NationStates

The Nihilistic view wrote:

Pesda wrote:I think pacifism is better than anti-self determination-ism.

Pacifism ignores the realities of the world since it ignores or rather does not take into account why wars are fought, It's not black and white. Some wars are bad some wars are necessary as not fighting them would have worse consequences. Whilst being anti self determination is bad at least it deals with reality somewhat better.

I think all wars are bad.

Pesda wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
Pacifism ignores the realities of the world since it ignores or rather does not take into account why wars are fought, It's not black and white. Some wars are bad some wars are necessary as not fighting them would have worse consequences. Whilst being anti self determination is bad at least it deals with reality somewhat better.

I think all wars are bad.

War is bad but it does not change that it can be necessary. WW2, Korea, Desert Storm, Falklands, Kosovo, Bombing ISIS, Sierra Leone and many others. The consequences of doing nothing in these situations are far worse in different ways depending on the war than fighting the war or ending a conflict as a third party.

There is nothing wrong with thinking war is bad, the problem comes when thinking that because it's bad the right response to all situations is to do nothing. It's an attempt to paint the world in black and white when that's not reality. The opponents in the above situations won't just sit back and say "Well you're a pacifist so since you asked so nicely we are stopping our war making peace and retreating to our own country."

The Nihilistic view wrote:

Pesda wrote:I think all wars are bad.

War is bad but it does not change that it can be necessary. WW2, Korea, Desert Storm, Falklands, Kosovo, Bombing ISIS, Sierra Leone and many others. The consequences of doing nothing in these situations are far worse in different ways depending on the war than fighting the war or ending a conflict as a third party.

There is nothing wrong with thinking war is bad, the problem comes when thinking that because it's bad the right response to all situations is to do nothing. It's an attempt to paint the world in black and white when that's not reality. The opponents in the above situations won't just sit back and say "Well you're a pacifist so since you asked so nicely we are stopping our war making peace and retreating to our own country."

I know they wouldn't, but I wouldn't fight anyway.
Edit: To clarify I am not a perfect pacifist, I would possibly fight to prevent a genocide but anything less than that I don't think I would.

Pesda wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
And when you have territories spread around the globe how else are you supposed to liberate them without carriers if they are invaded like the Falklands? Even with them it's questionable whether we could do that type of operation again without increasing the numbers of other escort ships.

We have less than 200 warheads, not enough to destroy Russia or any other nuclear power but enough to act as a deterrent to them and other conventionally armed nations. That seems entirely in proportion to me not massive in anyway.

When your military is of a size that just about has the capabilities to defend your interests and territory it's not massive.

The Uk shouldn't have territories thousands of miles away. If the people on those islands want to fly that ghastly flag then let them but I don't want to pay money or take lives to help them do that. And even if you decide you want to keep some territories so you can feel like you have a bigger penis killing people over that is evil.

The key thing about the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is the "mass destruction" part. Any "mass destruction" is by definition "massive."

If they've decided to stay in the UK there's no reason why the government shouldn't protect them like any other.

Geilinor wrote:

Pesda wrote:The Uk shouldn't have territories thousands of miles away. If the people on those islands want to fly that ghastly flag then let them but I don't want to pay money or take lives to help them do that. And even if you decide you want to keep some territories so you can feel like you have a bigger penis killing people over that is evil.

The key thing about the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is the "mass destruction" part. Any "mass destruction" is by definition "massive."

If they've decided to stay in the UK there's no reason why the government shouldn't protect them like any other.

You assume I want the British army to protect the mainland.

The Nihilistic view wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
The Office for National Statistics data says 318,000 for 2013, but also points out that 2013 was 50% higher than either of the previous two years, and unusually high based on numbers going back to the 70's.

Not sure where you got your numbers from - I've already sourced some, and they disagree with yours.

You said "immigrants". 503,000 is the total new immigrants as said above. I don't even need to look to tell you your figure is net migration figure. And if you want to move the goalposts 318K is still a very significant proportion of around 30%.

