Bobby Sands R.I.P. 5th May 1981

RandomName2

Chuck Stone wrote: »

France recently invaded assisted its former colony Mali in the name of 'security'. France's days of colonialism aren't quite over.

So what, France is currently an empire?

Either way, what relevance?

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

If you don't understand the statement that it's not important about the type of state at it, but that it actually happened is the more important thing, then I can't help you honestly.

^^ That sentence is actually pretty hard to parse, but your whole argument for at least a dozen pages of this thread was that the IRA/IRB's actions would always have been legitimate, in the same way that the 1916 rebels actions were legitimate because they rebelling (or something) specifically against an empire - and that, with your absolute definition, meant that it was right, and damn the means.

Your argument has been, imo, successfully broken.

Mr Cumulonimbus

RandomName2 wrote: »

So in that case in 1910 Great Britain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, etc. mustn't have been empires in that case.

Can you explain why this is so important to you?

Your argument has been, imo, successfully broken.

:rolleyes:

Erm, no. I've no interest in the actual structure of the state doing it. It's that it's being done at all that counts. What part of this do you not understand? Britain can have any constitutional structure it wants but if it's presence here is considered wrong, that's the important thing to discuss.

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Can you explain why this is so important to you?

:rolleyes:

Erm, no. I've no interest in the actual structure of the state doing it. It's that it's being done at all that counts. What part of this do you not understand? Britain can have any constitutional structure it wants but if it's presence here is considered wrong, that's the important thing to discuss.

The term is of no importance to me. I consider the term less than irrelevant without due context.

The only reason why I think it is worth even giving a moment towards thrashing out the thing is because, so often, talk about republicans from the Troubles ends up focusing on our relationship with Britain during the period 1914-1922 exclusively; very much like that line from the Cranberry song 'Zombie'.

You, among others, claim that any action which undoes "empire building" is legitimate. That is your stance, stated by you, many times: that "empire building" is inherently wrong. Not that anybody has really said what empire building is; just some vague boogey-man term which conjures up ideas concerning "slavery", "subjugation", "brutality" and "exploitation".

You say you don't care what type of state does "empire building" which is a fairly strange statement in the first place, as it is the process of empire building which would make something an empire, not the other way around.

But something that is built as a composite of an empire must, by definition, be part of that empire. Thus: WHAT IS AN EMPIRE becomes of crucial importance.

But you can forward nothing to say that a terrorist today, from Cornwall, seeking Cornish independence from Britain is any different from a 1916 rebel. You don't even bother trying in relation to the PKK and ETA, which would at least have given you an opportunity to provide some sort of argument to back up your theory (as opposed to none).

So yeah - I think that that is fairly conclusive by this stage; even if you did give a long run-around by going to antiquity and talking about the "universal truth" of contemporary moralistic values. Quite frankly if I never hear the word "Norman" and "Troubles" in the same sentence again it will be too soon.

Mr Cumulonimbus

RandomName2 wrote: »

The term is of no importance to me.

Then why bang on about it in post after post? As karma has already suggested, quit with the pedanticism.

I consider the term less than irrelevant without due context.

Good God. How many times have I used the term "on unwilling populations" in this thread?

The only reason why I think it is worth even giving a moment towards thrashing out the thing is because, so often, talk about republicans from the Troubles ends up focusing on our relationship with Britain during the period 1914-1922 exclusively

Aren't there load of threads on this already?

You, among others, claim that any action which undoes "empire building" is legitimate.

Too repeat god knows how many times now - to undo the process when it's forced on unwilling populations.

That is your stance, stated by you, many times: that "empire building" is inherently wrong. Not that anybody has really said what empire building is; just some vague boogey-man term which conjures up ideas concerning "slavery", "subjugation", "brutality" and "exploitation".

Must I add the context again (unwill....). Why are you missing this? .

You say you don't care what type of state does "empire building" which is a fairly strange statement in the first place

Oh dear.

But something that is built as a composite of an empire must, by definition, be part of that empire. Thus: WHAT IS AN EMPIRE becomes of crucial importance.

Unwilling populations. (x 1,000,000) Getting it yet?

terrorist today, from Cornwall, seeking Cornish independence from Britain is any different from a 1916 rebel.

Tar and brush come to mind.

You don't even bother trying in relation to the PKK and ETA, which would at least have given you an opportunity to provide some sort of argument to back up your theory (as opposed to none).

You don't even seem to want to bother to analyse why these events may have occurred. Pick on the "violence" you see first and keep going down that blinkered route.

