British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

gaffo
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:38 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:17 am
If you STOPPED assuming that you already know what I am talking about, then you may see things differently. We will just have to wait and SEE?

then kindly restate what you are saying so we can discuss.




gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:57 am
there are noble's and savages in all lands/peoples.
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:17 am
What do you mean? Who do you see as "noble's" and who do you see are "savages"?

men of good character are noble, they hear the voice of their conscience and follow it.

savages kill their conscience, and strive for power/personal gain.

gaffo
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:41 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:17 am

A truly 'better view' is one that is only seen from EVERY one. What you are saying is only a perceived to be better view.
not, so, i reject the concept of moral relativism.
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:17 am
where they come from is not relivent, what is in their heart is.
agreed.




gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:57 am
just know that the Aztecs were blood thirsty, their society enslaved thier neighbors, and why the Spanish were able to conquer them. Note that had the Aztecs not been dicks they would have defeated the Spainish (who were not good - bett then the Aztecs? - maybe or not/ we can discuss this (not "outsiders bad, native good mantra)


Aztecs were dicks and with the help of their neighborhood enslaved tribes which sided with the Spanish were defeated!

good in my book.

I don't cry for the lost empire of the Spanish nor do i the lost Aztec empire.
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:17 am
All completely moot, in regards to what I talk about.
again, so what are you talking about?

gaffo
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:44 am

and yes i persieve "Western ideals/rule of law as better.

i asked you many times to offer a better better and all you did was not answer my inquiry.

Age
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:00 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:38 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:26 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:39 am


If Veg is a Universal Humist - as i am, then i think she would.
How do you define 'Universal Humist'?
We are All the Same.
When you say 'we' you mean human beings, and if human beings are ALL the same, then why do you continually give them individual labels and place them into different groups?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:38 am
regardless of national origin, race, age or sex..........back to at least 100,000 yrs (prob more like 1/2 million IMO).
Why compartmentalize and stop at 1/2 million years?

Also, there is NO national origin, race, age nor sex in relation to ALL human beings as One and the Same. To see any national origin, race, et cetera is to distort what is actually True and Real. To see any actual separation is to look at what IS not there.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:38 am
that if one is was born as a Kiosan 100,000 yrs ago and was transported to the future to American and lived my life experiences - would end up being ME.
Besides once again placing and labeling a human being into some perceived separate compartment and placing them into some separate compartmentalized place and existence, I would have said, "EXACTLY. I could NOT agree any more with this". That is; EVERY human being is only because of what a human body has experienced.

'You' are only because of what that body has previously experienced.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:38 am
that is my understanding of what it is to affirm the concept of universal humanism (humanity).
Okay, by why did you have to put those human beings labelled 'gaffo' and 'veg' into just one more of countless other perceived compartmentalized labelled groups of human beings?

Just because human beings put themselves into separated and very different categories of groups with different labels does NOT mean that that one that has been placed with or under those labels will THINK and SEE things the exact same way.

ALL human beings have different views and SEE things differently, SOLELY because the body has experienced different things.

TRYING TO place a label onto one's self will just lead to gaining more false, distorted, and/or incorrect views of what IS the actual True, Right, and Correct view of things IS.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:38 am
i.e. the "spirit" (I'm an Atheist - lol), conscience of all human beings is the SAME.


thanks for reply Sir.
Why laughing? The word 'Spirit' does NOT necessarily mean what some people THINK that 'it' refers to.

Your ability or inability to SEE absolutely EVERY human being as being equally the same, will SHOW just how conscious or not you really are of how ALL human beings are actually the SAME. Giving one's self a label, like "atheist" which is totally different from how YOU label so called "others", is NOT really showing conscience in relation to all human beings is the SAME.

Being able to clearly define and clarify HOW EVERY human being is equally the same, as well as HOW they are equally different, and being able to do that so absolutely every one can accept and agree with that definition, will SHOW just how much conscience you really have or do not have.

Age
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:16 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:47 am
Greta wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:04 am
I have to say that my impression was that the Brits was were brutal, but less so than the Spaniards, Dutch and Portuguese. Not sure if that's how things are reported in the Anglosphere or if it was the case.
that is my general view of the matter.
Being 'less brutal' is not necessarily having a "higher standard of living and more liberty generally" compared to the standard of living and the liberty pf peoples had BEFORE any so called 'colonization' at all.

Your view that one group of peoples from a lands "colonization/invasion" of the land where other people are living is "better" than the "colonization" from other peoples was NEVER in dispute. Your view is only subjective, which is just what I have been pointing out.

