nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Northern Ireland Future

Michael McMahon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFn9yeQuhEM

Michael Collins movie - Easter Rising

A united Ireland isn't a mystery of philosophy where the 100 year debate has ignored a central issue of self-defence rights. The founding fathers of the Irish state envisioned an egalitarian and inclusive society. So for the south to ignore northern nationalists is to defy the mandate of the founding fathers. The Republic of Ireland has so much land and lots of corporations that we could almost ditch income tax until the state becomes more serious about either representing nationalists in the Northern Irish military or of representing unionists in a new united Irish military! So many people were killed in the Troubles over unionist and nationalist ideologies that weren't very academic. As such I feel as if I should be more entitled with my hundred page militia theories and demand human sacrifices in honour of my academic prose! I decided to send my militia, pantheism and Irish re-unification threads to England seeing as I was getting no responses from the Republic and Northern Ireland. So I'd to write to the "enemy" seeing as my own side wasn't interested!

https://debatepolitics.com/threads/minority-rights.353082/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Michael McMahon

Perhaps nationalists don’t want a militia in the northern state in case it justifies a unionist militia were a united Ireland achieved. It’s possible that some northerners don’t actually want a solution because a dysfunctional state can justify an anti-social personality. For example some teenagers crave rebellious fashion styles not because they’re in a gang but because they think it’s cool.

Scarface - Al Pacino

Michael McMahon

The limitation of ecumenism is that any faith system is inherently the best at their particular faith. The dilemma with Protestantism is that they've a specialist faith meaning they're more highly skilled at a subsection of Catholicism. The flaw is that Protestants shouldn't use Catholicism as a competitive reference point when Catholicism is a generalist faith. Protestants need only contrast their limitations with other Protestant sects when each have differing priorities that make them stronger at unique sections of Christianity. For example if I was re-interpreted as an Islamic person then I'd appear to be a really self-deprecating and relaxed member of their faith in a way that's unfair and illogical. So there's no point in a Protestant re-imagining themselves as Catholic and then disliking all other Catholics at having failed to live up to expectations. Likewise Catholics shouldn't view themselves as more humble than Protestants when humility can be open-ended and relative. The only reference point for rival Christian sects is the Roman empire and so long as no-one is as bad as the ancient Romans then all is good!

Michael McMahon

It’s well known that evil people can hide behind a false charm of politeness. Yet the inverse is also true where amoral people can hide behind ethics without being truly serious. That is to say any ethical person can be tempted to contemplate evil simply because their ethical system is often rebuked. No matter how tolerant amoral people are of evil people the glitch is that they’re not evil along a particular line. The worldview of evil isn’t serious because it’s absurdly painful but at the same time contemplating evil means you’re really at your upper limit of an ethical system where you can delude yourself into becoming a lesser evil. To reject evil emphatically is often to have once contemplated becoming evil. So if amoral people aren’t tempted to be a lesser evil then they’re hiding something. For example in spite of communists subjecting the west to nuclear threat during the Cold War the billionaire class in America are surprisingly not in too much danger of assassination from working-class gun-owning Americans. This means that left-wing Americans aren’t obsessed to the extent of misanthropy about wealth inequality. Likewise the Republic of Ireland is never tempted to form a chauvinistic personality common in former colonial countries. Even if chauvinism is wrong it betrays the reality that no one is tempted think that Ireland is so great as to be supremacist about. Hence to commit terrorism on behalf of a united Ireland without the IRA being very posh in their beliefs is to be a bit indifferent to the cause of a united Ireland.

Michael McMahon

The right to left wing spectrum could easily be viewed as a circle rather than a line where policies intertwine at the extremes. Many poor leaders in history might actually have been anti-collective had we interpreted them as having failed in an alternate history. For example Jesus could easily have thoroughly hated the arrogance of poor people in ancient Rome that he rebelled against them. Yet Jesus is perceived as a champion of poor people simply because they all ended up converting to Christianity. Had ancient Romans not converted to Christianity then Jesus could easily have been remembered in history as a misanthrope. Likewise the “old” IRA were actually disliked by fellow Irish people during the Easter Rising. Many poor Irish people hated how Dublin was in ruins but ended up sympathising with the IRA over the barbaric executions of IRA ringleaders. Hence some IRA members were individualist in supporting an independent Ireland despite an appearance of collectivism. Individualism can relate to collectivism if everyone has the same personality. The sex appeal of Che Guevara might actually have been a result of his militant individualism in supporting a minority communist group. For example Che was actually hated by many poor people in Cuba and Venezuela who had supported right-wing dictatorships. Hence his support of poor people was really futuristic rather than presentist.

martinedwards

so..... what's your point exactly?

Michael McMahon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120638123#Comment_120638123

If communism were going to succeed then it should’ve happened naturally instead of relying on a violent revolution. If everyone were kind then most of us would consent to communism freely and passively. It’s a catch 22! This is why socialism doesn’t require armed revolt and only democratic consent. Communism can be self-defeating because poor people sometimes aren’t adamant enough about helping other poor people. So viewing middle class and rich people as the enemy of poor people is flawed when poor people can be their own worst enemy. Internationally amoral people can vastly outnumber ethical people. As such subjecting an unrealistically standard of charity on ethical people can also be flawed if ethics deteriorates into amorality. For example extremely high taxes won’t lead to communism but could result in a society where middle class people become rude or criminally-minded towards others in general without being evil or murderous.