Ah, I see what you're doing - but since we were talking about accommodation, the number of emigrants matters. The immigrant population doesn't increase by 518k if 200k leave.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
You said "immigrants". 503,000 is the total new immigrants as said above. I don't even need to look to tell you your figure is net migration figure. And if you want to move the goalposts 318K is still a very significant proportion of around 30%.

Ah, I see what you're doing - but since we were talking about accommodation, the number of emigrants matters. The immigrant population doesn't increase by 518k if 200k leave.

Only if 200k immigrants leave. Otherwise the immigrant population will increase by 318k-518k, depending on the number of immigrants emigrating. If 200k non-immigrants leave, the immigrant population will increase by 518k. (Sorry, semantics.)

Pesda wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
War is bad but it does not change that it can be necessary. WW2, Korea, Desert Storm, Falklands, Kosovo, Bombing ISIS, Sierra Leone and many others. The consequences of doing nothing in these situations are far worse in different ways depending on the war than fighting the war or ending a conflict as a third party.

There is nothing wrong with thinking war is bad, the problem comes when thinking that because it's bad the right response to all situations is to do nothing. It's an attempt to paint the world in black and white when that's not reality. The opponents in the above situations won't just sit back and say "Well you're a pacifist so since you asked so nicely we are stopping our war making peace and retreating to our own country."

I know they wouldn't, but I wouldn't fight anyway.
Edit: To clarify I am not a perfect pacifist, I would possibly fight to prevent a genocide but anything less than that I don't think I would.

I think using the military is something that should be avoided at most costs, but a large military is important to maintain incase it is needed.

Eastfield Lodge wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Ah, I see what you're doing - but since we were talking about accommodation, the number of emigrants matters. The immigrant population doesn't increase by 518k if 200k leave.

Only if 200k immigrants leave. Otherwise the immigrant population will increase by 318k-518k, depending on the number of immigrants emigrating. If 200k non-immigrants leave, the immigrant population will increase by 518k. (Sorry, semantics.)

I see what you're saying. And yes, that's a valid point. On the other hand, 'immigrant' in the Office for National Statistics numbers is not based on permanent migration, but on persons moving in or out for a period of greater than a year. There will be a percentage that are Brits leaving the country, but the majority are going to be previous immigrants returning.

Pesda wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
Pacifism ignores the realities of the world since it ignores or rather does not take into account why wars are fought, It's not black and white. Some wars are bad some wars are necessary as not fighting them would have worse consequences. Whilst being anti self determination is bad at least it deals with reality somewhat better.

I think all wars are bad.

Pacifism allows wars to occur.

It's odd, I know.

Pesda wrote:

Geilinor wrote:If they've decided to stay in the UK there's no reason why the government shouldn't protect them like any other.

You assume I want the British army to protect the mainland.

Well...
You've just said you wouldn't want the Army to protect the citizens of the territory that is the Falklands you haven't done a very good job of obfuscating.

It implies things.

I don't know if anyone saw last weeks Sunday Times
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/new ... 585822.ece

Its full of errors, and much of the Marxist left I've met dismisses the idea of registering support for Labour to vote for Corbyn (SWP merely wish him well, SPEW - successor to the dissolved Militant is against it). See Left Foot Forward blog article below.
'Sunday Times ludicrously inflates the popularity of communism in modern Britain'
http://leftfootforward.org/2015/07/hard ... nt-add-up/

Grave_n_idle";p="25504 347 wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
You said "immigrants". 503,000 is the total new immigrants as said above. I don't even need to look to tell you your figure is net migration figure. And if you want to move the goalposts 318K is still a very significant proportion of around 30%.

Ah, I see what you're doing - but since we were talking about accommodation, the number of emigrants matters. The immigrant population doesn't increase by 518k if 200k leave.

And as I said before that makes it even worse. Because if you talk about births you have to also talk about deaths. In which case more than 50% of the population increase is due to immigration as birth death net is lower than the net immigration figure. Whichever way you want to measure it it's a very substantial increase year after year which will significantly affect things like housing. To say it's dwarfed by our own net births is lunacy.

