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

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

You are projecting your moral values back into the past and it is a meaningless exercise .

So a comment calling on people to concentrate on the unjust process that is empire building instead of fixating on the methods used to reverse that process is meaningless? How so?

Why should this thread mainly be concerned with those endlessly having to justify the methods used to do this?

Chuck Stone

RandomName2 wrote: »

To all intents and purposes that is a 'yes'.

These questions cannot be answered by yes/no. There was a conflict. I don't think Unionist violence was evil and Republican violence good. Some of the things done in the name of Republicanism and Unionism/Loyalism were murderous brutality. Who among us would attempt to justify the Kingsmill, Greysteel, or Bloody Sunday massacres?

Your choice of terminology was equivalent to Godwin's law.

Godwin's law is not a logical fallacy. It's a rubbish observation with no value.

And the average Irishman does today? Access to the Dail is almost exclusive to people belonging to dynasties and bearing strong political party affiliations.

You make a good point in fairness.

No indeed. You say 'empire' but that is not treating like with like; for Ireland's relationship was not the relationship of client state and empire.

It was hardly a beautiful romance either.

Yes, yes it does. The fact was that violence was needlessly introduced into Ireland's bid for national liberation by revolutionaries.

In your opinion it was needless. How do you feel about the reaction to the Easter Rising? Do you think that violence was justified? Or should the British have negotiated a non-violent deescalation and asked the people of Ireland to vote on independence? See what I did there? I chose a point in time and started the narrative and exploration of historical events where it suits me. Sound familiar?

Most other countries under British rule, who sought independence in the twentieth century, who had far less political means than was available to Irish nationalists, did not see the need to fire a shot.

Source? Also, I'd imagine any non-rebellious independence was achieved when the British Empire was in retreat due to Imperial overstretch and financial decline.

Well the two were not mutually exclusive; although you are again conflating different things. You are essentially saying 1920/1970; which is not doing the complexity of the issue justice.

The troubles can be traced back to the partition of this country under the threat of violence by Unionists. This is an indisputable fact.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Or should the British have negotiated a non-violent deescalation and asked the people of Ireland to vote on independence?

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So a comment calling on people to concentrate on the unjust process that is empire building instead of fixating on the methods used to reverse that process is meaningless? How so?

Why should this thread mainly be concerned with those endlessly having to justify the methods used to do this?

Well firstly you should explain why and when empire building became unjust and how that fits into actual history. How far back in time would you go ? And following on from that is there a kind of statute of limitations on the benefits and/or consequences of empire or should they always be amenable to reversal . Is that even possible ? Is it always desirable ?

The notion that all empires are always and equally unjust and all anti -empires fighters are just is simplistic nonsense.

As for having to endlessly justify the methods used to reverse this process- that might be how you see this thread . I don't see it that way. It is the insistence on seeing only one way of looking at our history that seems to requires endless justification and any deviation from a simplified narrative is pounced on and immediately derided .

Real history is a bit more nuanced than that.

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

endless justification

Aim the comments toward where they really belong - those who foist "empire building" on unwilling/unconsenting populations. They should have to offer "endless justification" of their actions, not those who wish to reverse this morally disgusting process.

It's countries that engage in this activity I'm pointing the finger at, not the type of country they are, i.e an empire, kingdom, or states without a royal family.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Aim the comments toward where they really belong - those who foist "empire building" on unwilling/unconsenting populations. They should have to offer "endless justification" of their actions, not those who wish to reverse this morally disgusting process.

Just more sloganeering claptrap. Try giving a few answers to genuinely asked questions and I might take you seriously.

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Just more sloganeering claptrap. Try giving a few answers to genuinely asked questions and I might take you seriously.

Why the hostility or the need to divert? Can't you talk about the concept that empire building when forced on unconsenting populations is an inherently unjust process without reference to the methods used to undo it etc? Hasn't that been done to death already in this and previous threads?

Plus see the addition to my post above (#460). I'm using "empire building" as a generic term, not the term "empire" itself as always being linked to invasion, occupation, colonisation and annexation of other territories.