Michael McMahon

I identify as a capitalist socialist or as a centrist socialist rather than as a marxist socialist. I support non-violent advocates of communism only to foster debate. However a major flaw of communism is that the USSR and China were fierce enemies despite both being communist. Likewise were communism to succeed then there’d be a high risk of ethnic chauvinism and even racism towards poorer communes. For example Irish socialists have to be wary that a socialist regime in England would be at risk of glorifying their state even it didn’t care about past colonialism. For example Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war was ironically initiated by a left-wing Labour government.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lsPRr3Mt-rE

What is Communism? | Socialism 101 - Marxism Today

A further limitation of communism is that Christianity didn’t need to promote poor people and was indulgent in doing so. For example some new religious movements don’t need to help poor people as part of their ethos because they’re not looking to expand their religion. Christianity was helped by poor people to become the largest religion. Helping poor people is a central form of ethics only if poor people remain opposed to evil. Communists executed Christians in the past even if communism is theoretically reconcilable with Christian metaphysics. The dilemma is that people can espouse amoral philosophies to achieve a transcendent mindset as we can see in trance songs. Hence communism is at risk of undermining the concept of helping poor people when charity isn’t an inevitability in the natural world.

Michael McMahon

People don’t need to be self-critical because I can criticise them more thoroughly!

Michael McMahon

If Ireland were ever going to be extremely socialist then the likelihood is that it would have been so in the past when poor people were poorer and rich people were richer. As such I find Sinn Fein to be a bit of a mystery in glorifying a nation that was never socialist. Maybe had northern Catholics identified as socialists rather than republicans then they might make more sense. Russia gravitated from communism to lassaiz-faire capitalism where people who identify as socialist must be stern in their beliefs to avoid being as volatile as Russia.

Jim_Hodge

As already asked: What's you point? So far it's all rambling waffle very far removed from logical structure and devoid of any realistic view of society.

Michael McMahon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120664771#Comment_120664771

The Midas touch is a cautionary tale not only for rich people but also for the left wing. Sinn Féin are a militant party meaning that they can be self-sacrificing in every area bar their negative attitude towards unionists. Sinn Féin have outcompeted the Labour Party by being even more left wing than them. The dilemma is that Sinn Fein wants everyone to be more helpful than ever before despite a lack of remorse for civilian deaths during the Troubles. This risks creating a volatile ethical system typical of other far-left governments. In other words Sinn Fein are populist and as such they really won’t nationalise everything like Venezuela. The harsh reality is that Sinn Fein might undermine the left wing more than any right wing party. Sinn Fein will end up being far more professional than Cuba and Venezuela but the professionalism is more about anti-Englishness than pro-poverty. If American individualism reigns supreme internationally maybe it’s because any form of collectivism can be hijacked.

Michael McMahon

In terms of patriotism Sinn Fein is actually less extreme than the old Fianna Fail who had supported the irregulars against their own state during the 1920s civil war. As such Sinn Fein likely would become tolerable if they’re elected to government. However the way they’re elected isn’t really fair when they’ve become more moderate only because they’ve had to co-operate with right wing unionists in a northern coalition government. Hence if Sinn Fein gets elected it’s really England’s fault for creating a radical Sinn Fein party beyond the capacity of centrist Irish people to handle. It’s impossible to deliberately vote in a minority government because no one can tell who other voters are selecting in the voting booth. As such to not vote Sinn Fein is to risk no one voting for Sinn Fein. As such it’s possible that Sinn Fein could win in a landslide if no one errs on the side of caution.

steinbock123

Michael. . . . . . I don’t think I care . . . . .

con747

No Mods anymore? No?

Michael McMahon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120672443#Comment_120672443

The victims of evil can ironically side with evil because they’re unable to control their anger. As such Irish people are capable of being anti-Irish as much as they can be anti-English because amorality doesn’t have an allegiance. The situation can be so desperate that it can actually require lesser evils to deal with the victims of colonialism. The harsh reality is that Irish people should really have been the most unified people ever to have withstood the famine. The fact that this hasn’t happened implies that the survivors of the famine might not have been very ethical. Some ancient Irish people might not have been as charitable as they should have been to starving people during the famine. It’s safe to say that England deserves most of the blame for mismanaging the famine. Yet we cannot forget that native Americans lived in huts whereas many Irish people in the 1840s could afford cottages despite others having no food. Ireland has some of the most fertile land in the world where a socialist version of 1840s Ireland could have withstood the potato blight way better. I support the planning application process to construct gun clubs and for members to have background checks. However if gun clubs are arbitrarily declined with little excuses given then I’ll to be more assertive when people have been evil in the past. Fundamentally if people aren’t political extremists then they can shoot only if fired upon in order to set up a gun club armoury.

“Protestant landlords of Anglo-Irish descendancy installed by Cromwell owned 90 percent of all land in Ireland in 1860. Where landownership was a huge part of the causes of the famine, it was, at the same time, a complex situation all round.”

https://www.enjoy-irish-culture.com/Irish-potato-famine-murder.html

Jim_Hodge

The most long-winded wind up ever on Boards. You're posting cr@p Michael. Nobody gives a damn, as you can clearly see.

#IGNORE

Gaspode

Thread Closed