Quite frankly if I never hear the word "Norman" and "Troubles" in the same sentence again it will be too soon.

Ditto with the excuses that those who wish to free themslves from an genuinely unjust occupation should have to explain themselves for doing so. The cheek of them, eh.

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Too repeat god knows how many times now - to undo the process when it's forced on unwilling populations.

Ah, so that's where the spinning out of history is coming in. Presumably if a people are unwilling to be part of a state, then their successors 800 years later are... something something. I'll ignore the origin argument, it's just plain silly, and throwing the feelings of people who lived hundreds of years ago into the mix more silly still.

Your net is so wide it takes in any group of people that are unhappy with the state that they are in. You also give blanket justification to any means used by people who are unhappy which such states to break away or dismantle such states.

Sometimes such peoples' actions are legitimate. Of course, sometimes they are not.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

You don't even seem to want to bother to analyse why these events may have occurred. Pick on the "violence" you see first and keep going down that blinkered route.

Actually you are the one mentioning violence... This shying away from concrete examples is more particular to you than most, which makes analysis of such avoidance of little consequence.

Happyman42

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ah, so that's where the spinning out of history is coming in. Presumably if a people are unwilling to be part of a state, then their successors 800 years later are... something something. I'll ignore the origin argument, it's just plain silly, and throwing the feelings of people who lived hundreds of years ago into the mix more silly still.

Your net is so wide it takes in any group of people that are unhappy with the state that they are in. You also give blanket justification to any means used by people who are unhappy which such states to break away or dismantle such states.

Sometimes such peoples' actions are legitimate. Of course, sometimes they are not.



Actually you are the one mentioning violence... This shying away from concrete examples is more particular to you than most, which makes analysis of such avoidance of little consequence.

You have yet to make a point that has any relevance or use to the real world in which we actually live.

Mr Cumulonimbus

RandomName2 wrote: »

This shying away from concrete examples is more particular to you than most.

You must have missed my post when I mentioned Nazi Germany's occupation and exploitation of Eastern Europe and it's peoples when you looked for examples. If the year was was 2745 would you dismiss the Jewish Holocaust so blithely, plus all the miilions in Russa, 22% of Poland's population and so on and so forth...........

Care to discuss the above in some of the criteria you yourself gave:

Presumably if a people are unwilling to be part of a state.....

group of people that are unhappy with the state that they are in.....

justification to any means used by people who are unhappy which such states to break away or dismantle such states......

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

You must have missed my post when I mentioned Nazi Germany's occupation and exploitation of Eastern Europe and it's peoples when you looked for examples.

Well you can talk about that if you like... though I fail to see what relevance it would bear to Ireland.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

If the year was was 2745 would you dismiss the Jewish Holocaust so blithely..........

If I were a man from the year 2745 I would talk about the Holocaust from the point of view of a man from the year 2745. As I'm not, I can't.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Care to discuss the above in the criteria you yourself gave:

It would need some sort of context.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

?



You answered using the word "our". It's your (ie your personal) opinion that I'm seeking in reference to this:



Do you form your opinion going by what you stated here or do you subordinate such a process to your own personal pre-existing opinion whatever that may be?

"Our" could refer to a modern consensus on a past event not involving you personally.

I must say you post in a most convoluted style that I have difficulty understanding you. So I will just give you a rather simplistic example to explain my point of view even at the risk of being accused of introducing another tangent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korowai

The Korowai had no contact with the outside world until 1970 and believed they were the sole inhabitants of the earth.

They also practiced cannibalism and rumours persist that they still do.

How should we judge them ? By their moral code or our moral code ?

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

I have difficulty understanding you.?

I genuinely give up. I honestly haven't got a clue what your saying or what your opinion is at this stage.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I genuinely give up. I honestly haven't got a clue what your saying or what your opinion is at this stage.

Did you read the entry on the Korowai ?

TheDoc

droidman123 wrote: »

Its actually sad that this argument is even going on.in any other country bobby sands would be a hero and his anniversary would be celebrated accordingly. Even the easter rising celebrations is a low key affair every year,its disgusting.

I'd imagine its because the IRA and whatever dozen subsideries have come out of it, are viewed as nothing more then criminals and showing public support for either, in parts would perhaps give the impression you support the these organisations.

Considering they use the dates for obsene propaganda. If you want The Easter Rising to be more celebrated, tell all the paramilitary organisations to **** off claiming it had anything to do with them, and more Irish folk will actually make it a celebrated occasion.

I think the arguement aswell is a valid one. I'm not well versed in our history of the troubles, to fine detail so I won't get into a debate. I'll just give my view as a mid 20's Dubliner.

