RE: True Freedom

RE: True Freedom (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

True Freedom

True

46% (6)

False

53% (7)

Total Votes : 13

(last vote on : 10/6/2015 6:25:48 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: True Freedom (10/5/2015 2:20:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 there's generally a difference between left and right in the music we listen to and the tv shows/movies we watch. the thread has me wondering if there are indeed people out there who have never seen braveheart, or having seen it, don't fall squarely on the side of william Wallace and the scots. I have never seen Braveheart. This is because I know too much about what actually happened. That and the writer said that he avoided learning about it because the reality would get in the way of the story he wanted to tell. That said I have alway had a soft spot for the Scots. This even though every time they came close to winning a clan not leading the fight would betray them. Scotlands problem was that they never truly became a nation, they were more an alliamce of tribes. The Scots weren't shy when it came to marauding into England, nor were they particularly principled when it came to their loyalty: during the English Civil War they sided with the Parliamentarians when it suited their agenda and swiftly changed sides when they thought they had a better deal from the Royalists. Nor were they particularly loyal to their own. The people who colonised parts of the South of the United States, sometimes known as the Ulster Scots or the Scots Irish, were actually the descendants of people from the very South of Scotland and the very North of England. These people historically were basically thieves who had no loyalty to any nation. During the regular wars between Scotland and England it was common for these people to switch sides to Scotland or England depending upon what they were being offered, or even getting their heads together and joining forces to fight together against the Scottish Army or the English Army depending upon what they had to gain. So, the Scots weren't short of their own ambitions and fighting for them. It's only a film, and popular history at best; outright lies at worst.

NorthernGent -> RE: True Freedom (10/5/2015 2:25:14 PM)
n/m

bounty44 -> RE: True Freedom (10/5/2015 2:42:31 PM)
I don't doubt any of that, but heck, that all wouldn't make for a good movie would it?

deathtothepixies -> RE: True Freedom (10/5/2015 4:34:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 there's generally a difference between left and right in the music we listen to and the tv shows/movies we watch. the thread has me wondering if there are indeed people out there who have never seen braveheart, or having seen it, don't fall squarely on the side of william Wallace and the scots. I have never seen Braveheart. This is because I know too much about what actually happened. That and the writer said that he avoided learning about it because the reality would get in the way of the story he wanted to tell. That said I have alway had a soft spot for the Scots. This even though every time they came close to winning a clan not leading the fight would betray them. Scotlands problem was that they never truly became a nation, they were more an alliamce of tribes. Generally I think you and bounty should avoid these kind of threads, you're out of your depth. K is just trying to make sure everyone knows he had read lots of books and can regurgitate bits of them so there's no reason to get involved. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt"

Kirata -> RE: True Freedom (10/5/2015 5:43:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies K is just trying to make sure everyone knows he had read lots of books and can regurgitate bits of them... Aww, are you still butthurt over something? Good. [:)] K.

Kirata -> RE: True Freedom (10/6/2015 12:31:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Proposition: True freedom requires freedom from destitution and freedom from the demands of the employer. This proposition appears in an opinion piece published by the Washington Post (here) arguing for a universal basic income. That sounds like some sort of Social Anarchism line as to the best of my knowledge there are established rules within any relationship. Since the author of the piece is a researcher, I offer the following possibly relevant abstract: In this paper, I take the position that a large portion of contemporary academic work is an appalling waste of human intelligence that cannot be justified under any mainstream normative ethics. Part I builds a four-step argument for why this is the case, while Part II responds to arguments for the contrary position offered in Cass Sunstein’s “In Defense of Law Reviews.” First, in Part I(A), I make the case that there is a large crisis of suffering in the world today. (Part I does not take me very long.). In Part I(B), I assess various theories of “the role of the intellectual,” concluding that the only role for the intellectual is for the intellectual to cease to exist. In Part I(C), I assess the contemporary state of the academy, showing that, contrary to the theory advanced in Part I(B), many intellectuals insist on continuing to exist. In Part I(D), I propose a new path forward, whereby present-day intellectuals take on a useful social function by spreading truths that help to alleviate the crisis of suffering outlined in Part I(A). ~Source K.