The reason WHY you have YOUR view, which is obviously only subjective, is for the REASON I have given.

Who cares if the colonization of lands, from others, is viewed as been "better" or "less brutal" than from others has been? Every person can have an individual view and perception of which one is "better" or not, but as I just asked 'Who really cares?'

Just because one way is "better/less brutal" there is NO need to look at it as though that is the way to follow. Finding and LOOKING AT what is the BEST way is what IS important and what would be better discussed.

Age
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:18 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:51 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:24 am
Gary Childress wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:56 pm


Technologically they're living an archaic lifestyle in the jungle in a manner similar to their distant Neolithic ancestors of thousands of years ago. If they have something made of plastic or even metal it's because they got it from someone outside of their society. Would you call that "progress"? I call it stagnation to the extreme.
What I call "progress" does not matter. I am just clarifying what you meant when you wrote; they don't seem to be making progress at all.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but all you are saying is that only when new things are being invented and created then that is 'progress'?

If yes, then that is fine.
If no, then can you elaborate further?

If it is yes, but from inventing and creating new things a species eventually ends up wiping itself out to extinction, and that is called or known as "progress", then so be it.

If, however, a species can last for thousands or millions of years longer just because it "stagnates to the extreme", then so be it also.

Some might say that 'stagnation' is a better way of living then 'progress' is. 'Progress' is a relative term, which can mean different things to different people.

However, what might be a even better of living is finding middle ground between the two. That is, living with what a species already has, and inventing and creating new things that do NOT take from or destroy what that species NEED in order to keep on living and surviving, and just being happy and content with that?
Well, yes. They haven't invented or created much of anything substantially new in thousands of years. I would call that lack of progress (at least in comparative terms).
Acknowledged.

Age
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:29 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:43 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:24 am
Some might say that 'stagnation' is a better way of living then 'progress' is. 'Progress' is a relative term, which can mean different things to different people.
We're not talking a weekend camping trip, boss. We're talking living your whole life without running potable water, sewers, hospitals, or any of that stuff.
But these things have only come about to SOME because OTHERS have what is sometimes called "made progress". These created things, called "stuff" were unnecessary BEFORE so called "progress" came about.

The peoples who live like that now ONLY DO because "other" people have come and invaded 'their lands'.
Gary Childress wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:43 am
Their way of life and land usage probably couldn't sustain a world population of even half the current one.
That is called Life/Existence/Universe/Nature taking care of It's own Self.

Human beings who now THINK that they can override/control/are above these things, and can so called "make progress", will soon be SHOWN Who/What is Truly in charge.
Gary Childress wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:43 am
"Stagnation" isn't a better way of living if your people are mostly dying.
You have MISSED my point.

The REASON for that is is because you NEVER asked for clarity. You just continually make ASSUMPTIONS.

Who is 'their' in relation to 'way of life' and 'your' in relation to 'people'?

Age
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:33 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:06 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:59 am
You are free to BELIEVE whatever you want to BELIEVE, and, to have a concept of "good" as any way you want it to be.
Your abuses of CAPS LOCK and "scare quotes" amount to an indictable CRIME against "keyboards".
Fair enough.

But NOT ALL people have the EXACT same perception of what the exact same uses are for the same things.

CAPITALS and "quotes" can mean different things to different peoples, and therefore do NOT necessarily mean the same as what you perceive them to mean. Some things are even called different things to some people to what you call them.

Age
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:10 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:13 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:59 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:45 am


I'm saying i was brought up as an american - valuing "western ideals" (enlightenment concepts of Enalienable Rights)
Even the very simple words 'american' and 'western ideals' can NOT be agreed upon and accepted.

I have NO idea what you mean when you write, "brought up as an american", and "valuing western ideals".

Who/what is 'western' or what does 'western' refer to, and, what are the 'ideals' of whatever this 'western' word refers to.

Are you even able to define 'american' let alone 'western', and then relate those definitions to 'brought up as' and 'valuing' and 'ideals'?

Also, does using the word 'enlightenment' in from the words "concepts of Enalienble rights" somehow trying to infer a superior or better form of "enalienable" rights? And, how do you define 'enalienable rights'?

OF COURSE I have a conception of what you are referring to, but to just show a point I ask these clarifying questions. That point is, until you, human beings, decide upon, agree, and accept 'THAT' what you are actually talking about, then you will continue on in this confused state as you are now and have been for millenia.

