Serious question | Page 4 | Vital Football

Serious question

Loving this thread. BTW, following his submission, I would like to formally propose Jokerman as "Guvnor Deciderer" Any seconders ?
 
LancsGordoRoad said:
Loving this thread. BTW, following his submission, I would like to formally propose Jokerman as "Guvnor Deciderer" Any seconders ?
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should have a referendum ?
Then those who can't accept it can argue for another ?
That should keep Jokerman out of power for at least three years.
 
valenciagill said:
Perhaps we should have a referendum ?
Then those who can't accept it can argue for another ?
That should keep Jokerman out of power for at least three years.
Click to expand...

Casting aside any other recent referendum (that`s another thread) - I say, provided Jokerman decides it`s a good idea, i`d be all for it.
 
LancsGordoRoad said:
Casting aside any other recent referendum (that`s another thread) - I say, provided Jokerman decides it`s a good idea, i`d be all for it.
Click to expand...

I'm not so convinced as you Lancs.
I mean , what do we really know about Jokerman ?
What's his hair cut like ?
How many kids has he really got ?
 
Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at themoment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget
it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the
use of doublethink.

Orwell perfectly describing all of us and our opinions we choose to publish.
 
The pledge said:
Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at themoment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget
it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the
use of doublethink.

Orwell perfectly describing all of us and our opinions we choose to publish.
Click to expand...

He learnt all about it Spain when the Communists betrayed the revolution and denounced, imprisoned, tortured and killed committed anti-fascists in the name of war against fascism. Orwell himself was lucky to get out of Spain alive.

Then he got back to England and read the lies that the English left-wing press had been publishing about the POUM and the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (bloody site censored the acronym, lol - they were the anarchists anyway!). He tried to redress the balance by providing his own eye witness accounts but none of the papers would publish him. In 1937 he wrote:
"What worries me is not that lies are being told but that the English left-wing press refused the other side a hearing"
 
Last edited:
valenciagill said:
TR could say the same ...
Click to expand...

Leave it out, ffs!

You've said some stupid things and made some outlandish claims before but this has to be up there amongst them.

At least this time you're not fuelling hatred and racism. So I suppose that on this occasion we can all just laugh at your ridiculous comment.
 
I didn't think I would ever wear socks again, but it got chilly yesterday so I put some on.

There is a pertinent philosophical point in there somewhere.
 
Buddha said:
The idea of anybody having to sell their body is pretty horrific.
Click to expand...
What do you mean "selling your body" and what do you mean "having to"?
(Genuinely interested.)

Surely anyone giving a personal service is selling (or renting out) their body - along with skills and possibly their mind ?
Hairdressers, masseurs, health trial volunteers - even footballers.


Surely everyone should work for a living ?
So by extension everyone "prostitutes" themselves.

Some people have a problem with treating sex as a "personal service - but from a later remark, you don't seem to.
So why worry about prostitutes "having" to work more than (say) a binman "has" to work for food and shelter ?

Slavery is another thing.

Buddha said:
And the entire concept of usury is morally abhorrent.
Click to expand...
Just checking...... do you accept this definition of "usuary"
"A loan may be considered usurious because of excessive or abusive interest rates"
If so, I could agree with you.

If you have an objection to lending anything with some sort of charge, it would be interesting to know.
 
jogills said:
Lots of people declare bureaucrats, civil servants and local government workers a burden and call for swingeing cuts in their numbers. Many of the same people call for new laws to address their pet problems.
Click to expand...
Presumably such people would be hypocrites ....
.... or maybe not.

Surely it is possible to believe that one Govt. Dept. is overstaffed while another is understaffed ?
.... which depends on one's priorities (or politics).


jogills said:
Every single new law begets more of the people they wish to see gone.
Click to expand...
So not exactly .... if the civil servants transfer departments as priorities change.

Surely the real problem is that it has become much easier to grow a bureaucracy than to reduce it ?
And sadly a major contributor is human nature. i.e. a desire to demonstrate self-worth, where increased status is measured via numbers of staff and pay ?
In short "empire building".

Surely the question should be:
"Does this job add value ?"

Clearly some public sector jobs do add vlaue .... but far too many jobs "serve the system"...... or don't they ?
 
Tarian said:
What do you mean "selling your body" and what do you mean "having to"?
(Genuinely interested.)

