|
U-Know! Forum » grin |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Vybik Jon 7720 posts |
Edited Mar 10, 2009, 17:35
Mar 10, 2009, 17:34
|
|
pooley wrote: [Many people I know, who support her cause, are annoyed at this act. And, of course/of cause, many people aren't. A somewhat pointless point. pooley wrote: I will say again - these protests do not do a thing to help the cause, it is counter productive as is holding up runways. Yes they do. They make some people go and find out what the protester is protesting about. pooley wrote: You need the public with you, or nothing will change. That is such a fatalist attitude. Why do you bother? |
|
pooley 501 posts |
Mar 10, 2009, 17:57
|
|
Vybik Jon wrote: pooley wrote: [Many people I know, who support her cause, are annoyed at this act. And, of course/of cause, many people aren't. A somewhat pointless point. pooley wrote: I will say again - these protests do not do a thing to help the cause, it is counter productive as is holding up runways. Yes they do. They make some people go and find out what the protester is protesting about. pooley wrote: You need the public with you, or nothing will change. That is such a fatalist attitude. Why do you bother? Why is it fatalistic to suggest that to have change you need public opinion? A somewhat pointless comment! How are you ever going to change things without it? Are you going to force people to change against their will? isn't that facism????? Why do I bother? the first good question on here for a fuck of a long time!!! Happy days |
|
|
Vybik Jon 7720 posts |
Edited Mar 10, 2009, 18:32
Mar 10, 2009, 18:29
|
|
pooley wrote: Vybik Jon wrote: pooley wrote: [Many people I know, who support her cause, are annoyed at this act. And, of course/of cause, many people aren't. A somewhat pointless point. pooley wrote: I will say again - these protests do not do a thing to help the cause, it is counter productive as is holding up runways. Yes they do. They make some people go and find out what the protester is protesting about. pooley wrote: You need the public with you, or nothing will change. That is such a fatalist attitude. Why do you bother? pooley wrote: Why is it fatalistic to suggest that to have change you need public opinion? A somewhat pointless comment! How are you ever going to change things without it? Are you going to force people to change against their will? isn't that facism?????. The one shining example that has been thrown at you and which you've never adequately fended is the example ofthe US civil rights movement. You said above: "How are you ever going to change things without it? Are you going to force people to change against their will? isn't that facism?????" Good job the US civil rights movement never took that view. [quote="pooley"]Why do I bother? the first good question on here for a fuck of a long time!!! Happy days Well? Why do you? Typical pooley - jump in, stir it all up and never offer an answer. Why do you bother? |
|
micmacmoc 288 posts |
Mar 10, 2009, 20:45
|
|
'posh twit' and 'Hartlepool' never before heard in the same sentence! |
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Mar 10, 2009, 22:35
|
|
pooley wrote: Many people I know, who support her cause, are annoyed at this act. And, as Vybik says, many people are not annoyed; many think it was great. Including many who don't support the cause. So that doesn't really take us anywhere in terms of totting up figures, does it? 'Public opinion' doesn't mean unanimity, which is what you seem to be implying. There has been no social change that was universally desired by the public. However, when a just case is kept prominent, the groundswell for change grows. in this case, we had the top story on the news flag up the undemocratic installation of an unelected Minister who overrules his Cabinet colleagues and forces through an unpopular policy that directly assault's the government's carbon emissions targets. a good morning's work for one person and a few pence worth of dessert. pooley wrote: these protests do not do a thing to help the cause, it is counter productive as is holding up runways. You need the public with you, or nothing will change. Is that right? Well, once again, I refer you to the cases previously mentioned thast you seem unable to get to grips with. Occupying segregated buses and restaurants inconvenienced the general public. Many might have been sympathetic to the cause but after being delayed on their journey or having had their meal out disrupted they turned more against civil rights. So, should the sitters-in have stayed at home and written stiffly worded petitions instead? Should we avoid any political action that might annoy someone? |
|
|
pooley 501 posts |
Mar 11, 2009, 10:38
|
|
Vybik Jon wrote: pooley wrote: Vybik Jon wrote: pooley wrote: [Many people I know, who support her cause, are annoyed at this act. And, of course/of cause, many people aren't. A somewhat pointless point. pooley wrote: I will say again - these protests do not do a thing to help the cause, it is counter productive as is holding up runways. Yes they do. They make some people go and find out what the protester is protesting about. pooley wrote: You need the public with you, or nothing will change. That is such a fatalist attitude. Why do you bother? pooley wrote: Why is it fatalistic to suggest that to have change you need public opinion? A somewhat pointless comment! How are you ever going to change things without it? Are you going to force people to change against their will? isn't that facism?????. The one shining example that has been thrown at you and which you've never adequately fended is the example ofthe US civil rights movement. You said above: "How are you ever going to change things without it? Are you going to force people to change against their will? isn't that facism?????" Good job the US civil rights movement never took that view. [quote="pooley"]Why do I bother? the first good question on here for a fuck of a long time!!! Happy days Well? Why do you? Typical pooley - jump in, stir it all up and never offer an answer. Why do you bother? Thanks Vybik, for your kind words. Can we never discuss anything without resorting to insults? you big beardy viking bastard! I have answered the civil rights question, i thought, in a previous (if very similiar) discussion. I will endeavour to look through and cut and paste - I think the gist of it was that two very different situations, and what you'd do in one would not work in the other - one is a blatent attack on a whole group of people for the colour of their skin, the other is getting people to adopt a different lifestyle. Any way, I'll look for it.