Chuck Stone

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

empire building is an inherently unjust process

Resource thieving, evangelising, gun-point colonialism is not allowed to be part of the narrative. Drawing attention to the inherent violence of colonialism needs to be shouted down because it exposes the nature of power and privilege.

Chuck Stone

RandomName2 wrote: »

Your choice of terminology was equivalent to Godwin's law.

It's interesting that you cite Godwin's bollocksology 'law' when it comes to this issue. Were you aware that Hitler was inspired by British Imperialism and British notions of superiority and wanted an alliance with the British?

Typical of the Nazi admiration for the British Empire were a lengthy series of articles in various German newspapers throughout the mid-1930s praising various aspects of British imperial history, with the clear implication that there were positive parallels to be drawn between British empire-building in the past and German empire-building in the future.

Strobl, Gerwin The Germanic Isle, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2000 page 62.

hju6

And now the Empire of Europe is upon us , and not one of us is any where near the commitment of Bobby Sands, he must be turning

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Why the hostility or the need to divert? Can't you talk about the concept that empire building when forced on unconsenting populations is an inherently unjust process without reference to the methods used to undo it etc? Hasn't that been done to death already in this and previous threads?

Plus see the addition to my post above (#460). I'm using "empire building" as a generic term, not the term "empire" itself as always being linked to invasion, occupation, colonisation and annexation of other territories.

I have already clearly stated in innumerable posts what I think of empires and empire building. The recognition that the world in which we live is the product of such empires is not an endorsement of them or their methods.

I may well recognise the importance of Bolivar Jefferson Madison Washington in history . Does that mean I approve of slavery ?

As for your post 460 ,It is just more broad generalisations as far as I can see.


My problem is your use of terms like ''inherently unjust process''. What does that even mean ? Absolutely monarchy/ slavery/ Subjugation of women/- would they also be inherently unjust ? By our standards of course , by the standards of past times in which they applied people wouldn't even know what you were talking about. Similarly with empire.

But such simplifying devices are essential to maintain the fictional narrative
of our side good their side bad . History is more nuanced ,Washington was a slaver and a freedom fighter. Connolly and Casement were both servants of empire and enemies of empire .

RandomName2

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Godwin's law is not a logical fallacy. It's a rubbish observation with no value.

It's an appeal to an archetype of evil.

"We can all agree that the Nazis were bad... well this is like the Nazis."

Or the equivalent: "We can all agree that slavery was bad... well this is like slavery."

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It was hardly a beautiful romance either.

True

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In your opinion it was needless. How do you feel about the reaction to the Easter Rising? Do you think that violence was justified?

Which violence: the violence of putting down the rising, or the execution of the leaders? Either way, yes. Anything else, going on the morés of the time, the laws of the land, and the event of war would have been strange in the extreme. A more savvy response would have been exile, of course.

The apparent threat of execution of the rank-and-file wasn't imo justified. Since when has it been justified to execute rank-and-file? Also, the process should probably not have been conducted in military courts.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'd imagine any non-rebellious independence was achieved when the British Empire was in retreat due to Imperial overstretch and financial decline.

It's a much of a muchness tbh. The empire was in retreat here and had no real desire to hold onto Ireland. The only real motivation to not grant home rule or independence was the implications it would have on the rest of the empire, and also the possibility of unionist revolt.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The troubles can be traced back to the partition of this country under the threat of violence by Unionists. This is an indisputable fact.

Yes, but is it relevant?

RandomName2

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Ah, but's it not you see. Whats the ice age got to do with this topic? Cant you just concentrate for once on the inherently unjust process that is empire building (especially against unwilling subjects) for a change instead of fixating on the methods that people have used in an attempt to reverse it?

The Ice Age has everything to do with the topic.

Ireland without glaciers shall never be at peace!
---


Also Ireland is an empire. One day the indigenous people of the travellers will rise up and seize Limerick from the imperialist yoke of Dublin.

Or Cork; ruthlessly conquered by Collins. Even Dingle had its name changed recently due to the foreign edits of the Dáil.

Why can't you concentrate on the monochrome morality that this situation presents?

Banjo String

Today, may twelfth marks the anniversary of vol Francis Hughes.

