Daily Record leads The Way Again..

Magical answers, thanks for taking the time. I don’t mean to pick, incidentally, despite all appearances to the contrary – and certainly not in a cheap way of trying to catch you out – I only ever want to be clear about things and understand what someone else is saying. I’ll try to modify my tone so it doesn’t appear so ****y – it’s never the intention.

Good show, though, I look forward to responding to all that some time soon.

 

Nicely said – and snap.

No, I’ve learned (to my cost) never to make such assumptions. Very specifically on the back of those three examples you’ve just given, for instance, you could now tell me that you’re also a fierce Protestant with strong Unionist (political) leanings and I wouldn’t miss a beat. And nor should I. (But okay, yes, based on the balance of probabilities, I do take your point – and must ruefully mark you down as another terrorist.)

Indeedly, although there is no particular reason that nationalism itself need be so exclusively (and exhaustingly) inward looking, however counterintuitive this may sound. It’s all about how people choose to interpret it, I suppose.

As for those Irish/British discussions on General Chat, I tend to avoid them. They never seem terribly illuminating and the way some people choose to address each other often feels rather hopeless and cheap, distinguished only by the very palpable lack of a rounded, softening humanity that must necessarily occur when certainties collide.

Maybe such people and their attitudes will be left behind by the (glacially slow) tide of historical events, we might anyway hope, growling angrily at each other of historical misdeeds, stagnating in a culture of needling grievance and lowbrow one-upmanship as the rest go about the business of looking for a more considered response to what may sometimes appear a painfully intractable problem. Who knows?

Any passing observer might be forgiven for thinking, however, that some of them actually enjoy the dead-end drama of point-scoring conflict and may become rather lost if asked to seriously consider and/or respect or respond to a different point of view.

That’s probably fair enough. A very human failing, really, and such a level of self-awareness is probably an invaluable ally, so don’t kill yourself over it. Not yet, anyway.

That’s honest and funny and quite sweet. I don’t have any children, so your conflicts are particular, but I can sort of see what you’re saying.

If it’s any consolation, I was once dressed as the Pope (I was ten) for a school production and my classmates were saints and priests and whatever. We were left to our childish devices and encouraged to represent, through the medium of bad acting, all that it meant to be Catholic. My dad (atheist) and mum (agnostic, virgin) clapped and cheered, just as they did when we came onto the stage as Buddhist monks, Greek gods, Norse gods, Sephardic Jews (or was it Ashkenazi?), John Knox, Allah and baby Jesus. You get the picture, anyway. I dread to think what might happen these days if children took it upon themselves to dress up as an imagined Allah.

I digress. Anyway, I didn’t become a Catholic or a Jew or a Norse God – although I’m still working on being Jesus – and remained (and remain) an organised religion-free entity.

The point, however, is that nobody – neither the parents, the teachers or, quite naturally, the children - felt sufficiently threatened, repelled or infuriated by these (often alien, often diametrically opposed) cultures and religions or quasi-political ideas to the point where they would refuse to celebrate or at least respectfully acknowledge them. And nor did anyone object to our three month long exposure - two hours at the beginning of every day - to some of the (child-friendly) ideas and beliefs of the varying manifestations of faith throughout the ages. After that, we were done with religion until we reached the age of sixteen, when it was optional.

Where was I? Yes, there’s a peculiar discussion about atheists celebrating the Jubilee taking place on General Chat at the moment, whereby atheists are charged with being hypocrites for doing so. This seems strange and is perhaps the least charitable description of something that may also be classed as open-minded, tolerant and (even) welcoming. It’s the lowest common denominator approach, the way we make ourselves dumb. If I were minded to celebrate the Jubilee – which I’m not, particularly, although the present monarch strikes me as being fairly classy and I’ve grown to appreciate her comportment over the years, in sharp relief to the rest of her family – why on earth would I hold the Queen’s faith or role as Defender of the Faith(s) against her? That’s an abysmal idea; so grievously small-minded that one may require a magnifying glass to detect any form of a working intellect behind it.

