Handed in my Notice Today…

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon fbpe wrote:

You have no defence, no quotes and have to rely on " in effect". Waster.

 Now fuck off!

You have nothing coherent to add, it's not the first purile interaction I've had with you. And I bet you still don't know what engine my 4x4 has, you still support people that call the Welsh sheepshaggers and now your supporting a supremacist.

I think fuck off is appropriate.

Calm down Don. If you make broad statements without thinking through the implications you can find yourself argued in to some uncomfortable situations. As you have been today. Don't worry though, you don't have to change, just scream abuse at anyone who disagrees with you and most importantly, keep telling yourself you're one of the good guys.

I'll repeat calmly and request that you fuck off, you accuse people of  being nazi defenders without any evidence whatsoever, you  support racists, and you support the cultural superior and have the arrogance to tell me to calm down. Abuse is calling someone a nazi defender, muppet is only an abuse to The Muppets. But then again, if I had someone's hand up my arse....

I call you to provide evidence of where I have abused you, or that you feel there has been any mis-apportioned abuse. No waffle, no "in effect" bollocks. Direct quotes that are in the real world, if it's justified, it's justified. if not, i'll apologise. After You pull back on the nazi defender, otherwise fiuck off!

don simon fbpe wrote:

I'll repeat calmly and request that you fuck off, you accuse people of  being nazi defenders without any evidence whatsoever, you  support racists, and you support the cultural superior and have the arrogance to tell me to calm down. Abuse is calling someone a nazi defender, muppet is only an abuse to The Muppets. But then again, if I had someone's hand up my arse....

I call you to provide evidence of where I have abused you, or that you feel there has been any mis-apportioned abuse. No waffle, no "in effect" bollocks. Direct quotes that are in the real world, if it's justified, it's justified. if not, i'll apologise. After You pull back on the nazi defender, otherwise fiuck off!

 

You're one of the good guys Don.

You're one of the good guys.

You're one of the good guys.

Only joking, you're a pathetic little man whose ego far outstrips his intellect.

I'm done with toying with you for today.

The thread speaks for itself.

Keep defending those Nazis...

Hwyl

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon fbpe wrote:

So Nazi isn't a country then. And your claim is that all Germans at that time were Nazis, is it? And that most certainly doesn't reflect what I said, as you know. I'll let you get the last word in, as that's your style. Claim the win too, as that's what you'll do. And be happy that you've normailised calling the Welsh sheepshaggers and allowed to hsracr to be superior to whole nations while arguing with the wrong person. I can only help you so much.

The definition of culture that you provided states that it refers to "the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time". It doesn't require everybody to have the exact same beliefs or customs. It refers to the general customs and beliefs. I've clearly identified the groups of people in question. I've also clearly identified the points in time in question. You're desperately trying to obsfucate the question in order to avoid answering it. As thinks stand you are arguing that the culture of Nazi-era Germany is equal to that of a modern liberal democracy. Do you wish to clarify your position or are you happy for that to be the last word on the matter?

But you are singling out a sub-culture.  Hardly the same thing.   Why not speak about the 'culture' of the Symbionese Liberation Army or the Manson family?  Or of UKIP?

  There's a difference between 'a culture' in the sense of  something that involves continuity over centuries, and the 'culture' of a particular sub-group of a society that exists for a relatively short period of time.  But the whole concept of 'culture' is pretty damn fuzzy, anyway.

  Furthermore, cultures don't exist in isolation, they are completely intertwined with and connected to the material conditions and circumstances of their time and place.  You couldn't transplant contemporary internet culture to the early middle-ages, say.

Seems like a completely nonsensical argument over undefined terms.

In what way do the practical concequences change depending on which of you is 'right'?

don simon fbpe wrote:

No, you're a proud Welshman who's happy to be called a sheepshagger, aren't you?

Kinkshamer

ktache wrote:

Ooh, and I almost forgot, whatever we wish to call what was the Islamic State.

Maybe shcrar has a point. KKK being representatives of the christian church and all that.

ktache wrote:

You have to be an empire to really go for the genocide thing, but countries that have had a good go at it recently include Myan Mar, SriLanka and Serbia.

Rwanda is another example.