Hughes, the youngest son from a family of ten was the second republican volunteer to die on the hunger strike.

Aged just 25, Hughes was even described by British soldiers as ' an extremely formidable soldier'.

"I have no prouder boast than to say I am Irish and have been privileged to fight for the Irish people and for Ireland. If I have a duty I will perform it to the full with the unshakeable belief that we are a noble race and that chains and bonds have no part in us".
Francis Hughes may twelfth, 1981

Extracted from an open letter to the people of county Derry
explaining his hunger strike.

May he R.I.P

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

not an endorsement

It was an inherently unjust process then?

As for your post 460 ,It is just more broad generalisations as far as I can see.

I clarified what I meant by "empire building" for you there. The type of state doing it is irrelevant in this context.

inherently unjust process....What does that even mean ?

.

Absolutely monarchy/ slavery/ Subjugation of women/- would they also be inherently unjust ?

Er, yes.

By our standards of course , by the standards of past times in which they applied

Would you use this as a means to say we can never condemn these processes?

people wouldn't even know what you were talking about.

Really? Thomas Paine's book "The Rights of Man" was published in 1791.

fictional narrative

?

of our side good their side bad

Those who seek to reverse the process of empire building when it's forced on an unconsenting population are on a higher moral level than those seeking to advance it. Would you agree?

Washington was a slaver

Washington's slaves were freed by orders in his will.

Connolly and Casement were both servants of empire and enemies of empire .

What's wrong with them changing their position on the matter?

Originally posted by RandomName2: The Ice Age has everything to do with the topic.

Ireland without glaciers shall never be at peace!

Like it!

LordSutch

SamHall wrote: »

"I have no prouder boast than to say I am Irish and have been privileged to fight for the Irish people and for Ireland".
Francis Hughes may twelfth, 1981

Extracted from an open letter to the people of county Derry
explaining his hunger strike.

May he R.I.P

But he was not fighting for the Irish people, neither was he fighting for Ireland

Poor deluded fella.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

It was an inherently unjust process then?



I clarified what I meant by "empire building" for you there. The type of state doing it is irrelevant in this context.



.



Er, yes.



Would you use this as a means to say we can never condemn these processes?



Really? Thomas Paine's book "The Rights of Man" was published in 1791.



?



Those who seek to reverse the process of empire building when it's forced on an unconsenting population are on a higher moral level than those seeking to advance it. Would you agree?



Washington's slaves were freed by orders in his will.



What's wrong with them changing their position on the matter?



Like it!

Look we are just going round and round the houses at this stage. You seem to believe there are certain absolute moral and unchanging precepts that are valid since the dawn of time . To me that is just meaningless sentimentality. In fact History is a continual work in progress and at a different pace in different places . We even go backwards lots of the time.
And to stand on your 21st century moral high ground and judge the past is to never come near to understanding it.

As for Washington freeing his slaves and Tom Paine writing in 1791, that shows that at some level you do accept what I am saying. Sure he freed his slaves but why not all slaves ? He was the president. Same with the Rights Of Man or Rousseau or 1789 . Why not 1689 or 1389 ? Because we progress by building on what went before and not on some absolute modern dictats imposed back through of time.

Are for those would you agree questions of yours, I have one for you ?

Are those current dissident republican groups entitled to use force to subvert the GFA and continue the struggle to free the remainder of our country,

Banjo String

LordSutch wrote: »

But he was not fighting for the Irish people, neither was he fighting for Ireland

Poor deluded fella.

You know what they say about opinions Lord Sutch.

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

meaningless

. (shakes head)...........

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

. (shakes head)...........

Try answering a question now and then , like the one I asked you for instance and you might have less reason to:(

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Try answering a question now and then , like the one I asked you for instance and you might have less reason to:(

With respect to you, it's quite difficult to have a decent discussion on a topic, when's one's points are being continually dismissed as "meaningless".............

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

With respect to you, it's quite difficult to have a decent discussion on a topic, when's one's points are being continually dismissed as "meaningless".............

With all due respect to you in return , I can just as easily say that you refuse to answer any of the points put to you and just restate your view.

You have stated that you believe certain principles are for all time , but beyond restating that notion you have offered nothing as to why this is so.

And until you make an argument as opposed to an emotional plea I do find your points somewhat ... .

So why are these principles applicable for all time then ?

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

With all due respect to you in return , I can just as easily say that you refuse to answer any of the points put to you and just restate your view.

You have stated that you believe certain principles are for all time , but beyond restating that notion you have offered nothing as to why this is so.

And until you make an argument as opposed to an emotional plea I do find your points somewhat ... .

So why are these principles applicable for all time then ?

I'm accused of projecting 21st century morality on to past events, yet Thomas Paine spoke about the "inherent rights of individuals" in the late 18th century. You seem to have a problem with those who criticise past events from a moral standpoint yet at the same time state:

we progress by building on what went before

What are you actually saying? We can't offer criticism because things by their very nature progress and therefore must be allowed to do so without criticism? How is there progression without criticism?

Can you clarify this, because I dont see your point here at all.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I'm accused of projecting 21st century morality on to past events, yet Thomas Paine spoke about the "inherent rights of individuals" in the late 18th century. You seem to have a problem with those who criticise past events from a moral standpoint yet at the same time state:



What are you actually saying? We can't offer criticism because things by their very nature progress and therefore must be allowed to do so without criticism? How is there progression without criticism?

Can you clarify this, because I dont see your point here at all.

You are projecting 21st century morality on to the past and quoting Tom Paine dos'nt help your case very much , why did it take until 1791 for humanity to realize these self evident truths then ?

Of course 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. For example lets take Washington again . A great man for liberty and such but still owning slaves and you answer was - well he freed them in is will . Grand so ??? That might just show that he knew slavery was inherently wrong but it was all he could do as his fellow citizens weren't yet ready for such a step.

To use a phrase in vogue a lot now - their thinking was evolving , as in our own times it did on gay marriage, the death penalty , the right to choose.

And in our own island it is valid to ask the question 'are dissidents entitled to use violence in the 21st century to unite our country'

And in answering be prepared to confront that can of worms that might be opened.

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Of course we must review the past from a moral standpoint

Yes.

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 do you progress then? You've lost me now altogether. If the reasoning of the time is that empire building is morally justifiable how does one progress to the view that its not?

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Yes.



?????

How do you progress then? You've lost me now altogether. If the reasoning of the time is that empire building is morally justifiable how does one progress to the view that its not?

We progress by degree , slowly and painfully and sometimes we go backwards.

Take a more modern example - the death penalty- are you for or against it ? I am against it for all crimes, even the most heinous.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/international-polls-and-studies-0

These stats show it is a battle far from over but it will be won and in time we may look back and wonder how it was ever in doubt. And until that day we will campaign for it to end. But right now it is still very much in the balance . To use the cliché win the hearts and minds and never forget the economics.

And so it is with every great historical shift - from the abolition of slavery to the decline of empire. So saying the Roman Empire was wrong or the British & French Empire were wrong without saying why adds little to the conversation .

The Roman Empire brought order where there was chaos and people ( as we can see in Russia today) prefer order over chaos .That being said though I do believe those later empires were or became a multible of wrongness compared to Roman times.

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

We progress by degree , slowly and painfully and sometimes we go backwards.

But are you saying then that the prevailing view at the time is always right and so by extension morally right? If say, in 1870 99 people thought that empire building is right and 1 says its wrong, then therefore its right? You do realise that a majority view can be wrong from a moral standpoint?

Paine's central point that the inherent rights of the individual are paramount would supercede your point here. If something is naturally right it's right, and vice versa. We just haven't reached the naturally correct decision on it yet.

What are the chances you think on the current majority view that empire building is morally repugnant being reversed? If it became a majority view that it was morally acceptable again would you accept it just because it were so?

So saying the Roman Empire was wrong or the British & French Empire were wrong without saying why

I have said why its wrong.

That being said though I do believe those later empires were or became a multible of wrongness compared to Roman times

I thought you said we had to accept the prevailing view at the time?