To highlight this issue of clarification further, I ask clarifying questions in direct relationship to what a person specifically writes/says. What can be witnessed is that person is nearly always unable to clarify their OWN distinct point of view. They do NOT have an accepted and agreed upon view that FITS with all of their other viewpoints. A person is unable to write some thing down, which does not clash with their own other views, let alone write some thing down that is in agreement with and accepted with and by others.

To be able to better explain what one is saying they have to first be able to clearly define EVERY word that they mention and have that definition fit with the other words and definitions they use. To be able to form and SEE a picture of things, clarity is needed. Clarity comes from ALL perspectives, and not just from one's own.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:45 am
I'm an Athiest, so do not view those rights as give to me by "god/s" - but affirm the concept of those rights is "good" per all living on Earth.
You are free to BELIEVE whatever you want to BELIEVE, and, to have a concept of "good" as any way you want it to be.

But you are only looking from one perspective.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:45 am
as affirm the right to life for them and me..............
So, from your perspective, does the one who murders one or millions, and/or serially rapes children and/or adults, have the EXACT same right to life as you do?

The "rule of law" may say otherwise.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:45 am
and the concept of a Rule of Law ( the social "order" that defends that "right to life/liberty/happiness-property).
Are you aware there is NO actual "Rule of Law" as human beings are always changing things here?

The 'concept of a rule of law', that is that social "order" that defends that 'right to life', et cetera, at the moment, does NOT exist at all, or some might say in any way, shape, nor form , when this is written.

What can be "rule of law" one day is NOT the next. There is even a parcel of land that has been given the name of "united states" however each individual state has its OWN 'rule of law', which actually defeats the term 'united' in the phrase 'united states' by the way, but the point is the concept of rule of law is to subjective, at the moment. This subjectivity happens in just one country and culture, let alone the 'rule of law' of ALL the other places and peoples on earth as one. Even within one human being there is NO 'rule of law' because human beings, individually, are so confused about what is actually meant to be right and good.

What is the concept of a 'Rule of Law' that you personally have?

Do you think EVERY other person would have the exact same 'concept'?

When the 'right to life' for absolutely EVERY person, no matter what they do, is accepted by and agreed upon by EVERY one, then what the actual 'Rule of Lore' IS, can be defined, agreed upon, and accepted. Then SEEING and KNOWING how the concept of a Rule for a Lore could and would work for EVERY one, and then that will SHOW things much clearer and with much more clarity than any thing being proposed hitherto, when this is written. Until the 'right to life' for EVERY one is accepted, the "law makers" of some countries do NOT upheld the 'right to life' at all. In fact they insist that some must die, even if it is just because they have a different view than the law makers do.

you seem to like to lecture more than discuss. so ignoring most your above, will address one particular.

you view of "rule of law" as a subjective thing depending upon time and place.

dissagree, rule of law is timeless and the same thing a one's conscience - just implemented via "the state"/higher tribal authority.
I have NEVER said that 'rule of law/lore', ITSELF, is NOT timeless and NOT the same thing as One's conscience. But to state that one's (own) conscience is implemented via "the state/higher tribal authority" i find laughable and very contradictory.

When you write 'one's' conscience are you inferring or implying that there is one conscience relative/different to another one?

If no, then great.
If yes, then so be it. (Very contradictory).

Do you really think or believe that "your" conscience aligns fully with "the state/higher tribal authorities"?

If no, then WHY is 'your' conscience different than the states or higher tribe's one is?
If yes, then which "state and/or higher tribal authorities" one affirms with "yours"?

I did ask you if you were aware that there are many upon many different "rules of law" depending on what place and time that one is living in, right?

Why did you not answer that?

Did you miss it, did you not want to, did the answer not affirm your position here, or was there another reason?

Also, how can there be a "higher" in relation to 'conscience', if you are proposing that there is only One conscience?

There is NO "higher" NOR "authority" in relation to 'conscience', 'right', and 'good'.

There is only ONE conscience view/perspective of Right and Good that is correct.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:13 am
and so there is "right" and "wrong" - via conscience, either the tribe/state affirms one's inborn conscience or opposes it (the latter of course would be Germany 1933-1945 - where individual germans still had a conscience, but defered it/ignored it/had it but feared for their personal life/etc,,,,,,,,and the state constructed a "rule of law" counter to conscience).
Was this a discussion or a 'lecture' on how things ARE?

Have you even considered and thought about how your OWN conscience is deferred/ignored because you FEAR being judged, ridiculed, and/or punished by the society that you live in, which is formed because of the "rules of laws" that are imposed upon you and others by "the state/higher authority", which you live under and are ruled by?