Loads of us may not buy into any or all of these things – in fact, we may actively rail against them - but it’s as well to acknowledge that some of our fellow human beings have done so and will be just as earnest in their beliefs and outlook as we are in our stunned incomprehension. To seek out needling conflict as a first port of call before looking for the good in other people always feels like a failing (to me).

As for you and the Queen, I can certainly see why this might cause you very specific unease, although I’m not sure I would necessarily be keen to pass this feeling onto my children (if I had any), preferring to trust that in their later years they would be perfectly capable of making up their own minds. I’m more or less with the sneery Richard Dawkins on this: the notion of labeling a child Catholic, Muslim, Marxist or Conservative, say, troubles me. Whereas a child of Catholic, Muslim, Marxist or Conservative parents seems perfectly fair enough. Roughly translated: we should let these poor wee bastards make up their own minds when they’re in a mentally competent position to do so.

Lolzy. I prefer shouting at people in newspapers (happens every Sunday). Find the link.

I’m guessing it’ll be like the kind of stuff that saw me cancel my membership of the SNP just as soon as I possibly could, whilst retaining a general affection for their broader ideas. I have an extremely low tolerance for the sentimental self-loving and teary-eyed balladeering in which certain nationalists so often seem to wallow. I’m not saying I have no tolerance for such things, merely that I could very happily live without it. As for the sly anti-English stuff I found in some of my fellow choked-up nationalists, I’ve no time for that at all.

Hmm. Reading back, I realise I've dealt rather glibly/superficially with your vexing Queen issue, not really allowing for the complexities at play, for which I can only apologise. I've already written too much to attempt to elaborate, however, so I'll leave things be for the moment. Back to everything else later on......

 

I’m here to help.

Most people appear to pass through life without scrupulously examining or challenging their own belief systems, let alone write them down. They just blurt out stuff they say they believe or consider to be true without honestly following through with the logic (or potential implications). Whenever I try to articulate something I believe in I find that I’m immediately assailed by – what I consider to be very healthy – doubts (and niggling questions which undermine the procession of logic, fairness or commonsense). If you took the time, I’m sure you’d find loads of seeming (or actual) inconsistencies in what I say – it’s no big deal and the chance to iron them out should hold no fears (it should be actively welcomed, in fact). You’re in exquisite company, for sure.

In theory, I quite like those things, too. And in the spirit of sensible brotherhood and non-nitpicky maturity, I’ll refrain from asking you to define a “reasonable mind” and why your definition of this may trump any definitions of a reasonable mind as may be put forward by others.



Back whenever to carry on……

 

This thread has gone all cathartic.

 

We're all Roman Cathartic here, Gambol. Lay off with the sectarianism.

 

Keep up the good work getting these silly timmies heids sorted oot.

If I may, I shall request some time on your couch some time soon.

 

Aye, right.

My sources tell me that you once despoiled a perfectly good sofa through the medium of aggressive incontinence.

Unless you bring your own Pampers, Gambol, you’ll be getting your bowfing bahookie nowhere near my couch, you dirty, dirty bastard.

Apart from that, we’re sweet.

 

Being a non-cathartic, you wouldn't understand, Gambol
I'm quite enjoying reading these exchanges, however - it fills in the time until the latest new HBO series of "In Treatment" is televised (if ever) and of which I'm a fan. Mick could be any new character on the couch, while Psycho is the new Gabriel Byrne (Dr McDreamie, the charming psychologist, who seems to understand everyone else's problems but is, himself, full of self-doubt and ambivalence).

My only reservation about Mick's character is that his seemingly open and honest outpourings appear to portray the mindset of a deeply sensitive, thoughtful and considerate individual in turmoil - somewhat in contrast to the character who posted the rather distasteful joke, about the little McCann girl, on a previous thread which was hastily closed by Pud. Then again, maybe that was just a drunken late-night blip of which, I suppose, we are all capable and I'm being too harsh.

Oh no, here come those horrible men in white coats again! Isn't the world of fiction wonderful?

 

Too bad you missed them - took a bit of getting into but I thought, well worth the effort. Apparently, HBO have approved a new series but in a different format -god knows when we will get to see it but if I do find out I'll let you know!