NorthernGent -> RE: True Freedom (10/6/2015 11:58:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Proposition: True freedom requires freedom from destitution and freedom from the demands of the employer. This proposition appears in an opinion piece published by the Washington Post (here) arguing for a universal basic income. That sounds like some sort of Social Anarchism line as to the best of my knowledge there are established rules within any relationship. Since the author of the piece is a researcher, I offer the following possibly relevant abstract: In this paper, I take the position that a large portion of contemporary academic work is an appalling waste of human intelligence that cannot be justified under any mainstream normative ethics. Part I builds a four-step argument for why this is the case, while Part II responds to arguments for the contrary position offered in Cass Sunstein’s “In Defense of Law Reviews.” First, in Part I(A), I make the case that there is a large crisis of suffering in the world today. (Part I does not take me very long.). In Part I(B), I assess various theories of “the role of the intellectual,” concluding that the only role for the intellectual is for the intellectual to cease to exist. In Part I(C), I assess the contemporary state of the academy, showing that, contrary to the theory advanced in Part I(B), many intellectuals insist on continuing to exist. In Part I(D), I propose a new path forward, whereby present-day intellectuals take on a useful social function by spreading truths that help to alleviate the crisis of suffering outlined in Part I(A). ~Source K. What exactly does he or she mean by suffering? Economically or emotionally or something entirely different?

Kirata -> RE: True Freedom (10/6/2015 12:09:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent What exactly does he or she mean by suffering? Economically or emotionally or something entirely different? He, and I don't know. The article isn't available for download. K.

BamaD -> RE: True Freedom (10/6/2015 12:15:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 there's generally a difference between left and right in the music we listen to and the tv shows/movies we watch. the thread has me wondering if there are indeed people out there who have never seen braveheart, or having seen it, don't fall squarely on the side of william Wallace and the scots. I have never seen Braveheart. This is because I know too much about what actually happened. That and the writer said that he avoided learning about it because the reality would get in the way of the story he wanted to tell. That said I have alway had a soft spot for the Scots. This even though every time they came close to winning a clan not leading the fight would betray them. Scotlands problem was that they never truly became a nation, they were more an alliamce of tribes. The Scots weren't shy when it came to marauding into England, nor were they particularly principled when it came to their loyalty: during the English Civil War they sided with the Parliamentarians when it suited their agenda and swiftly changed sides when they thought they had a better deal from the Royalists. Nor were they particularly loyal to their own. The people who colonised parts of the South of the United States, sometimes known as the Ulster Scots or the Scots Irish, were actually the descendants of people from the very South of Scotland and the very North of England. These people historically were basically thieves who had no loyalty to any nation. During the regular wars between Scotland and England it was common for these people to switch sides to Scotland or England depending upon what they were being offered, or even getting their heads together and joining forces to fight together against the Scottish Army or the English Army depending upon what they had to gain. So, the Scots weren't short of their own ambitions and fighting for them. It's only a film, and popular history at best; outright lies at worst. All of which I agree with. What I was talking about was the inclination of the Scots to stab each other in the back if they thought another clan was getting too powerful. Robert the Bruce did it to William Wallace while in turn suffered the same fate.

bounty44 -> RE: True Freedom (10/6/2015 2:01:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 there's generally a difference between left and right in the music we listen to and the tv shows/movies we watch. the thread has me wondering if there are indeed people out there who have never seen braveheart, or having seen it, don't fall squarely on the side of william Wallace and the scots. I have never seen Braveheart. This is because I know too much about what actually happened. That and the writer said that he avoided learning about it because the reality would get in the way of the story he wanted to tell. That said I have alway had a soft spot for the Scots. This even though every time they came close to winning a clan not leading the fight would betray them. Scotlands problem was that they never truly became a nation, they were more an alliamce of tribes. Generally I think you and bounty should avoid these kind of threads, you're out of your depth. K is just trying to make sure everyone knows he had read lots of books and can regurgitate bits of them so there's no reason to get involved. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt" you don't know a thing about me, nor likely bama as well. and apparently neither do you understand the reasoning behind my response to this thread---and so your quote doesn't work either, unless of course in this case you apply it to yourself. id ask what kind of person you are, but as for all that, and the comment you made about kirata---it marks you quite clearly as a cynical and pompous dilettante. not to mention a boorish horse's ass for attacking and insulting people who weren't even talking to you for their benign posts.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Spam Policy

0.046875