You are just another human being being forced to follow a particular path and go a particular way, which is in complete opposition and contradiction of conscientiousness, without you even being fully aware of this FACT, yet.

If you were NOT, then you would be creating a "world" that is much better and much more equal for EVERY one, than the one that you are creating now by your own wrong behaviors.

Which "state" or "higher authority" do you think or believe affirms YOUR inborn conscience, and, which "state" or "higher authorities" do you think or believe opposes YOUR inborn conscience?

Do you really think or believe that there is ONE state constructed 'rule of law' that confirms to conscience?

If yes, then which state constructed one is that?
If no, then would that not contradict what you have been saying is the case here?

Age
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:45 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:33 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:07 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:39 am


If Veg is a Universal Humist - as i am, then i think she would.
Okay.

Now I have no idea what rules, religion, and/or culture you or veg live with, are under, and follow but let us say that it is not an islamic culture you adhere to now. Would you and veg just accept that the peoples from other lands who just came to live "here" (wherever you and veg now live) imposed THEIR rules and threatened you with punishment and/or death if you did not follow and adhere to those rules, in other words changed just about every thing you once knew as your "home"?

Do you really believe that you and veg would be reacting and behaving the same way as you are now if that happened to you and your home/s?
I'm not veg nor flash,
I KNOW that. Why did you think you had to state this FACT?

I asked veg a question, YOU answered; If Veg is a Universal Humist - as i am, then i think she would. Therefore, the use of the word "veg" in MY reply to YOU. If you had NOT spoken for 'veg', then I would NOT have used their label.

Besides that; You inferred that you would NOT react or behave in a different way than you do now. That is, you would NOT react and behave differently if it was 'your' land that was stolen from you, from the the way that you react and behave now coming from a cultural background that has invaded, taken over, and "colonized" the lands of other peoples.

This will have to be seen before it is accepted as being even close to being even somewhat true.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:33 am
but i as a universal humanist that is biased in beleiving in Western Culture (courts/etc states rule of law based upon enlightenment concepts as the best ones)............affirm any person of any nation/race and age as "american" (or wherever) - as long as they assimilate.
Are you blind or is it me? How can a so called 'Universal humanist':
1. be biased at all, other than to ALL human beings equally?
2. believe in any one culture over another?
3. affirm a person from another land only if they assimilate with the current "cultural" ways?

This is such a narrow and very closed way of looking at things, that I am finding this more laughable.

By definition 'universal' does NOT have a narrow perspective of things.

The very FACT that the "culture" that you are living with and in now, which you want "others" to assimilate into, STOLE the land and dis-assimilated the peoples and their culture who were living there BEFORE "your forbears" INVADED them and their land SHOWS just how much ignorance and disrespect you have for humanity on a whole, and universal, level.

If YOUR definition for 'universal humanist' is We are ALL the SAME, and 'we' refers to human beings, then why should human beings from just a different parcel of land on earth HAVE TO assimilate with the way that you just happen to be living now?

If they want to live on that one parcel of land that you do, then why should you NOT have to assimilate to their ways also?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:33 am
assimilation does not mean convert to christianity, nor negate thier culture - outside of any particulars (like sharia law for example) - which is not counter to western ideals.

assimilation just means to affirm western concepts of Rule of law.
If 'Rule of Law' affirms to one's conscience, then there is NO "western" concepts of 'rule of law'.

One's own thinking may have been tricked into think and/or believing that one country's or culture's "rule of law" is "right" and "good", and then their thinking affirms to that "rule of law". But to think the other way around happens I find just about incomprehensible.

You will have to clear up these contradictions in your writings if you want others, and even yourself, to fully understand what it is that you are TRYING TO say here.

First, WHAT IS "western" concept of Rule of Law? Are you at all even able to elaborate on that and clear that up somewhat?

Age
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:07 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:38 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:17 am
If you STOPPED assuming that you already know what I am talking about, then you may see things differently. We will just have to wait and SEE?

then kindly restate what you are saying so we can discuss.

You view that british colonization of lands have "a higher standard of living and more liberty generally" than the colonization's of lands by non british peoples. I have NEVER disagreed with your view here.

I TRIED TO ask you questions so that you could, by yourself, work out WHY you have this view. You were the one asking WHY IS THAT, that british colonization is better than other colonization? The reason WHY you view british colonization of land is better than the colonization of land, from others, is OBVIOUS, to me. But because it is such a subjective personal view that you have, from your perspective, it is NOT up to me to tell you WHY you think and view the way that you do. Although the answer is obvious to me, it is up to YOU to work that out for yourself.