Surely anyone giving a personal service is selling (or renting out) their body - along with skills and possibly their mind ?
Hairdressers, masseurs, health trial volunteers - even footballers.


Surely everyone should work for a living ?
So by extension everyone "prostitutes" themselves.

Some people have a problem with treating sex as a "personal service - but from a later remark, you don't seem to.
So why worry about prostitutes "having" to work more than (say) a binman "has" to work for food and shelter ?

Slavery is another thing.


Just checking...... do you accept this definition of "usuary"
"A loan may be considered usurious because of excessive or abusive interest rates"
If so, I could agree with you.

If you have an objection to lending anything with some sort of charge, it would be interesting to know.
Click to expand...

Oh eff off, Tarian. As I said before, you're just into semantics, and this board isn't a fucking exam.

You know full well that I was referring to selling sex. I don't have a problem with anybody making a free choice to sell sex. But I'm uneasy with the idea of anybody being either coerced into selling sex, or feeling so desperate that selling sex seems the only option.

Obviously I do understand that the term, 'prostitute', can be used in a broader context. For instance, it could be suggested that Andrew Llyod Webber 'prostituted' himself when he wrote, 'Itsy Bitsy Bikini'.

And as for usury. Nope. I can't abide it. That's why i'll never pay or charge rent. I'm well into sharing. I lend loads of my things out. And I borrow a fair few things too. There's never a fucking charge.
 
Tarian said:
Presumably such people would be hypocrites ....
.... or maybe not.

Surely it is possible to believe that one Govt. Dept. is overstaffed while another is understaffed ?
.... which depends on one's priorities (or politics).



So not exactly .... if the civil servants transfer departments as priorities change.

Surely the real problem is that it has become much easier to grow a bureaucracy than to reduce it ?
And sadly a major contributor is human nature. i.e. a desire to demonstrate self-worth, where increased status is measured via numbers of staff and pay ?
In short "empire building".

Surely the question should be:
"Does this job add value ?"

Clearly some public sector jobs do add vlaue .... but far too many jobs "serve the system"...... or don't they ?
Click to expand...
 
We know your prejudices Tarian. They drive you into some weird places. We are all hypocrites by your new definition. Humans can hold contradictory attitudes and most do so frequently. If you dismiss them all you will have no one left to argue with.

Find me a new law that required no administration whatever.

Far too many anti statist ideologues have poluuted the public discourse and picked away at the commonwealth of Britain.
 
Buddha said:
Oh eff off, Tarian. As I said before, you're just into semantics, and this board isn't a fucking exam.
Click to expand...
Words have meaning.
People can mis-use words - sometimes unintentionally, sometimes not.

A lot of posts on here have one of two intentions:
a) genuine debate
b) declaring tribal affiliation

If you don't like being asked to clarify your statements, then don't expect to be taken seriously.
 
jogills said:
We know your prejudices Tarian. They drive you into some weird places.
Click to expand...
Please do tell me.:confused:

jogills said:
We are all hypocrites by your new definition. Humans can hold contradictory attitudes and most do so frequently. If you dismiss them all you will have no one left to argue with.
Click to expand...
If you think "holding contradictory attitudes" is some sort of badge of honour ...... :rolleyes:

jogills said:
Find me a new law that required no administration whatever.
Click to expand...
Any new law that replaces an old law.
Of course if it covers something completely new (e.g. Cyber crime) then it may well require new administration.
Meanwhile old laws about horse and carriages or fax machines may require less.

jogills said:
Far too many anti statist ideologues have poluuted the public discourse and picked away at the commonwealth of Britain.
Click to expand...
What does this mean please ?:confused:
 
Tarian said:
Please do tell me.:confused:


If you think "holding contradictory attitudes" is some sort of badge of honour ...... :rolleyes:


Any new law that replaces an old law.
Of course if it covers something completely new (e.g. Cyber crime) then it may well require new administration.
Meanwhile old laws about horse and carriages or fax machines may require less.


What does this mean please ?:confused:
Click to expand...

Where have I congratulated anyone for holding contradictory attitudes. Look around humans do that.

I am interested in laws that replace old ones and need less administration. I think you would struggle to find an example. Twist and turn as yiou like new laws.
generally require administration, oversight and enforcement.

In answer to your what dioes this mean please, I think you know and I struggle to understand if you do not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.