China's treatment of the Uyghurs is also starting to look pretty worrying.

ktache wrote:

You have to be an empire to really go for the genocide thing, but countries that have had a good go at it recently include Myan Mar, SriLanka and Serbia.

I'm pretty sure that any resistance within those countries demonstrate that it would not be the culture of those countries that would be definitive as schrar claimed by using Singaporean and American.

I have an absolute hatred (and sympathy) for racists. I don't consider england to be a racist country.

Those are not countries whose cultures are of genocide. Definitions and the point are being confused. schrar claimed that they belonged to a culture that was superior to those of America and Singapore (they are nations), having had the opportunity to offer an explanation, and failing to do so, I conclude thay they are ignorant. Talking about the culture of genocide is not relevant to this conversation and could be considered to be supporting shcrar in their fucked up thinking.

There may well be unsavoury elements (or cultures) within those countries, but one cannot slurr a whole nation, race or ethnicity blindly.

Perhaps you'd (not directed at the ktache in spite of them being quoted) be better placed for asking why scrahr is using culture when referencing America and Singapore instead of hounding me for calling out a muppet.

Rich_cb wrote:

Are all cultures equal? This thread was started on the premise that they are not but Don only got annoyed when it was stated that the culture in the UK was superior to elsewhere, rather than the converse being true. I have been reading a bit of philosophy recently, essentially this argument boils down to whether there are objective criteria for judging the value of a culture or not. If, for example, a culture encourages genocide, is that always wrong or does it have to be considered on a case by case basis? If you agree that genocide is always wrong then, by definition, you agree that there are some cultural aspects that are objectively superior to others and that therefore cultures are not equal. Tolerance for people of different religions, ethnicities, sexualities etc is, in my opinion, an objective measure of a cultures value. By that measure the UK has a superior culture to the vast majority of countries on the planet. I don't think there's anything right or left wing about that belief.

Which culture (as a country) promotes genocide (for fuck's sake!)? What a load of twaddle.

don simon fbpe wrote:

Which culture (as a country) promotes genocide (for fuck's sake!)?

Genocide was used as an example of an objective criterion that few would disagree with.

Genocide has been undertaken in many cultures and countries throughout history. I hope you knew that already.

If you agree that genocide is always objectively wrong then you cannot, by definition, believe all cultures are equal.

Tolerance for others is, in my opinion, another objective measure of a cultures standing.

don simon fbpe wrote:

Which culture (as a country) promotes genocide (for fuck's sake!)?

Look no further:  As a country, what is the point that we’re trying to make by renewing “Trident”?   Cloaking it with a silly name instead of something that evokes the terror of all out thermonuclear war.  It makes previous attempts at genocide look very tame.

Ok, enough doom and gloom. It’s a nice day out here, let’s return to normal irritations like a puncture just outside the cake stop. 

P.S. However, I can’t resist:  I still remember that the ‘70s were when the ‘60s reached most of the population.  The “3 day week” era was the most productive period, since WW2 for the UK, but we learned nothing and persisted in wasting peoples’ lives with a 5 day week, which leads us to today with our “non-jobs” and massive unemployment hidden as long term illness.

brimstone wrote:

I wasn't a cyclist back then (in the '70s); was driver aggression to cyclists just as rampant?

Nope, but the death rate was higher. There's a BBC archive clip from the 1973 oil crisis that's a good insight into urban conditions. It was grim up North for sure. Mostly grey and brown and filthy

Here it is https://twitter.com/BBCArchive/status/1064503560623325184?s=19

brimstone wrote:

I wasn't a cyclist back then (in the '70s); was driver aggression to cyclists just as rampant?