What else I have been saying/implying through questioning is, Could the people of the not yet colonized lands have an actual "higher standard of living and more liberty generally" then the peoples do of ALL of the colonized lands?

You seem to not believe so, so then that is it.

I was just putting a different view out there. If, however, you are at all able to just look from this perspective, then we can discuss.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:57 am
there are noble's and savages in all lands/peoples.
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:17 am
What do you mean? Who do you see as "noble's" and who do you see are "savages"?

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:38 am
men of good character are noble, they hear the voice of their conscience and follow it.


savages kill their conscience, and strive for power/personal gain.
So, you allege to be this "Universal humanist" who has a view that 'we', (whatever 'we' refers to) are ALL the SAME. YET, you believe that there are SOME human beings (or just men) of so called "good character", which behave one way, and, SOME others who behave in another way.

WHERE is the 'we are ALL the SAME' in this view?

I will NOT ask you to refer to which are the "good character" ones and which are NOT, as writing out over 7 billion names might take you some time I will just ask instead, can you NOT see the contradiction here in terms of YOUR VIEWS from YOUR DEFINITIONS of who you say YOU ARE?

Age
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:22 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:41 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:17 am

A truly 'better view' is one that is only seen from EVERY one. What you are saying is only a perceived to be better view.
not, so, i reject the concept of moral relativism.
You are free to assume any thing you like, bring that up as though that is what is being said, then reject your own assumption, even if it is not what is actually being said/discussed by the other person, and then just continue BELIEVING whatever it is that you now believe is already true, right, and correct.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:41 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:17 am
where they come from is not relivent, what is in their heart is.
agreed.
I hope you would agree with that statement, because you are the one who wrote it. I NEVER use the 'heart' word like that.

But it is ALL MY FAULT that you responded to your own words because I misquoted it in the beginning. I apologize for mixing it up.


gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:41 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:57 am
just know that the Aztecs were blood thirsty, their society enslaved thier neighbors, and why the Spanish were able to conquer them. Note that had the Aztecs not been dicks they would have defeated the Spainish (who were not good - bett then the Aztecs? - maybe or not/ we can discuss this (not "outsiders bad, native good mantra)


Aztecs were dicks and with the help of their neighborhood enslaved tribes which sided with the Spanish were defeated!

good in my book.

I don't cry for the lost empire of the Spanish nor do i the lost Aztec empire.
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:17 am
All completely moot, in regards to what I talk about.
again, so what are you talking about?
Hopefully this is understood from the above but if not, then people from not yet colonized lands. You are talking about people from ALREADY colonized lands.

Age
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:29 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:44 am
and yes i persieve "Western ideals/rule of law as better.
That is PLAINLY OBVIOUS.

Your view about that was clearly seen, recognized, understood, and KNOWN less than half way into your first post in this thread.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:44 am
i asked you many times to offer a better better and all you did was not answer my inquiry.
Direct us to where you asked me a question or questions, which you say that I have not answered, and we will see if I have answered it/them or not.

What will be interesting to see, or not see, is the actual question that you are referring to here. What page is it on and in which reply.

By the way what do you want me to offer a better better of in relation to exactly? I do NOT recall ever saying your view was invalid nor wrong.

gaffo
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by gaffo » Sat Feb 23, 2019 3:17 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:07 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:38 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:17 am
If you STOPPED assuming that you already know what I am talking about, then you may see things differently. We will just have to wait and SEE?

then kindly restate what you are saying so we can discuss.

You view that british colonization of lands have "a higher standard of living and more liberty generally" than the colonization's of lands by non british peoples. I have NEVER disagreed with your view here.

I TRIED TO ask you questions so that you could, by yourself, work out WHY you have this view. You were the one asking WHY IS THAT, that british colonization is better than other colonization? The reason WHY you view british colonization of land is better than the colonization of land, from others, is OBVIOUS, to me. But because it is such a subjective personal view that you have, from your perspective, it is NOT up to me to tell you WHY you think and view the way that you do. Although the answer is obvious to me, it is up to YOU to work that out for yourself.

my view ...in general inparted the "Western mindset" (rule of law/etc) - moreso than other colonial powers.