I have no experience of the troubles, so I don't have empathy, only sympathy. I've colleagues and friends from the north who have all up to 8 years ago suffered violence and tragedy. However, the IRA, and however many spin off's remain, in my lifetime have been nothing but a criminal organisation operating in large cities throughout Ireland, and throughout they have given as much as they get. I always get the chuckles when people call out the various sound bite incidents of terror caused by the "British" yet the IRA and Republican movement have given as good as they've got. I've enough interest in reading material on Irish crime and gangland that there is enough evidence there to ensure that I have absolutely no tolerance or time for anything IRA related.

And unfortunately, and also for alot of people of my age category, there is also little interest in learning or educating ones self on Bobby Sands. We make the lazy link he was with some subsidery of the IRA, assume he did something horrific and leave it at that. Granted I've read a bit more into it, mostly because of this thread, it's my view his death was very much in vain and achieved little : /

It would be nice if the Republicans would chill out a little, and realise that not having a picture of Bobby Hands over your fireplace and a Celtic jersey doesn't make you any less Irish.

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Did you read the entry on the Korowai ?

I did and very interesting it was too.

But I still come back to this:

By their moral code or our moral code

"Their" or "Our" possibly implies a uniformity of thinking on a subject, including moral codes. Can you define what you mean by "our moral code"? Do you mean it terms of say, a moral code agreed between two or more individuals for example?

Paine again - "the inherent rights of the individual". How do you know the Korowai didn't have differing views on things amongst themselves before contact with outsiders?

Happyman42

TheDoc wrote: »

I'm not well versed in our history of the troubles, to fine detail so I won't get into a debate.

The standard opt out clause for the unconcerned. Ireland's great shame is the litany of citizens who will not take responsibility to at least inform themselves and simply inherit what they are told to believe. Sad in extremis.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I did and very interesting it was too.

But I still come back to this:



"Their" or "Our" possibly implies a uniformity of thinking on a subject, including moral codes. Can you define what you mean by "our moral code"? Do you mean it terms of say, a moral code agreed between two or more individuals for example?

Paine again - "the inherent rights of the individual". How do you know the Korowai didn't have differing views on things amongst themselves before contact with outsiders?

So if you read it then for once answer the question put to you and stop reformatting your own question - so again how should we/our/you/one/I (I don't care who ) judge them ?

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

So if you read it then for once answer the question put to you and stop reformatting your own question - so again how should we/our/you/one/I (I don't care who ) judge them ?

Erm, I will - as an individual based on my opinions.

The Nazi moral standpoint applicable at the time (1943), believed it ok to kill Jews because they were an "inferior race".

we must review the past from a moral standpoint , but the moral standpoint applicable at the time and not our moral standpoint

Since you believe we must review the past from a moral standpoint applicable at the time, can you analyse my Nazi example then, since we cannot, according to you, review it from our/I etc own standpoint?

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Erm, I will - as an individual based on my opinions.

The Nazi moral standpoint applicable at the time (1943), believed it ok to kill Jews because they were an "inferior race".



Since you believe we must review the past from a moral standpoint applicable at the time, can you analyse my Nazi example then, since we cannot, according to you, review it from our/I etc own standpoint?

So then , instead of rephrasing your argument yet again - tell me how you would judge those tribesmen ? What would you do ?

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

The Nazi moral standpoint applicable at the time (1943), believed it ok to kill Jews because they were an "inferior race".

I don't intend getting involved in this again, but I'll just point out that most of the world, at the time, considered that abhorrent. Although it is also useful to look at things from the Nazi's point of view, and why they held such beliefs, you would also need to look at the general viewpoint at the time, their opponents' beliefs; and try and come up some objective facts from the above.

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

So then , instead of rephrasing your argument yet again - tell me how you would judge those tribesmen ? What would you do ?

"Rephrasing"? Rephrasing it towards your own position? You won't test your very own statement despite me giving you an example to test it on?

As for the tribesmen, as I've said already, judged by me, as an individual and as an extension of this - my individual opinion. Why should it matter "what I would do" in this context? You understand this surely?

Originally posted by RandomName2: I don't intend getting involved in this again, but I'll just point out that most of the world, at the time, considered that abhorrent. Although it is also useful to look at things from the Nazi's point of view, and why they held such beliefs, you would also need to look at the general viewpoint at the time, their opponents' beliefs; and try and come up some objective facts from the above.

Agreed.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

"Rephrasing"? Rephrasing it towards your own position? You won't test your very own statement despite me giving you an example to test it on?

