomsky's writing style is better than Gilroy's though who is as entertaining as reading a bicycle repaid kit instruction manual.

[erol]

If you want to start a different thread on Israel and start quoting Chomsky and the like but I'd seriously check the original sources as well you may be surprised at how vague and hypocritical Chomsky is.

I have read much Chomsky, I have many Chomsky books. I have a feeling and hunch, that could be wrong, that you have probably read more about Chomsky written by his critics than you have ever personally his actual works. I might be wrong but it would not suprise me if that was the case, based on your characterisation of him here. I could indeed start a thread about him and may do at some point though not soon as I will not be around on the forum for a bit. Your accusation / assertion that he is 'vague and hypocritical' along with the idea that 'all' he is, is a critic of Israel who if you take away his 'Jewish card' has nothing left is to me so patently absurd and divorced from actual objective reality, that all it does for me is reinforce the perception of you that I have that your views and opinions in regards to 'the left' and people you deem to be 'of the left' are informed more by your inherent prejudice to all things 'left' than they are the result of anything approaching fair or balanced criticism based on actual reality. Chomsky is 'written off' by you, as I see it, not because of any reality that I can see but simply because he is 'of the left'. In terms of how you come to a judgement on him , what he has actually done and said and written is of less importance than just the mere fact he is 'of the left'. I think you do the same with Gilroy. I think you do the same with me. Or to give a specific example one of your constant themes about what you claim are the problems with the 'left', is they spend all their time writing reports and navel gazing in their ivory towers but never actually achieving anything. Of course you never seem to ask or consider do people not 'of the left' ever do these things. When confronted with examples of people or groups that are of the left and that clearly did achieve real world change, you always have an answer for why that case is 'atypical'. As someone 'of the left' you no doubt are of the view that were I to get involved in some kind of 'activism' seeking to achieve real world change, all I would do is sit around in my hampstead ivory tower writing reports and navel gazing all with no effect. You would have this view not based on any evidence other than your perceptions of me being 'of the left' and nor would you, I think, need anything more than that to 'know' this would be the case. If presented with evidence that I had actually been involved in 'activism' that had in fact achieved real world change, I think you would not then question your view that all people 'of the left' do and can do is pointless navel gazing detached from the real world than never achieves anything. I think you would just seek to find a way to write that off as some kind of 'exception that proves the rule'.

If it walks like a duck with prejudice, quacks like a duck with prejudice, then the chances are it is a duck with prejudice.

[erol]

I know its like me telling you father Christmas doesn't exist but I'm afraid your darling has feet of clay. He has a view/agenda does hundreds of footnotes to make it look a scholarly balanced book but he chooses tenuous and unreliable sources and completely ignore contradictory evidence from more credible sources. Enjoys misquoting as well.

http://chomskywatch.blogspot.com/2004/1 ... ed-in.html


First come across him with his writings on Vietnam although I'm still trying to figure out how being a professor of linguistics rather than political science, history or international relations makes him an expert on Vietnam or the Middle East but I guess he is a Professor so that gives him cachet. I'm assuming if ever you need an operation on your heart you won't mind a chiropodist? They're all doctors after all.

I'll admit Chomsky's writing style is better than Gilroy's though who is as entertaining as reading a bicycle repaid kit instruction manual.

Telling me Chomsky has 'feet of clay', enjoys 'misquoting' and has nothing left other than his 'Jewish card' is not like telling me father Christmas does not exist. It is like telling me that Tony Blair does not exist.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

I know its like me telling you father Christmas doesn't exist but I'm afraid your darling has feet of clay. He has a view/agenda does hundreds of footnotes to make it look a scholarly balanced book but he chooses tenuous and unreliable sources and completely ignore contradictory evidence from more credible sources. Enjoys misquoting as well.

http://chomskywatch.blogspot.com/2004/1 ... ed-in.html


First come across him with his writings on Vietnam although I'm still trying to figure out how being a professor of linguistics rather than political science, history or international relations makes him an expert on Vietnam or the Middle East but I guess he is a Professor so that gives him cachet. I'm assuming if ever you need an operation on your heart you won't mind a chiropodist? They're all doctors after all.