Parti Ouvrier wrote:I don't know if anyone saw last weeks Sunday Times
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/new ... 585822.ece

Its full of errors, and much of the Marxist left I've met dismisses the idea of registering support for Labour to vote for Corbyn (SWP merely wish him well, SPEW - successor to the dissolved Militant is against it). See Left Foot Forward blog article below.
'Sunday Times ludicrously inflates the popularity of communism in modern Britain'
http://leftfootforward.org/2015/07/hard ... nt-add-up/

God damn the people having a say in who runs for office, god dammit I say!

"Historically liberals have always sided with the right when a leftist platform looks popular and potentially viable."

this is still true today. look at the guardian shitting themselves over corbyn.

Corbynmania is just a repeat of cleggmania, it will fizzle out in the next forty days (sadly).

There was a piece in the Telegraph suggesting he'd be better off dropping out whilst hes ahead for "party unity" and reaping the benefits of his inevitable elevation to the front bench, along with a number of his key backers.

The Sarian wrote:Corbynmania is just a repeat of cleggmania, it will fizzle out in the next forty days (sadly).

There was a piece in the Telegraph suggesting he'd be better off dropping out whilst hes ahead for "party unity" and reaping the benefits of his inevitable elevation to the front bench, along with a number of his key backers.

Cleggmania was within the general population I feel like Corbynmania has been coming in the labour party since the Iraq war.

Olivaero wrote:

The Sarian wrote:Corbynmania is just a repeat of cleggmania, it will fizzle out in the next forty days (sadly).

There was a piece in the Telegraph suggesting he'd be better off dropping out whilst hes ahead for "party unity" and reaping the benefits of his inevitable elevation to the front bench, along with a number of his key backers.

Cleggmania was within the general population I feel like Corbynmania has been coming in the labour party since the Iraq war.

As shown by Diane Abbott, the left wing offering in 2010, coming last.

The Sarian wrote:

Olivaero wrote:Cleggmania was within the general population I feel like Corbynmania has been coming in the labour party since the Iraq war.

As shown by Diane Abbott, the left wing offering in 2010, coming last.

I'm not saying it was dominant but theres been discontent for some time the final straw might of been the parties upper echelons reaction to the last election which is seemingly completely out of touch with reality "We lost it because we were too left wing" I mean really.

Olivaero wrote:

The Sarian wrote:As shown by Diane Abbott, the left wing offering in 2010, coming last.

I'm not saying it was dominant but theres been discontent for some time the final straw might of been the parties upper echelons reaction to the last election which is seemingly completely out of touch with reality "We lost it because we were too left wing" I mean really.

Oh yes, I forgot people believe that the reason people have been voting Conservative is because there isn't a proper socialist alternative.

The Sarian wrote:

Olivaero wrote:I'm not saying it was dominant but theres been discontent for some time the final straw might of been the parties upper echelons reaction to the last election which is seemingly completely out of touch with reality "We lost it because we were too left wing" I mean really.

Oh yes, I forgot people believe that the reason people have been voting Conservative is because there isn't a proper socialist alternative.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 97821.html

random link

but seriously a more left-wing alternative telling people that the tories are actually fucking stupid with the economy might actually work instead of well we are tories but slightly less i guess i wish tony was here >tfw not 1997

Alyakia wrote:"Historically liberals have always sided with the right when a leftist platform looks popular and potentially viable."

this is still true today. look at the guardian shitting themselves over corbyn.

Historically, liberals have always felt little enthusiasm for socialism.

Geilinor wrote:

Alyakia wrote:"Historically liberals have always sided with the right when a leftist platform looks popular and potentially viable."

this is still true today. look at the guardian shitting themselves over corbyn.

Historically, liberals have always felt little enthusiasm for socialism.

yes

e: they feel more enthusiastic for conservatism or even fascism than socialism, which was my point

Alyakia wrote:

Geilinor wrote:Historically, liberals have always felt little enthusiasm for socialism.

yes

We aren't going to fall head over heels for Corbyn either.

Alyakia wrote:"Historically liberals have always sided with the right when a leftist platform looks popular and potentially viable."

this is still true today. look at the guardian shitting themselves over corbyn.

I'd have thought they'd be loving this. I get they're hardly a socialist paper, but still, where's the enthusiasm?