Chuck Stone

marienbad wrote: »

saying the Roman Empire was wrong or the British & French Empire were wrong without saying why adds little to the conversation

It's not so much the rights and wrongs as it is the fact that Empires are invariably built on killing, torture and destruction and maintained by the threat thereof. To ignore the inherently violent, and often racist, nature of empire building while decrying resistance against it is dishonest.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

But are you saying then that the prevailing view at the time is always right and so by extension morally right? If say, in 1870 99 people thought that empire building is right and 1 says its wrong, then therefore its right? You do realise that a majority view can be wrong from a moral standpoint?

Paine's central point that the inherent rights of the individual are paramount would supercede your point here. If something is naturally right it's right, and vice versa. We just haven't reached the naturally correct decision on it yet. That gives us the right today to criticise the wrongs of the past.

What are the chances you think on the current majority view that empire building is morally repugnant being reversed? If it became a majority view that it was morally acceptable again would you accept it just because it were so?

We are talking at cross purposes here , you seem to be more concerned with judging the past . I am only concerned with trying to understand it. Why men (for the most part) became what they became and did what they did and what were the consequences of those actions.

As an aside I don't believe in a absolute morality ( you seem to believe as such) and looking at history in those terms tells us nothing imho.

Issues, structures, ideas,forms of government are not unchanging . So where once an empire may have brought order out of chaos , ideas emerge making such structure obsolete and possibly evil.

And the same would apply to those opposing empire, where once it may have been right to use violence against such entities , circumstances change and such methods may be unacceptable.

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

judging the past . I am only concerned with trying to understand it.

If you are "trying to understand" why someone did something, and then subsequently claimed that you "understood" why they did it, would you change your own pre-existing viewpoint from believing it was wrong to believing it to be right because you claimed to have understood it?

I could try to understand why the notion of empire building was done by those who did it, but I still think its wrong.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

If you are "trying to understand" why someone did something, and then subsequently claimed that you "understood" why they did it, would you change your own pre-existing viewpoint from wrong to right because you claimed to have understood it?

I could try to understand why the notion of empire building was done by those who did it, but I still think its wrong.

Give me some concrete examples then of empires that you thought were wrong and what might the alternatives have been .

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Give me some concrete examples then of empires that you thought were wrong and what might the alternatives have been .

Probably best to take the Godwinesque line here and say Nazi Germany's attempted takeover of Eastern Europe and the USSR.

Alternatives? That they shouldn't have done it in the first place due to the unjust process that it is.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Probably best to take the Godwinesque line here and say Nazi Germany's attempted takeover of Eastern Europe and the USSR.

Alternatives? That they shouldn't have done it in the first place due to the unjust process that it is.

Well we can all agree on the first !!

Interesting though that it was the Russian British French + the USA that put a stop to them and to the Japanese empire . So might I ask is there a scale of evil to these empires ?

You alternative I presume is a joke ?

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

You alternative I presume is a joke

:eek:.

I can assure you that it's not. Why did you think that?

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

:eek:.

I can assure you that it's not. Why did you think that?

Because nobody could be that naïve , why not deal with history as it is not as you would like it to be.

Now how about an answer to my question on the empires that defeated the Nazis ?

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Because nobody could be that naïve, why not deal with history as it is not as you would like it to be.

:eek: (again).

Naive that Nazi Germany shouldn't have done what it did? You serious? It was history as it was.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

:eek: (again).

Naive that Nazi Germany shouldn't have done what it did? You serious? It was history as it was.

Yeah now I know you are joking , please Mr Hitler best go home now , what you are doing is IMMORAL ! Great theory of history that .:D

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

Yeah now I know you are joking , please Mr Hitler best go home now , what you are doing is IMMORAL ! Great theory of history that .:D

I fail to see the funny side of your latest post. You asked for an example of an empire and I gave it to you. If you need me to explain the alternative actions they should have done as to what they actually did well.................

Why do you now suddenly need to get into a comparative analysis of empires? Not satisfied with the example supplied?

burgermasters

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Everyone breaks under sustained torture. Everyone. Stop talking crap about alternate realities this is a serious subject.