I'll admit Chomsky's writing style is better than Gilroy's though who is as entertaining as reading a bicycle repaid kit instruction manual.

Telling me Chomsky has 'feet of clay', enjoys 'misquoting' and has nothing left other than his 'Jewish card' is not like telling me father Christmas does not exist. It is like telling me that Tony Blair does not exist.

Good luck to the guy I'm sure there isn't that much money in linguistics but he's earn't a fortune on very little but was it Sam Goldwyn who said no one ever wen't broke underestmating the public

[EnjoyingTheSun]

I have read much Chomsky, I have many Chomsky books.

I've read a couple of Chomsky books I wouldn't read any more as I prefer non-fiction.

I've read all of John Pilger. I don't neccessarily agree with his politics or some of his conclusions but you can't challenge his facts. Sure he might put one side of the argument but he doesn't ignore or misrepresent the other side.

But Chomsky is amusing to read particularily when he twists himself into a pretzel like he did with Pol Pot. A few thousand deaths oh ok more than that but it was rice production...…..
What I find wearing is his view that we have the revolutionaries on one side who will bring utopia and the other side even those simply criticizing his favourites are Neo Nazis.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

When confronted with examples of people or groups that are of the left and that clearly did achieve real world change, you always have an answer for why that case is 'atypical'.

You have yet to give me an example of one actually.
A change that they carried out that wouldn't have evolved anyway?
Actually something a communist did that was an improvement?
Not a suggestion a vague idea in a book that someone else actually did the heavy lifting on.

Oh and if you can come up with one that happened in the last 50 years please.

Oh and I don't fall for the American foreign policy that anyone struggling against impression is automatically on the left. Freedom isn't just a socialist credo.

I do feel sorry for the students today they have so much less to protest about. When they talk of poverty in Britain they have no idea of what poverty is. Relative poverty eg people who have less than the average is a lot different to absolute poverty. But I suppose chants about 65% of people unable to afford a dishwasher doesn't have the same punch as people are starving.

The civil rights of the sixties even the ANF of the seventies were a fight worth fighting. Starting a riot over Mark Duggan a known armed drug dealer being shot on the day he unfortunately left his gun on the kitchen table not so much.


We had anti apartheid they have to support regimes that murder homosexuals, women and oppress the poor because they are anti-Israel. They never choose to question that there is a lot of public opposition within Israel for their governments policies whereas there is none in say Saudi? But one is a democracy and one isn't.


Sorry Erol, it was given a hell of a chance but for the most part it failed and anything left to solve I'm afraid they ain't gonna do it.

I like solutions not a discussion of problems or the inventing of problems we possibly can.

[Ragged Robin]

Yes....I've always wondered about that!

Sorry but is that an extension of the 'joke' or an actual real question ?

Erol:: Do you not have any sense of humour - now that IS a disability.

I assume jayceebee was agreeing with me that human nature is strange and it is sometimes best to laugh at it.

In fact I have heard an explanation: In the old days the poorer people worked in the field of agriculture (pun deliberate) and it was an indication of wealth and social position to have lily white skin. After the industrial revolution more people worked indoors in factories and the rich were able to relax outdoors , even go abroad, and a suntan became the sign of wealth and position.

As I keep saying most of us are greedy and selfish : as witness the "bagging" of sunbeds with towels (NB another joke, sorry!

[erol]

Good luck to the guy I'm sure there isn't that much money in linguistics but he's earn't a fortune on very little but was it Sam Goldwyn who said no one ever wen't broke underestmating the public

Quack quack. Really is the the best you have got ? That he has earn't money from his work ? He almost certainly has made more money from his works in academic fields than his political works but lets not let truth or reality get in the way of your prejudice shall we ?

I've read all of John Pilger. I don't neccessarily agree with his politics or some of his conclusions but you can't challenge his facts. Sure he might put one side of the argument but he doesn't ignore or misrepresent the other side.

Another friend, the journalist John Pilger, agrees Chomsky's enduring theme is power, "that unaccountable power must always be scrutinised and never accepted at face value. He strips away layers of propaganda not recognised as propaganda, brilliantly sifting through political discourse. Often, he goes to the public record, revealing truth in the words of power itself."

