Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: I agree, Paddy | |
Author: Jim (Canada) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 15:46:51 12/12/04 Sun In reply to: Paddy (Scotland) 's message, "A bit of time off..." on 11:45:10 12/12/04 Sun I think we can sell the idea to the left, especially in Canada. Our government at present is in a minority position, so it is vulnerable. The opposition Conservatives are too pro-American at the moment (though they are reviewing this position). However, the opposition NDP (socialists) are very concerned about keeping Canada separate from the USA (they opposed Bush's visit). I think they can be sold on the FC plan if it was kept to just economic and political arguments without the tradition and monarchy aspect of it). They might even like to think about connecting FC trade unions. I know their leader from past debates when he was a city councillor. They also hold the balance of power in our minority government. It's worth a try. I will let people know how I get on with it. Good luck, Paddy, and I agree with your position. I look forward to when you return in February. Happy New Year and all the best for 2005. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Until we meet again... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:50:29 12/12/04 Sun Paddy, thanks for your contributions recently, which I have found most interesting. I too look forward to your return. I agree with your suggestions and observations with regard to our activities, promotion and indeed, our general inclusiveness. Indeed, was it not Margaret Thatcher who quoted “it is the common ground, not the centre ground on which we should pitch our tents”? I would wonder on what practical measures we could take to appeal to a broader audience, that would negate the very obvious prejudices that these target groups would have of us. This appears to me to be a very ideological movement. However, idealism will preclude certain political groups from supporting us, as we have all seen. This is not necessarily defined in terms of left and right, but often by competing visions of identity. Getting all points on the political spectrum to support our vision is certainly a fundamental objective if we are to turn our vision into reality. However, this could be interpreted as political expediency of the nature with which the Blair Government has become infamous. I am no political scientist, but I have observed that the left of the spectrum is more internationalist, less nation-centric and less in tune with the notions of cultural history and identity, than with the contemporary brotherhood of man. However, that is only my perception On the subject of political study, I often ask why “Political Science” is deemed a science, when the subject of its study is so characteristically unscientific? One must assume that scientific principles formulate laws based on empirical evidence, and the test of time. Why then, in this context, is there still a conflict between idealism and political expediency? On one hand, we see the belief in political expediency from former CND member and Eurosceptic, Tony Blair, with his apparent epiphany prior to his election as leader of the Labour Party, resulting in his pontificating on the “Third Way”? We can also see the result of ideology prevailing during the French revolution, when the revolutionaries who emptied buildings of their furniture would have been best served by selling it, rather than burning it, in order to build the canal they sought. This would have paid for their endeavour several times over. With the failure of socialism across the globe most personified by the jettisoning of its principles by the former Soviet Union, we would assume that certain scientific laws would be universally adopted by politicians, just as those theories about our place in the universe were dispelled by the contributions of Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei. Science would lead us to conclude, and possibly argue with complete sincerity, that Britain’s disastrous flirtation with socialism in the 70s was a result of universal franchise, and consequently is the worst thing that ever happened to this country. Why then, have the words of one great humanist who lived 170 years ago, Abraham Lincoln, not become basic political principle based on the proven consequence of alternative theory? He stated that: You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should be doing for themselves. Those who dispute these words should understand that if the arena in which they applied were not the one of political ideology, but of science, where the results have been freely observable for 100 years; these theories would not be the beliefs of individuals based on prejudice and personal circumstance, but would be the basis of our political law: equal in stature to Newton’s laws of Gravity, or Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. I would argue that the only thing scientific about politics, is the meticulous method of gaining power, and holding onto it. However, I digress as usual. I wish you all the best with you endeavours over the coming months. Have a happy new year, and I hope you find the time to enjoy other things than work. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: flight from the bleedin' obvious | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:34:05 12/12/04 Sun We still have people who believe that the world was created in six days by a character from a book. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:54:11 12/13/04 Mon I don't know if you've read Kyril Bonfiglioli's "Moderdecai" trilogy, but in it there's a passage in which the love interests says that she's arranged a marriage with the hero. She says that she went to the Archbishop of Canterbury to ask for a license, and he asked the groom's religion, and she said 'atheist', and he said that that was fine, because so were most of his bishops. The Church of England has been the most successful organisation for dispelling religious dogma and superstition that the world has ever known. Frankly, I suspect that this was what old Henry had in mind at the time. You won't find many Brits who accept the creation myth, I can tell you... Britain is probably the most secular society I've ever known, and this, in my humble opinion, is one of our great strengths. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: hear hear | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:52:39 12/13/04 Mon I'm all in favour of people who don't believe things but have better stuff to do than pick fights with people who do. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Quite so. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:47:39 12/13/04 Mon Alone amongst the contributors to this forum, you and I live in Catholic countries, and as such we know just how excessive religiosity is invariably an anathema to human dignity. If agnostics had a Church, I'd go to it. A rather pointless comment, since they are hardly likely to have one. But, as the bloke said, "Can you imagine a world without any hypothetical situations?" [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: three types of science | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:27:11 12/13/04 Mon >I often ask why “Political Science” is deemed a science, >when the subject of its study is so characteristically >unscientific? One must assume that scientific principles >formulate laws based on empirical evidence, and the test >of time. But there are three types of science, and your definition refers to just one of them. 1. Formal sciences (mathematics, logic, etc): these do not observe the empirical world at all, but just construct internally coherent systems. 2. Physical sciences (physics, biology, etc): these observe the empirical world "out there" and seek to explain it in greater detail. Our observation changes the thing we observe, but the physical world essentially is what it is and we can gather data about it. 3. Hermeneutic sciences (political science, literary theory, etc): these do not simply observe the empirical world that would exist whether humans were around or not, but set out to comprehend the rather more complex world of our own creations, which are very likely to change drastically from one historical moment to another. The fact that the object being studied changes over time does not make these hermeneutic fields any less scientific, just as mathematics is not rendered unscientific by its complete lack of reliance on empirical evidence. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |