You could argue that the historical study removes the personal bias that somebody who lived through the events would naturally bring to the discussion.
Margaret Thatcher
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
Nothing up with studying history but does that really warrant such hate for a person?
Well he much have been reading some pretty biased books because he sure has a lot of hate.
I haven't come here to try and operate a 'holier than thou' attitude. I admitted earlier that I am often guilty of schadenfreude, often over petty things as well as the big. However when it comes to death it is not something I particularly understand, except in very rare and personal circumstances.
As for the 'it will happen anyway' argument, I concede that and at no point have I denied that. However, that doesn't mean it isn't a topic worthy of discussion, or that I agree with it.
They are just words mjs, my point is that we should all be beyond this moral point scoring by now.
In fact even that cretin Jesus knew that 'let he who has not sinned cast the first stone'. I bet you have privately wished something bad on someone less 'deserving' than our dear Baroness.
In fact even that cretin Jesus knew that 'let he who has not sinned cast the first stone'. I bet you have privately wished something bad on someone less 'deserving' than our dear Baroness.
You leave my fecking wife out of this.
It's a fair point. I agree that I don't always understand such personal and emotive feelings for someone whose tenure-ship you haven't lived through, such as a case like this.
Well he much have been reading some pretty biased books because he sure has a lot of hate.
Maybe he's been watching a lot of early Ben Elton.
I hate Pol Pot and the Khamer Rouge, I hate Mugabe (after he went mad), I hate Miolsevic, and I also hate the selfishness of Reagan and Thatcher that is my viewpoint.
You can attach as much gravitas and significance to the word hate as you wish but to me those people deserve anything that comes.
You can attach as much gravitas and significance to the word hate as you wish but to me those people deserve anything that comes.
Looking back Thatcher was a very firm leader who obviously stepped on a few toes. I can understand people not liking her but she is an old lady with no significance these days. I couldn't care less whether she lives or dies. I will neither smile nor cry when she dies.
Nor will I, honestly. My point really was that moral zealousness on this issue is a load of tripe!
Hate is a strong word that gets used too much. Someone like Osama is a bad man but I could never hate someone that really hasn't done anything to me directly. Hate to me should be reserved for someone that has done something anus and horrible to you directly, like Carlos Tevez for instance. JOKING
I could easily kill someone I hate with my own hands with no remorse. I could actually execute someone bad like Osama or Saddam without remorse either.
For the wrong reasons. The complete shift to a service economy was wrong. Germany smiles at you!
Yeah and therefore we are signing from the same hymn sheet, because people opened this thread with the intention of aligning idiosyncratic viewpoints into a mass deploring of being happy with someones death.
That is a load of bollocks, and surely a man who loves the free market such as yourself would agree
Firstly I don't agree that any 'moral point scoring has gone on' but any discussion of morals has arisen from those that said they would happily celebrate in her death. You can say now that that was tongue in cheek, but I don't believe that was the case for everyone who said it, and if it was that certainly wasn't clear, which is what sparked this debate.
Equally, I don't think anyone here has claimed to be without sin on this. I've repeated many times that I've wished bad things on other people, of course I have, we all do.
Shoosh Weaste that is far too much of a macro issue for that Tory to understand.
Joking Team Brain GB you are a lovable toff.
My point is even if I would smirk at Thatchers death, who has the authority and autonomy to condemn me for that.
You may disagree fundamentally but my assertion is that that very disagreement is hypocritical.
But I think this argument is reaching a nice conclusion and that is: order your cloggs now we got some grave dancing to do.
But where has anyone condemned another here? That is surely an irrelevant point to take issue with?
I might not agree with or understand that approach, but I'm not asserting that that's because I'm morally superior or because anyone else is immoral as a result
I'm sorry Agent Red, but the Lady is not for turning!
That's fine, I'm just clarifying my own position
Frankly mate I've just been playing devils advocate, I'm too small a brain to get bogged down in epistemology or the genealogy of morals. But it is fun to introduce that into what appears to some (not you) as a monolithic debate from time to time.
Humanity is absurd and so is society, that is the truest of philosophies and I like to play about in that space even if I don't know my true opinion on this subject.
Humanity is absurd and so is society, that is the truest of philosophies and I like to play about in that space even if I don't know my true opinion on this subject.
I agree, I like reading others' opinions in here and sometimes change my views as a result. No point coming in here not willing to discuss after all!
Absolute right wing nonsense. A nations well being does not simply mean how much wealth the nation possesses when you don't context how that wealth is divided. Even more so when you are talking about someone who actively perused policies of dividing the wealth gap between the rich and poor in Britain.
The poorest were wealthier in 1990 than they were in 1979, as Thatcher herself said at her last PMQs.
Jesus Christ
What???
That's pretty much the most petty and dumb serious comment that I've seen in the CE forum. Well done mate.
Relative to the rich in 1990 or relative to themselves 21 years before?
Relative to 1979.
But at what other cost?
So it's an irrelevant piece of populist show-boating from the House. Of course they were slightly better off than they were 21 years earlier. They were still poorer in relation to the upper and middle classes and so in real terms they were poorer.
The Internet has spurned a strange generation. We have all sorts of outlets for our opinions that weren't around years ago. You can have a general discussion on high level polices, or even in depth if you're very well versed in history. You can't form view and hate people before your time, that is just plain silly.
I see similar stuff on the football forum: 16 year olds saying their United moment was 1999, they were four FFS.
Not the same thing BTW. Saying you hold a strong dislike or even hate for someone based on what you read or on what you are told is quite possible. Again I'd like to say that I'm not comparing her to Hitler, but using him as an example to make this point. Do you think Jews born after 1945 have any less of a hate for him and his regime than those born before it.
But I was around during Thatchers time so I suppose I am entitled to opinion by your reckoning and I for one will be glad when she's gone. I won't dance around the streets or go whooping about like a dick, but I will raise a drink to the fact that one who has done so much harm and is still dividing people in her own country is gone.
Hate is a very strong word that people throw around far too much though. I can understand someone that lived threw the Thatcher era not liking her, or her polices but hating is way over the top. You would have to do something terrible like harm my kids to instill the feeling of hate in me TBH.
What about turning the power of the state against it's own people and killing your neighbours children in the process. Would that do it?
No, and that is very melodramatic. She won three terms with over 42% of the vote, which is unprecedented in the modern three party era. She did what needed doing at the time.
Hate is a strong word, but it's certainly how I feel about Thatcher, like it or lump it.
I might have disagreed with Heath, Major and Cameron, but I don't hate them, in fact in many ways I think they were/are trying their best for everyone, although not in the ways I might have chosen. Macmillan too, from what I know, although he was before my time, I'll quickly add.
I might have disagreed with Heath, Major and Cameron, but I don't hate them, in fact in many ways I think they were/are trying their best for everyone, although not in the ways I might have chosen. Macmillan too, from what I know, although he was before my time, I'll quickly add.
Its not melodramatic at all. It's what happened in Derry in 1972 among many other crimes her government rubber stamped.
But as you answer to my question that if she authorised arms of the state to kill your neighbours children you still wouldn't hate her. If that's right you are a very tolerant person. Much more so than me I'm afraid.
Wht do you mean 1972?
Not sure if it's the example he was alluding to, but Bloody Sunday was 1972 (and in Derry).