As for the tribesmen, as I've said already, judged by me, as an individual and as an extension of this - my individual opinion. Why should it matter "what I would do" in this context? You understand this surely?



Agreed.

Mr C . still unable to answer the question ! But now it is no matter as you have agreed with RandomName2 you are agreeing with me .

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Mr C . still unable to answer the question ! But now it is no matter as you have agreed with RandomName2 you are agreeing with me .

Er no, I haven't, with him on his latest post, but not with you.

Note that RandomName mentioned "objective facts". It takes the consideration of more than one viewpoint to arrive at an objective conclusion. How can I do that when you have specifically stated:

and not our moral standpoint

You've already conceeded that our moral standpoint could be also mine. How can you exclude this?

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Er no, I haven't, with him on his latest post, but not with you.

Note that RandomName mentioned "objective facts". It takes the consideration of more than one viewpoint to arrive at an objective conclusion. How can I do that when you have specifically stated:



You've already conceeded that our moral standpoint could be also mine. How can you exclude this?

Er, yes you have , you are getting too bogged down it me mine ours yours etc. Where did I say anything other that objective facts or using just one viewpoint - That is your argument !! You are projecting YOUR moral view back in time ! I am say the exact opposite .

Now if we are to continue you will have to answer a question - how would you judge those tribesmen ? And no more ducking and dodging please.

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Er, yes you have.

But RandomName2 listed multiple opposing standpoints applicable at that time (WW2). I can't offer today's moral interpretation on them, if it's different, because of the conclusion one reaches from your statement since it contains the imperative "must":

we must review the past from a moral standpoint , but the moral standpoint applicable at the time and not our moral standpoint.

We can and must offer criticism but it must be in line with the reasoning of the time

How am I allowed to offer criticism that I may have today but it's not in line with the reasoning of the time?

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

But RandomName2 listed multiple opposing standpoints applicable at that time (WW2). I can't offer today's moral interpretation on them, if it's different, because of the conclusion one reaches from your statement since it contains the imperative "must":



How am I allowed to offer my moral standpoint I may have today but it's not in line with the reasoning of the time?

I am afraid I can't help you with your comprehension problems Mr.C

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

I am afraid I can't help you with your comprehension problems Mr.C

You honestly can't see the problem with this:

We can and must offer criticism but it must be in line with the reasoning of the time

How am I allowed criticism from today if its not in line? You do know what an imperative is?

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

You honestly can't see the problem with this:



How am I allowed criticism from today if its not in line? You do know what an imperative is?

Sorry Mr C I can't help you if you don't understand , I have explained it in so many different ways at this stage.

Tell you what though , if you care to answer the question I put to you innumerable times on those tribesmen using your own methods , we can work it out together . How does that sound ?

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Sorry Mr C I can't help you if you don't understand , I have explained it in so many different ways at this stage.

Tell you what though , if you care to answer the question I put to you innumerable times on those tribesmen using your own methods , we can work it out together . How does that sound ?

Ok then. Follow this scenario.

In the past the tribesmen ate one person every year towards the end of the dry season in the hope rain comes, because if they don't, the rain won't come according to their beliefs and the crops won't have water. All the tribesmen hold this belief.

After they do this the rain comes every year without fail. So their single belief that justifies cannibalism is that it ends the dry season. To them this is correct, since the rain has come every year without fail in all of their lifetimes, and as far back in time as their ancestors can remember.

We can and must offer criticism but it must be in line with the reasoning of the time

Working exclusively within their reasoning and not mine as based on today's beliefs, how do I convince them that cannibalism does not bring on the rainy season?

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Ok then. Follow this scenario.

In the past the tribesmen ate one person every year towards the end of the dry season in the hope rain comes, because if they don't, the rain won't come according to their beliefs and the crops won't have water. All the tribesmen hold this belief.

After they do this the rain comes every year without fail. So their single belief that justifies cannibalism is that it ends the dry season. To them this is correct, since the rain has come every year without fail in all of their lifetimes, and as far back in time as their ancestors can remember.



Working exclusively within their reasoning and not mine as based on today's beliefs, how do I convince them that cannibalism does not bring on the rainy season?

So would you arrest them for kidnapping murder and cannibalism or what ?

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

So would you arrest them for kidnapping murder and cannibalism or what ?

You avoided me on the Nazi analogy, now you're doing the same again.

Im following your own reasoning here surely:

We can and must offer criticism but it must be in line with the reasoning of the time

So can you answer the question within their reasoning processes: how do I convince them that cannibalism does not end the rainy season?