 

There were 3 Seasons in total but I think that was Series 2 when he moved to Brooklyn after his divorce and treated the architecture student diagnosed with lymphoma which she has been concealing from everyone? The episodes ran for a half-hour up to about four times a week on SKY Arts1 and it wasn't easy to catch them all - I recorded them to watch when I had a couple of hours free with a bottle of red! Hope they actually carry through with another series - a different format sounds interesting and to be honest by the end of the 3rd series the format was becoming just a little jaded.

 

Ah but that dark, surreal humour doesn't seem quite so shocking coming from animated sitcom characters, Mick. After all, the show does issue a disclaimer - "All characters and events in this show-–even those based on real people–-are entirely fictional" so that's ok ...

Maybe that's something you could discuss during your next session on the couch with Dr Psycho McDreamie?

PS:
Trey Parker grew up around Mormons in Conifer, Jefferson County, CO., next to South Park County;
Matt Stone grew up in Littleton, CO., the Denver suburb where in 1999, fourteen students and one teacher were gunned down at Columbine High School;
What's your excuse?

 

That's unkind and hurtful of you Mick - you may indeed have rumbled me but in my world, I'm perfectly rounded and am completely devoid of 'hateful misinformed opinions' ... I have nothing but the purest of thoughts and intentions but I appreciate that many people, at some stage in their lives need reassurance and a comfort blanket of some sort. Isn't it estimated that one person in four has mental health problems, that require (possibly psychiatric) treatment, at some point, though whether or not they get it is another question altogether. So, that's you and how many other posters on this forum ... ?

 

Definitely worth watching imho. Hope you catch any repeats.

 

Well, yes.

Although, whilst you/one may eventually be persuaded having looked at the evidence provided by the government and their attendant and current moral justifications, others may look at exactly the same stuff and feel themselves entirely unmoved. Likewise, you may consider everything put before you and go that’s utter bullshit, whilst others may consider exactly the same stuff and go yeah, let’s save/bomb these ****ers, innit.

Who’s right?

In other words, there will always very likely be people who remain unhappy with any particular action (and resent having their taxes spent this way) and there will always very likely be people who favour such actions (and don’t resent having their taxes spent this way). These camps are interchangeable, in so much as an individual from either camp may at any time favour one particular action whilst at any time deeply disavowing another.

Within these camps there might also be people who implacably oppose any action, anywhere, ever – and they may see this as being a point of principle. As this doesn’t appear to be your position, I’ll leave that be.

There may also be people within these camps who enthusiastically support every single government (military) venture, always – and they may also see this as being a point of principle. As this certainly doesn’t appear to be your position, I’ll also leave that be.

But once the argument has been accepted that in some cases intervention/action may be justifiable according to our personal moralities and satisfaction - as I think we now agree – it’s as well to remember that other people’s version of an acceptable morality or threshold of proof may markedly differ from our own. It doesn’t make them wrong, just like it doesn’t make us right. And it doesn’t make them right, just like it doesn’t make us wrong. It simply means that we may - sometimes or always - see and feel things differently.

In my world, this means compromise – even if I might occasionally feel compromised as a result.

So that’s one thing.

Yes, indeed. I think I already said that I didn’t really care for such sleight of hand, either, whilst allowing for the fact that there may nevertheless occasionally be an inadvertent coalescence of aims between the attractive citizen – me – who merely wants to see a dictator forcibly removed and those governments who knock the dictator over whilst (presumably, in the minds of their detractors) solely scrambling for other riches.

Just to check and double-check, though: Can you agree that some elements of those “excursions into oil rich states” may indeed, however inadvertently, become moral – or morally good, more precisely - if a killing dictator is removed on the way? (I’m not asking if you believe the reasons any governments may give for doing such things, pre or post intervention, merely if their actions may have consequential moral upsides - whether the stated goals were truly or initially the motivating force or not and even if you disagreed with the military action in the first place.)

An aggravatingly long question, I know, sorry, but it only requires a one-word answer either way. I’ve run out of time today, but it’s probably best if I get your answer to the question (above) before I allow myself to head off in the wrong direction, anyway. (You should probably ignore everything else for the time being because that might needlessly complicate things. I'll keep on crawling through your responses till I catch up, just be patient......)