For Pilger, who says Chomsky almost single-handedly exposed Indonesian atrocities in East Timor, he is a "genuine people's hero; an inspiration for struggles all over the world for that basic decency known as freedom. To a lot of people in the margins - activists and movements - he's unfailingly supportive."

Oh by the way Pilger has also made money from his work,

But Chomsky is amusing to read particularily when he twists himself into a pretzel like he did with Pol Pot. A few thousand deaths oh ok more than that but it was rice production...…..

Just a distorted untrue representation of what Chomsky has actually said and written and I believe easily demonstrably so. But such assumes truth actually matters

What I find wearing is his view that we have the revolutionaries on one side who will bring utopia and the other side even those simply criticizing his favourites are Neo Nazis.

Yet more total distortions of what the man has said and the principals by which he has led his life. It is very easy to support your own arguments when you just make up things that support them or quote others that have done the same.

You have yet to give me an example of one actually.

You yourself gave two examples and then proceeded to knock them down. Bevan and the NHS - but that because he was a miner, which mitigated his 'left' tendencies and the NAACP - which you summarily write off because one of the 'white progressives' that was instrumental in forming this body was a 'Zionist'. So now you start again and radically shift the goalposts, first by including "A change that they carried out that wouldn't have evolved anyway? ", which basically means any example given you will just respond with 'well that would have happened anyway" and then placing various other restrictions. You appear unable to even consider that the notion itself is actually flawed - the notion that people and groups of the left are incapable of achieving anything, historically, currently or in the future. I could give examples but the clearly is no point.

Actually something a communist did that was an improvement?

Who is talking about communism ? Is everyone 'of the left' a communist ? Is that really what you are arguing here ?

Oh and I don't fall for the American foreign policy that anyone struggling against impression is automatically on the left. Freedom isn't just a socialist credo.

? Not sure what you are saying here but it looks like another classic straw man argument. Where have I (or Chomsky ?) ever said freedom is a purely socialist credo ?

I do feel sorry for the students today they have so much less to protest about.

Yeah because the world today is so obviously more equitable, free of oppression and poverty and hunger and war and conflict than it was 50 years ago. Of course environmental destruction is not worth protesting about because you have already explained it is all bogus.

The civil rights of the sixties even the ANF of the seventies were a fight worth fighting. Starting a riot over Mark Duggan a known armed drug dealer being shot on the day he unfortunately left his gun on the kitchen table not so much.

More straw men and bogus equivalents.

They never choose to question that there is a lot of public opposition within Israel for their governments policies whereas there is none in say Saudi?

Enough straws to drown an ocean in. Who is 'they' ? Where has anyone said in this debate that there is no public opposition to Israeli government policies from inside Israel ? Who is supporting or holding up Saudi as any sort of model regime (have you seen what Chomsky says about Saudi and the support it gets from the democratic USA and UK ?)

Sorry Erol, it was given a hell of a chance but for the most part it failed and anything left to solve I'm afraid they ain't gonna do it.

What is 'it' ? Are we (and by we I mean you) back to communism again ?

I like solutions not a discussion of problems or the inventing of problems we possibly can.

Fine so how about you give some examples of people not of the left that are producing 'solutions' then ? Nigel Farrage and UKIP perhaps ? Teresa May, is she an example of the kind of think you like ? Jacob Rees Mogg ? Regan ? Bush ? Bannon ? Murdoch ? The Koch brothers ?

[erol]

Erol:: Do you not have any sense of humour - now that IS a disability.

I understood your post was a joke

I assume jayceebee was agreeing with me that human nature is strange and it is sometimes best to laugh at it.

Well I was not sure if jayceebee was asking a 'serious' question or not, so rather than make any assumption I simply asked

In fact I have heard an explanation: In the old days the poorer people worked in the field of agriculture (pun deliberate) and it was an indication of wealth and social position to have lily white skin. After the industrial revolution more people worked indoors in factories and the rich were able to relax outdoors , even go abroad, and a suntan became the sign of wealth and position.

