|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 20, 2023 9:48:14 GMT
Hume's book is not about emotions. In fact it is surprisingly modern in that it deals with issues that come into quantum mechanics. Are you familiar with observation in QM and relativity? It is a right head-twister, as was Hume's book. I'm not saying it was all exactly as we think of now, but the enquiry was barking up the right tree, and when others took Hume seriously they too barked up the right tree until it was mastered. He was on the bleeding edge. He was Newton-type figure, as in an intellectual revolutionary, willing to argue against the entire body of academic thought. This is why he is so great, and why the BBC would never talk of him. They rather promote feminist writers and the like. Academic thought and logic are secondary to emotional feelings and reactions when it comes to understanding the human condition. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 20, 2023 10:54:25 GMT
What are you waffling on about? You have had Rayners words verbatim and you chose to hide behind another apologists feeble efforts to twist them into a lesser insult.
Your posting is without context, Steve's posting adds context. I know you are not stupid so what is your problem? I don’t have a problem. I wasn’t the one posting waffle . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 20, 2023 10:56:22 GMT
Another apologist for Rayner. ^( hiding behind the first apologist’s excuses .) Then prove that the earlier information is wrong, otherwise you are just falling for Tory dishonest propaganda, false propaganda as shown and proven about the Tory version of "British jobs for British workers". It has nothing to do with Tory dishonest propaganda, that’s the voices in your head. I posted her words verbatim and it was obvious that she was calling the government’ scum’. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 20, 2023 10:59:03 GMT
CONTEXT!!
Your posting is without context, Steve's posting adds context. I know you are not stupid so what is your problem? I don’t have a problem. I wasn’t the one posting waffle . You do have a problem, you are the one ignoring context and thereby turning your posts into waffle. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 20, 2023 11:01:21 GMT
I don’t have a problem. I wasn’t the one posting waffle . You do have a problem, you are the one ignoring context and thereby turning your posts into waffle. The context was what she said . She called the government scum. There is no other context other than you and Stevie fumbling to reframe her insult to suit your simping. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 20, 2023 11:02:05 GMT
Then prove that the earlier information is wrong, otherwise you are just falling for Tory dishonest propaganda, false propaganda as shown and proven about the Tory version of "British jobs for British workers". It has nothing to do with Tory dishonest propaganda, that’s the voices in your head. I posted her words verbatim and it was obvious that she was calling the government’ scum’. Simple, we know the words, now it's up to you to just prove your point. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 20, 2023 11:06:49 GMT
You do have a problem, you are the one ignoring context and thereby turning your posts into waffle. The context was what she said . She called the government scum. There is no other context other than you and Stevie fumbling to reframe her insult to suit your simping. The content is what she said. It seems that you do not understand what 'context' means. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 20, 2023 11:09:57 GMT
It has nothing to do with Tory dishonest propaganda, that’s the voices in your head. I posted her words verbatim and it was obvious that she was calling the government’ scum’. Simple, we know the words, now it's up to you to just prove your point. It’s not up to me to point out the obvious to a couple of Rayners apologists . Your waffle about context and deliberate obtuseness supports my point . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 20, 2023 11:13:24 GMT
The context was what she said . She called the government scum. There is no other context other than you and Stevie fumbling to reframe her insult to suit your simping. The content is what she said. It seems that you do not understand what 'context' means. She called the government scum. There is no other ‘context ‘to consider. You merely making desperate excuses for your own inadequacy . |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 20, 2023 11:21:11 GMT
You do have a problem, you are the one ignoring context and thereby turning your posts into waffle. The context was what she said . She called the government scum. There is no other context other than you and Stevie fumbling to reframe her insult to suit your simping. You are correct , this taken from the Guardian at the time is what she said at the Labour Party Conference . Angela Rayner has stood by her description of the Conservatives as “homophobic, racist, misogynistic … scum” after the Labour leader distanced himself from her words. On Sunday, amid tensions with Starmer over the party’s proposed rule changes, the deputy Labour leader declined to apologise for her remarks, which were made at a Labour conference reception the day before. “ We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute vile … banana republic, vile, nasty, Etonian … piece of scum,” she said at the event, before adding that she had “held back a little”. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 20, 2023 11:23:42 GMT
The context was what she said . She called the government scum. There is no other context other than you and Stevie fumbling to reframe her insult to suit your simping. The content is what she said. It seems that you do not understand what 'context' means. There is a context where it is OK to call people 'scum'? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 20, 2023 11:25:05 GMT
The context was what she said . She called the government scum. There is no other context other than you and Stevie fumbling to reframe her insult to suit your simping. You are correct , this taken from the Guardian at the time is what she said at the Labour Party Conference . Angela Rayner has stood by her description of the Conservatives as “homophobic, racist, misogynistic … scum” after the Labour leader distanced himself from her words. On Sunday, amid tensions with Starmer over the party’s proposed rule changes, the deputy Labour leader declined to apologise for her remarks, which were made at a Labour conference reception the day before. “ We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute vile … banana republic, vile, nasty, Etonian … piece of scum,” she said at the event, before adding that she had “held back a little”. Indeed. Apparently her apologists insist that it was said in some kind of context that negates the words she spoke and/ or that she was only speaking about Etonians . You have to laugh 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 20, 2023 11:25:37 GMT
Simple, we know the words, now it's up to you to just prove your point. It’s not up to me to point out the obvious to a couple of Rayners apologists . Your waffle about context and deliberate obtuseness supports my point . So you have no proof of what you claim, so as far as I'm concerned you can piss off with your unprovable opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 20, 2023 11:32:07 GMT
It’s not up to me to point out the obvious to a couple of Rayners apologists . Your waffle about context and deliberate obtuseness supports my point . So you have no proof of what you claim, so as far as I'm concerned you can piss off with your unprovable opinion. I have the words that she said verbatim. Your inability to admit the obvious (mixed with dishonesty )just doesn’t cut it as a refutation 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 20, 2023 11:38:57 GMT
That is the problem when trying to debate with Left Wing Extremists full of hate and envy, eventually they actually believe their own lies , the forget they lied in the first place  |
|