If you actually think about it bobby sands was tortured in a lot of ways! And still he did not give in, knowing what your talking about or not the man was put through hell and Ireland needs a man like bobby sands Today more than ever. R.I.P

Chuck Stone

marienbad wrote: »

Yeah now I know you are joking , please Mr Hitler best go home now , what you are doing is IMMORAL ! Great theory of history that .:D

The Nazis would have faced ceaseless 'terrorism' against their rule.

marienbad

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The Nazis would have faced ceaseless 'terrorism' against their rule.

Indeed they would and did and rightfully so.

Chuck Stone

marienbad wrote: »

Indeed they would and did and rightfully so.

OMG you support terrorism! :eek:

Mr Cumulonimbus

Chuck Stone wrote: »

OMG you support terrorism! :eek:

Godwin still remains a handy thing to keep in the back pocket.....;).

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

I fail to see the funny side of your latest post. You asked for an example of an empire and I gave it to you. If you need me to explain the alternative actions they should have done as to what they actually did well.................

Why do you now suddenly need to get into a comparative analysis of empires? Not satisfied with the example supplied?

No I don't suddenly get into comparative analysis. You seem to be saying all empires are always bad and in all times and when asked why you answer because they are immoral. Is that a fair summation ? This is an absolute stance.

I on the the other hand view history through a relative stance and what may have been acceptable in the 1st century would be unacceptable in the 21st century, be it Empires , cruel punishments, infanticide , whatever.

Similarly in our own time the time of empire has long past and those that cling to it must be confronted .

The nature of that confrontation should also evolve and the question I am asking in our own case is-is the violence that was accepted in the 19th century and early and mid 20th century still acceptable in the 21st century ?

If so- why? And if not- why not?

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

No I don't suddenly get into comparative analysis................

But you did..............

scale of evil

Your words.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

But you did..............



Your words.

Look Mr Cumulonimbus, there is little point in the discussion if you ignore complete posts and pick out a titbit that you thinks suits your view.

So before we continue would you agree that my summation of your view in my last post is correct ?

marienbad

Chuck Stone wrote: »

OMG you support terrorism! :eek:

Indeed I do . But not absolutely , it all depends on the circumstances.

Mr Cumulonimbus

marienbad wrote: »

titbit

Empire building when forced upon unwilling populations is wrong. Can't you accept this as my core belief?

I asked you whether the notion of understanding something implied that you might change your view from wrong to right on it if you subsequently claimed to have understood it.

You couldn't answer the question but instead changed tack and wanted me to give an example of an empire that controlled unwilling populations, which I gave. Now your back to this changing viewpoint through the ages stuff again.

You tell me: if the prevailing viewpoint a 100 years ago is that empire building was right, that in order to understand them, you'll change your mind if needed, and hence agree with what they believed back then, because according to your own words:

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

Happyman42

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Empire building when forced upon unwilling populations is wrong. Can't you accept this as my core belief?

I asked you whether the notion of understanding something implied that you might change your view from wrong to right on it if you subsequently claimed to have understood it.

You couldn't answer the question but instead changed tack and wanted me to give an example of an empire that controlled unwilling populations, which I gave. Now your back to this changing viewpoint through the ages stuff again.

You tell me: if the prevailing viewpoint a 100 years ago is that empire building was right, that in order to understand them, you'll change your mind if needed, and hence agree with what they believed back then, because according to your own words:

Marienbad has tied themselves in an illogical knot. I would like to know what point it is they are proposing in one easy to read paragraph without the lecturing.

marienbad

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Empire building when forced upon unwilling populations is wrong. Can't you accept this as my core belief?

I asked you whether the notion of understanding something implied that you might change your view from wrong to right on it if you subsequently claimed to have understood it.

You couldn't answer the question but instead changed tack and wanted me to give an example of an empire that controlled unwilling populations, which I gave. Now your back to this changing viewpoint through the ages stuff again.

You tell me: if the prevailing viewpoint a 100 years ago is that empire building was right, that in order to understand them, you'll change your mind if needed, and hence agree with what they believed back then, because according to your own words:

Can it really be this difficult to understand ??? I haven't changed my view on anything .

Now will you answer the question put to you a few posts back -

''You seem to be saying all empires are always bad and in all times and when asked why you answer because they are immoral. Is that a fair summation ?''