We had quiet empty roads *back in the '70s. Drivers knew how to overtake. People seemed genuinely ashamed when they made a sub par driving manoeuvre. Local newspapers used to list the small number of motoring convictions every week. Hitch-hiking was very easy - what does that tell you about car driver's attitudes? Life without a car or bicycle was much easier as buses and trains took you wherever you needed to go. (However, if you had mobility issues, life was very bleak.) The 1970s was when I got into cycling, utility and leisure - I had been a motorcycle pilot and car driver before then, but problems with the environment, including global warming, were important to me. Anyway, drivers were tolerant, the only sort of aggression would be the occasional driver putting their foot down for no apparent reason. There was plenty of carelessness: I was subject to two SMIDSYs in the 1970s, but I now cycle defensively and have only had one since then (in the 1980s).
* I'll admit that the centre of London was busy - but not choked like today. For example, much of the traffic along the Mile End/Whitechapel Road, during the day, would be moving at 50 mph! Outside the rush hour, it was much quicker to drive through the centre of London than to go around London, if you were a good navigator.

janusz0 wrote:

brimstone wrote:

I wasn't a cyclist back then (in the '70s); was driver aggression to cyclists just as rampant?

We had quiet empty roads *back in the '70s. Drivers knew how to overtake. People seemed genuinely ashamed when they made a sub par driving manoeuvre. Local newspapers used to list the small number of motoring convictions every week. Hitch-hiking was very easy - what does that tell you about car driver's attitudes? Life without a car or bicycle was much easier as buses and trains took you wherever you needed to go. (However, if you had mobility issues, life was very bleak.) The 1970s was when I got into cycling, utility and leisure - I had been a motorcycle pilot and car driver before then, but problems with the environment, including global warming, were important to me. Anyway, drivers were tolerant, the only sort of aggression would be the occasional driver putting their foot down for no apparent reason. There was plenty of carelessness: I was subject to two SMIDSYs in the 1970s, but I now cycle defensively and have only had one since then (in the 1980s). * I'll admit that the centre of London was busy - but not choked like today. For example, much of the traffic along the Mile End/Whitechapel Road, during the day, would be moving at 50 mph! Outside the rush hour, it was much quicker to drive through the centre of London than to go around London, if you were a good navigator.

Drink driving was rife.  More people killed.  Yes car ownership was lower so roads were quieter in the 1970s, but it was hardly a ' better time to be alive' than today.

srchar wrote:

Moving to a different country in search of a better life, I completely understand. I've been there myself - several times in fact - in my younger days. I always came back to family, friends and shared culture - a culture that is, on balance, superior to any other I've lived in.

But, announcing your departure with such glee, telling other people that they will "wallow" in "paid slavery" in a "shithole" (which happens to have a general standard of living envied by most people in the world, but whatever), I just don't understand. If Worcester is so bad, and Copenhagen is so great, can't you just be happy that you are leaving, and save the insults for when you're driven to frustration trying to get to grips with Danish?

What the fuck does this mean? Which cultures do you feel superior too? And why? I think I know where this is heading...

don simon fbpe wrote:

What the fuck does this mean? Which cultures do you feel superior too? And why? I think I know where this is heading...

American and Singaporean, for two I've actually lived in. Which I just know you'll be fine with.

srchar wrote:

don simon fbpe wrote:

What the fuck does this mean? Which cultures do you feel superior too? And why? I think I know where this is heading...

American and Singaporean, for two I've actually lived in. Which I just know you'll be fine with.

I'm sure there are both Americans and Singoporeans who I'd rather spend time with than an ignorant fucker who tars whole nations with the same brush and considers themselves superior to anyone after doing this. Generalisation in any field is a clear sign of ignorance, when pointed at a country as a whole is the sign of a thick cunt. Don't presume when throwing this sort of shit out that I'll be fine with it, another sign of your ignorance. This country gets more right wing every day, and people appear to be getting bollocks big enough to spout it. It should be stamped out.

You failed to say why you feel superior to these two nations on a cultural level.

don simon fbpe wrote:

an ignorant fucker who tars whole nations with the same brush

Yet in the same post, you say that "the country" is getting more "right wing", whatever that means these days.

srchar wrote:

don simon fbpe wrote:

an ignorant fucker who tars whole nations with the same brush

Yet in the same post, you say that "the country" is getting more "right wing", whatever that means these days.

Quantify, as rich_tea has tried,  cultural superiority against the country moving more right wing which can be demonstrated from Thatcher through Blair on to the racist May and onwards to NF. It's quite acceptable to tarnish those with an opposing view, it is unnaccepable to tarnish those that you have no knowledge of but merely being born in a country.

Thanks for clarifying your position as an expat.