As a joke it works (kind of). However as a serious question 'why do white people who spend time and money darkening their skin not also believe 'back is beautiful' it is something else entirely. As a serious question you have indeed answered 'half' of it - explaining that to many 'white' people darkening their skin is considered attractive and desirable , with the roots of that being the public display of wealth and privilege. The other half is about understanding what the expression 'black is beautiful' is actually about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_is_beautiful . The 'contradiction' that is the basis for why the joke works (kind of) just does not exist when you look at it not as a joke. White people darkening their skin as a display of wealth is not a contradiction to black people resisting notions that black people are inferior, ascetically or in any other way.

Reading that back I do not think I have explained my point as well as I could so ill have another go.

The joke works on the assumption that white people who tan are trying to look more like a black person. As RR has pointed out this is not the case. They are trying to look more like a white person of wealth and privileged not a person who is black (foreign / not white). They certainly are not trying to look like a black person in the sense that they want society to see them and treat them as such.

As I keep saying most of us are greedy and selfish

All of us are selfish and greedy to some degree but we are not all selfish and greedy to the same degree.

[ttoli]

. Is dyslexia a disability ?

Your words not mine , https://tinybuddha.com/blog/letting-go- ... define-me/

[EnjoyingTheSun]

He almost certainly has made more money from his works in academic fields than his political works but lets not let truth or reality get in the way of your prejudice shall we ?

You like to research so check out the sales figures for his linguistic books as opposed to Israel is evil, the Vietnam war the bad Americans. I'm confident.


As for the rest is wearing to read. So as this has broken down into monologues his mine;

The NHS was formed because of The Beveridge report which I think you’ll find and whatever government won the 1945 election was committed to.
I’m not saying the Conservatives would have done a better job but they would have bought it in.

There have been great Labour politicians but just very few recently and the current batch have very little in common with their predecessors.
It would be like comparing Pearce and Connolly with McGuiness and Adams. All Irish nationalists but after that.......

It is impossible to debate anything with you because you avoid questions, misunderstand points, either deliberately or not and have a fall back of shouting straw man every time you are lost for an answer.

You use a lot of words but trying to pick out a salient fact is virtually impossible.

An answer to a simple enough question isn’t coming but a deluge of a few hundred words will which contain several questions which if I happen to miss one will be jumped on.
This means my answers are now running into pages and so it goes on. Very wearying to write and tedious to read.

Now you want to expand into environmental issues. Any common sense evidence must tell people that humans can do very little about the climate there is this big yellow ball in the sky......
It’s tilting at windmills.
Coming up with “well you’d believe the earth was flat” obviously isn’t a straw man argument because you have used it but the left are nothing if not hypocrites.
You can produce scientists galore saying one thing I can produce scientists who haven’t been bullied out of saying well actually where is the hard evidence?
But it’s a great problem, it is unsolvable but we can spend trillions trying to solve it. But we better hurry because Al Gore said in 2006 we only have ten years


Knife crime we can solve but you and yours don’t want to do what is necessary to stop it. You will cry about people’s freedom but ignore others freedom to be allowed to raise their children, go to work or just live their life in safety.
There is a fine line between freedom and anarchy.

But while you are all for freedom but let’s jump on anyone saying wheelchair bound rather than wheel chair user. Obviously you believe in free speech as long as they say what you approve of.

Yes the world is getting more crap but that isn’t because we’ve found a species of weevil is dying out or according to our new average grade of poverty if you have an old old iPhone 4 you are now officially poor.
But should anyone say actually that isn't right it is prejudice or anecdotal evidence or a homily.

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.



Let’s look at Farage let’s say getting out of the EU does improve our lives? Will any pro EU admit it? Not a prayer.

Want me to say what Regan improved?
Well he is a beloved President in America because the majority of ordinary people had more money in their pocket. No doubt some were worse off because there are winners and losers in everything. That’s the real world.
He helped to create the circumstances under which Eastern Europe finally run out of money and so ended a bankrupt system.



I’m so glad we have found out you are a Chomsky groupie it explains all really.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

duplicate

[erol]

You like to research so check out the sales figures for his linguistic books as opposed to Israel is evil, the Vietnam war the bad Americans. I'm confident.

Well simply produce the evidence and if you are right I will be more than happy to concede it. It will not change my view as to the actual relevance of the 'accusation / insinuation' that I perceived you were making in regards to Chomsky, based on him having made money from his political works. If that is is reason to distrust those works then any political work that is not produced free or 'at cost' is the same.

It is impossible to debate anything with you because you avoid questions, misunderstand points, either deliberately or not

Where as debating with you is sheer pleasure because never avoid anything, and never misunderstand anything ?

and have a fall back of shouting straw man every time you are lost for an answer.

When you refute something I have NOT said , what else should I call it other than a straw man argument ?

You use a lot of words but trying to pick out a salient fact is virtually impossible.

Where as the clarity and brevity of your generalisations, truisms, exaggeration and anti left rhetoric is a wonder to behold.

This means my answers are now running into pages and so it goes on. Very wearying to write and tedious to read.

One of us will stop eventually. It may even be you.

Now you want to expand into environmental issues. Any common sense evidence must tell people that humans can do very little about the climate there is this big yellow ball in the sky......

Yeah common sense tells me there is very little humans can do about environmental issues like this one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... waste.html

After all Canute tried controlling the tides hundreds of years ago and we know that did not work.

Coming up with “well you’d believe the earth was flat” obviously isn’t a straw man argument because you have used it

Well I think you misunderstood the point I was making when I said, which may well be my fault. I was not claiming that you had said you think the world was flat and then arguing why it is not flat. That would be straw man arguing. I was actually trying to say that to me the idea that 'climate change' is not real on the basis that 'there is a big burning star and all the scientific evidence that does suggest is just some nonsense cooked up by 'leftist' is not one I hold much stock in. There is conflicting evidence and there undoubtedly are vested interest producing evidence to fit their interests. I just do not accept the idea that all the evidence that suggests climate change by man made actions has to be 'lies' told by leftists and all that suggests man is not having an impact on climate change is produced by (non leftist) true seekers of the truth with no interest vested other than the truth. Now maybe this is not what you are saying and if that is the case tell me and I will accept that but it is what I percieve you are arguing from what you have written so far.

but the left are nothing if not hypocrites.

Can you seriously look at the above and claim you are not arguing from a starting point of prejudice ?

You can produce scientists galore saying one thing I can produce scientists who haven’t been bullied out of saying well actually where is the hard evidence?

I have never claimed that I believe there is hard undeniable evidence that climate change is happening, that its the result of mans action and that we can do something to avoid it. On balance making my own personal best guess based based on the conflicting evidence I would say its probably more likely than not - but no more certainty than that. I would also be of the opinion that on such issues it is better to err on the side of caution.

As far as I understand your position it would seem to be because there is no conclusive hard evidence either way and much conflicting evidence , then clearly there can be no doubt that climate change does not exist, or if it does its not man made and or there is nothing we can do about it in any case ? Again if I have got your wrong then I apologise but that is what your position seems to me to be based on what you have said and as far as I have understood what you have said.

But it’s a great problem, it is unsolvable but we can spend trillions trying to solve it. But we better hurry because Al Gore said in 2006 we only have ten years

There you go. No hard evidence, conflicting evidence thus proof that it is 'unsolvable' ?

Knife crime we can solve but you and yours don’t want to do what is necessary to stop it.

How simple your 'real world' is. Knife crime is not solved because of me and my kind.

You will cry about people’s freedom but ignore others freedom to be allowed to raise their children, go to work or just live their life in safety. There is a fine line between freedom and anarchy.

I accept there is a reality where it is possible that the cure can be worse than the illness.

But while you are all for freedom but let’s jump on anyone saying wheelchair bound rather than wheel chair user. Obviously you believe in free speech as long as they say what you approve of.

I had an opinion about the use of that word, which it would seem is not that different from your own, and I had the temerity to express that opinion. I was not suggesting that RR do anything other than considering to herself chose to not use the word and trying to explain why I though she should consider that. I actually explicitly said

Proscribing use of words by fiat is never a good idea and never produces the intended result in any case. However that does not mean that you can not and should not take personal responsibility in your choice of words.[/quote]

So is this really me believing in free speech only as long as everyone says what I approve of ?