India (modi is a dick - like my trump - hopefully then/we will ride them - without throughout the Rule of Law constructs in both our societies (I think wihout Brit colonialization/adoption of mindest (and I give full credit to Ghandi too - personally.to not allow tribalism to rule) India would be a thuggish land with many city states today.

i credit Mandela too BTW - both affirmed the "Western" (it not like i saying only white brits know conscience -(all humans know conscience/right from wrong) - they just affirmed the concept that the occupiers had (and not colonializm is always wrong,

but the world is gray, and brit colonializm unified the indian city states - to later affirm the occupiers mindset, while becoming independent.

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:07 am
What else I have been saying/implying through questioning is, Could the people of the not yet colonized lands have an actual "higher standard of living and more liberty generally" then the peoples do of ALL of the colonized lands?
of course!

i affirm humans individuals as able to see a higher view than their neighbors.

only saying in the real world we have city states and thuggery, and the brits united India (which via it is colonialism was able to see itself as united)

without the brits, the indians of goodwill and bad will would be city states fighting endlessly, and

just another Afghanitan/Pakistan today.

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:07 am
You seem to not believe so, so then that is it.
I'm a universal humanist, so affirm we are all the same.

all born with goodwill - only the bad (10-percent or so - they are at war with themselves and "transfer their troubles/self hate - to "others" (rather than making war upon themselves to reform - its easier to "transfer" your self hate to others - the cowards way - as all thugs).

So no i do not think some pleab in Veitnam/timbutoo is not able to know right conduct.

i affirm all the same!

just saying the abhorant colonialization via the Brits allowed those to construct their local states to affirm Rule of Law moreso that other colonial powers.

why?

no clue - and the theme of my original thread.

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:07 am
I was just putting a different view out there. If, however, you are at all able to just look from this perspective, then we can discuss.
i thank you for reply and welcome discussion sir.

Age
Posts: 2448
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: British Colonialism better than French/German etc......

Post by Age » Sat Feb 23, 2019 4:42 am

gaffo wrote:
Sat Feb 23, 2019 3:17 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:07 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:38 am



then kindly restate what you are saying so we can discuss.

You view that british colonization of lands have "a higher standard of living and more liberty generally" than the colonization's of lands by non british peoples. I have NEVER disagreed with your view here.

I TRIED TO ask you questions so that you could, by yourself, work out WHY you have this view. You were the one asking WHY IS THAT, that british colonization is better than other colonization? The reason WHY you view british colonization of land is better than the colonization of land, from others, is OBVIOUS, to me. But because it is such a subjective personal view that you have, from your perspective, it is NOT up to me to tell you WHY you think and view the way that you do. Although the answer is obvious to me, it is up to YOU to work that out for yourself.

my view ...in general inparted the "Western mindset" (rule of law/etc) - moreso than other colonial powers.

India (modi is a dick - like my trump - hopefully then/we will ride them - without throughout the Rule of Law constructs in both our societies (I think wihout Brit colonialization/adoption of mindest (and I give full credit to Ghandi too - personally.to not allow tribalism to rule) India would be a thuggish land with many city states today.

i credit Mandela too BTW - both affirmed the "Western" (it not like i saying only white brits know conscience -(all humans know conscience/right from wrong) - they just affirmed the concept that the occupiers had (and not colonializm is always wrong,

but the world is gray, and brit colonializm unified the indian city states - to later affirm the occupiers mindset, while becoming independent.

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:07 am
What else I have been saying/implying through questioning is, Could the people of the not yet colonized lands have an actual "higher standard of living and more liberty generally" then the peoples do of ALL of the colonized lands?
of course!

i affirm humans individuals as able to see a higher view than their neighbors.

only saying in the real world we have city states and thuggery, and the brits united India (which via it is colonialism was able to see itself as united)

without the brits, the indians of goodwill and bad will would be city states fighting endlessly, and

just another Afghanitan/Pakistan today.

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:07 am
You seem to not believe so, so then that is it.
I'm a universal humanist, so affirm we are all the same.

all born with goodwill - only the bad (10-percent or so - they are at war with themselves and "transfer their troubles/self hate - to "others" (rather than making war upon themselves to reform - its easier to "transfer" your self hate to others - the cowards way - as all thugs).

So no i do not think some pleab in Veitnam/timbutoo is not able to know right conduct.

i affirm all the same!

just saying the abhorant colonialization via the Brits allowed those to construct their local states to affirm Rule of Law moreso that other colonial powers.

why?

no clue - and the theme of my original thread.

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:07 am
I was just putting a different view out there. If, however, you are at all able to just look from this perspective, then we can discuss.
i thank you for reply and welcome discussion sir.
Are you saying ALL human beings are the same but 10% are bad.

If yes, then how is this even possible?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests