|
|
Post by sandypine on May 18, 2023 8:50:56 GMT
I can also take pride in its beneficial actions. You’re probably one of those people who likes to recite Hitler’s credits. Why does nobody remember the strict animal cruelty laws, the autobahns, the full employment, you probably ask yourself. Why do people insist on seeing only the bad in the man? Well, I don’t have an answer for you, Sandy. I suppose, we’re just cynical. Because everything is a balance. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist leader who oversaw, supported and participated in necklacing, bombs, and terrorism against the people he was trying to set free. So he was killing them for their own good. However he is applauded for what he did and people forget, or forgive, the bad that he did. Do you condemn everyone or do you also consider a balance? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 8:54:44 GMT
You’re probably one of those people who likes to recite Hitler’s credits. Why does nobody remember the strict animal cruelty laws, the autobahns, the full employment, you probably ask yourself. Why do people insist on seeing only the bad in the man? Well, I don’t have an answer for you, Sandy. I suppose, we’re just cynical. Because everything is a balance. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist leader who oversaw, supported and participated in necklacing, bombs, and terrorism against the people he was trying to set free. So he was killing them for their own good. However he is applauded for what he did and people forget, or forgive, the bad that he did. Do you condemn everyone or do you also consider a balance? I disapprove of brutal systems, while accepting the statistical probability that not everyone caught up in enforcing that system is doing so willingly, and also accepting that there will be good people within that system who seek to mitigate its worst excesses. None of that excuses the system. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 18, 2023 9:06:58 GMT
Because everything is a balance. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist leader who oversaw, supported and participated in necklacing, bombs, and terrorism against the people he was trying to set free. So he was killing them for their own good. However he is applauded for what he did and people forget, or forgive, the bad that he did. Do you condemn everyone or do you also consider a balance? I disapprove of brutal systems, while accepting the statistical probability that not everyone caught up in enforcing that system is doing so willingly, and also accepting that there will be good people within that system who seek to mitigate its worst excesses. None of that excuses the system. Which did not address the point as systems are made by people and sometimes they may operate within another system as terrorism does. We applaud Mandela despite the fact he has many dark areas to his character and his actions. So do you accept that balance is what is assessed? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 18, 2023 9:14:46 GMT
There were promises of paradise for the ordinary Brit. I’ll let you have a little sleep to work out where and when that was. So, you agree with Marx when he said that the slum dwellers were placated and dissuaded from revolution by the promise of a better here-after (religion is the opium of the masses)? No. He agrees with me . The feudal system did the same but even more so, replicating the religious hierarchy . People enslaved by Christians were forced to follow Christian dogma. Marx was hundreds of years behind . |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 9:15:12 GMT
I disapprove of brutal systems, while accepting the statistical probability that not everyone caught up in enforcing that system is doing so willingly, and also accepting that there will be good people within that system who seek to mitigate its worst excesses. None of that excuses the system. Which did not address the point as systems are made by people and sometimes they may operate within another system as terrorism does. We applaud Mandela despite the fact he has many dark areas to his character and his actions. So do you accept that balance is what is assessed? I don't know much about Mandela, but my understanding is that he condemned his terrorist activities later in life. Let Moggy condemn the worst of the empire, and then we'll hear him out on the reasons to be proud. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 9:16:46 GMT
So, you agree with Marx when he said that the slum dwellers were placated and dissuaded from revolution by the promise of a better here-after (religion is the opium of the masses)? No. He agrees with me . The feudal system did the same but even more so, replicating the religious hierarchy . People enslaved by Christians were forced to follow Christian dogma. Marx was hundreds of years behind . Yes, Marx was hundreds of years behind. In the same way that Darwin was millions of years behind actual evolution when he put his theory of evolution forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on May 18, 2023 9:21:43 GMT
The Indian caste system is one of the most racist systems ever developed.
Rather than bitching about the past, they should sort out their own mess.
The caste system is still effective in parts of India.
They need to get rid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 18, 2023 9:27:52 GMT
No. He agrees with me . The feudal system did the same but even more so, replicating the religious hierarchy . People enslaved by Christians were forced to follow Christian dogma. Marx was hundreds of years behind . Yes, Marx was hundreds of years behind. In the same way that Darwin was millions of years behind actual evolution when he put his theory of evolution forward. Nope. He only said what the elite ( and every priest )knew for hundreds of years. lefties like you view Marx in the same way Christian zealots view Jesus . You think that his views were original and unique . lefties are modern day religious fanatics . You even peddle the same shit as the cynical Christian masters peddled to the masses . |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 18, 2023 9:38:29 GMT
As the Indian population has grown quite considerably in the last twenty years or so there has been vigorous lobbying for caste to become a 'protected characteristic' under the Equality Act. After a public consultation in 2018, which drew over 16,000 responses, the government decided not to proceed 'at the present time'. However the matter is not going away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 9:42:12 GMT
Yes, Marx was hundreds of years behind. In the same way that Darwin was millions of years behind actual evolution when he put his theory of evolution forward. Nope. He only said what the elite ( and every priest )knew for hundreds of years. lefties like you view Marx in the same way Christian zealots view Jesus . You think that his views were original and unique . lefties are modern day religious fanatics . You even peddle the same shit as the cynical Christian masters peddled to the masses . Marx pointed out that religion is the opium of the masses. You say manipulative priests already knew that. Do you think Marx would have disagreed with you? I don't. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 18, 2023 9:48:14 GMT
Nope. He only said what the elite ( and every priest )knew for hundreds of years. lefties like you view Marx in the same way Christian zealots view Jesus . You think that his views were original and unique . lefties are modern day religious fanatics . You even peddle the same shit as the cynical Christian masters peddled to the masses . Marx pointed out that religion is the opium of the masses. You say manipulative priests already knew that. Do you think Marx would have disagreed with you? I say it was/ is a cynical manipulation system created for hundreds , if not thousands of years . I just said that Marx agreed with me because tomasked me if I agreed with him. He didn’t discover a hitherto unknown phenomenon |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 9:58:13 GMT
Marx pointed out that religion is the opium of the masses. You say manipulative priests already knew that. Do you think Marx would have disagreed with you? I say it was/ is a cynical manipulation system created for hundreds , if not thousands of years . I just said that Marx agreed with me because tomasked me if I agreed with him. He didn’t discover a hitherto unknown phenomenon But he described reality, right? You are saying that he was correct, even if you don't believe he was making an original observation? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 18, 2023 10:11:57 GMT
Which did not address the point as systems are made by people and sometimes they may operate within another system as terrorism does. We applaud Mandela despite the fact he has many dark areas to his character and his actions. So do you accept that balance is what is assessed? I don't know much about Mandela, but my understanding is that he condemned his terrorist activities later in life. Let Moggy condemn the worst of the empire, and then we'll hear him out on the reasons to be proud. I am not aware of him, nor anyone else who holds official positions condemning his terrorist activities. Those who do so condemn are usually referred to as racists and bigots. There are many reasons already given to you and all you do is refer back to Opium and oppression of the working class. So I ask again is it right to assess all things as a balance where Hitler was bad despite some good where Mandela was good despite some bad and where the Empire was, in my view, on balance, something to be proud of? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 18, 2023 10:21:09 GMT
I say it was/ is a cynical manipulation system created for hundreds , if not thousands of years . I just said that Marx agreed with me because tomasked me if I agreed with him. He didn’t discover a hitherto unknown phenomenon But he described reality, right? You are saying that he was correct, even if you don't believe he was making an original observation? I think that there is an element of truth in what others have claimed are quotes and or claimed he meant . Even a broken clock is correct twice a day , |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 18, 2023 10:25:13 GMT
He’s not even original in his own time
Similar statements and influence
Edit
The same metaphor was used by many authors around the 19th century.
In 1798, Novalis wrote in "Blüthenstaub" ("Pollen"):[13]
Ihre sogenannte Religion wirkt bloß wie ein Opiat reizend, betäubend, Schmerzen aus Schwäche stillend. [Their so-called religion works simply as an opiate—stimulating; numbing; quelling pain by means of weakness.]
In 1840, Heinrich Heine also used the same analogy, in his essay on Ludwig Börne:[14]
Welcome be a religion that pours into the bitter chalice of the suffering human species some sweet, soporific drops of spiritual opium, some drops of love, hope and faith.
|
|