While we are on the subject of 'free speech' and the defence of it, do you know who one of the greatest defenders of the right to free speech in our lifetimes is ? Noam Chomsky, who has over decades and at significant personal cost (not least to the sale of his books) and risk to himself defended others right to free speech. For his efforts he has been branded an holocaust denier amongst other things.

Yes the world is getting more crap but that isn’t because we’ve found a species of weevil is dying out or according to our new average grade of poverty if you have an old old iPhone 4 you are now officially poor.

This to me is not argument its hyperbole.

But should anyone say actually that isn't right it is prejudice or anecdotal evidence or a homily.

What can I say ? (its not prejudice in this case - examples of that are elsewhere above). Is the above an argument ? If it is it is not one I feel able to engage with in any sensible manner.

Let’s look at Farage let’s say getting out of the EU does improve our lives? Will any pro EU admit it? Not a prayer.

And if it demonstrably makes it worse you think any of the Brexitremists will admit it ? Jacob Rees Mogg is already on the record as saying we probably will not see the full benefits of Brexit for another 50 years. Seems to me like he is covering his arse early against any need to admit it was not such a great idea, should that turn out to be the case.

Want me to say what Regan improved?
Well he is a beloved President in America because the majority of ordinary people had more money in their pocket. No doubt some were worse off because there are winners and losers in everything. That’s the real world.

Same could be said of Erdogan up until pretty recently. He is certainly still beloved by many ordinary people in Turkey and many are better off today than when he first came to power despite the current state of the economy.

He helped to create the circumstances under which Eastern Europe finally run out of money and so ended a bankrupt system.

So not covered under your 'it would have happened anyway' exclusions then ? Did you say something earlier about hypocrisy ?

I’m so glad we have found out you are a Chomsky groupie it explains all really.

I admire much about the man and his works because there is indeed much to admire imo. Nor am I particularly alone in that view, not that that is any indication or proof of much.

[Ragged Robin]

"All of us are selfish and greedy to some degree but we are not all selfish and greedy to the same degree.""!""
a quote from Erol above

Just as some animals are more equal than others?

[erol]

"All of us are selfish and greedy to some degree but we are not all selfish and greedy to the same degree.""!""
a quote from Erol above

Just as some animals are more equal than others?

No ?

Animal farm is a powerful and compelling critique of the problem and failings and dangers of socialist / communist systems that seek to achieve absolute equality amongst all members but that fail to do so.

My response to your comment was a general observation / opinion about people, not political systems, that rather than 'most' people being selfish and greedy,as you suggested, I think everyone is but not all to exactly the same degree. I may be being dumb here but I fail to see the connection between your original comment and my reply to it and the animal farm reference ?

[jackvern]

Peace at last. I'm sure a very personal discussion between two or maybe three enlightened suedo politians but quite frankly the little bits I read bored me to death. I am so glad you have got all your problems of your chest. Don't stop chaps as I am sure enjoying the fun( pun intended) will continue to bait us. Long live freedom of speech. My dear Erroll
You are very knowledgeable why dont you run for Government. I would,back you.,

[Keithcaley]

A Forum is indeed for debating, although it shouldn't stop those who want to advertise their wares or ask the price of Beanz from doing so, nor does it detract from appeals for help or for information.

I think that everyone should be free to use the Forum for any (legal!) purpose that takes their fancy, because 'if it doesn't interest you, you don't have to read it'

[Ragged Robin]

Sorry Erol, not everyone gets my sense of humour unfortunately and you seem to be one of them.

The quote just sounded to me like an echo.

However, as well as its political issues, surely Animal Farm pointed out the falibiity of the human race, in particular its greed for riches, prestige and power?

[Ragged Robin]

Now the dust seems to have settled may I just clarify a possible misunderstanding above.

I quoted an example where a well intentioned attempt to use disabled peope in suitable employment had been thwarted by bad engineering where the ergonomics of the he system had not been thoroughly taken into account.

Ttoli's example was of a case where positive discrimination resulted in employing a person who was unfortuately incapable of dealing with foreseeable emergency situations.