|
|
|
pooley 501 posts |
Mar 11, 2009, 10:43
|
|
Merrick wrote: pooley wrote: Many people I know, who support her cause, are annoyed at this act. And, as Vybik says, many people are not annoyed; many think it was great. Including many who don't support the cause. So that doesn't really take us anywhere in terms of totting up figures, does it? 'Public opinion' doesn't mean unanimity, which is what you seem to be implying. There has been no social change that was universally desired by the public. However, when a just case is kept prominent, the groundswell for change grows. in this case, we had the top story on the news flag up the undemocratic installation of an unelected Minister who overrules his Cabinet colleagues and forces through an unpopular policy that directly assault's the government's carbon emissions targets. a good morning's work for one person and a few pence worth of dessert. pooley wrote: these protests do not do a thing to help the cause, it is counter productive as is holding up runways. You need the public with you, or nothing will change. Is that right? Well, once again, I refer you to the cases previously mentioned thast you seem unable to get to grips with. Occupying segregated buses and restaurants inconvenienced the general public. Many might have been sympathetic to the cause but after being delayed on their journey or having had their meal out disrupted they turned more against civil rights. So, should the sitters-in have stayed at home and written stiffly worded petitions instead? Should we avoid any political action that might annoy someone? I have never suggested letters and petitions (to the best of my knowledge!). I can understand the frustration of plane simple not getting anywhere - maybe they should look at their argument, and why it isn't winning people over instead of sticking to the WE KNOW WERE RIGHT, SO WE ARE GONNA KEEP ON DOING WHAT WE ARE DOING route. If you are not winning public opinion with your arguments, find better ones. This kind of shock tactic nonsense is preaching to the converted. people who agree are gonna cheer (some) people who don't and more importantly people with no opinion either way will feel alienated by it. It's a very simple equation - get people to agree and things will change. |
|
cHARLIE 2607 posts |
Mar 11, 2009, 14:03
|
| Double grIn. (((thunderclaP))) | |
kiddrahcir 51 posts |
Mar 12, 2009, 12:35
|
|
"If you are not winning public opinion with your arguments, find better ones." what better arguments or better public..........if only!
|
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Mar 12, 2009, 16:45
Mar 12, 2009, 16:41
|
|
pooley wrote: If you are not winning public opinion with your arguments, find better ones. But why? I'm not being flippant here, I'm intrigued as to why you make this suggestion. Is it because you believe such an approach is Right (in some moral / ethical sense)? Or is it because you believe it's the most effective way to social change? Frankly, I dispute both claims. Firstly, I do not view the public as an accurate ethical or moral barometer. Just because a majority (even a massive majority) believes something to be right, does not make it so. In fact, I view democracy as uniquely problematic precisely because it so often masks immoral or unethical behaviour with the supposed respectability of "the democratic process". As though "lots of people want it" could ever be a moral justification. pooley wrote: It's a very simple equation - get people to agree and things will change. Secondly, while there's no doubt that changing public opinion can be one way to bring about social change, experience teaches us that it's far from the only way. And interestingly, experience also teaches us that changing public opinion is not even a guarantee of changing public behaviour. If you were to ask many of the people who fly regularly, or use a car a lot, or have patio heaters (or whatever), they will insist that they believe in the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Changing the opinion of a group does not always change its behaviour. And arguably, on the issue of climate change, public opinion has already been changed to a large extent. Therefore, one must look into alternative methods of changing public behaviour beyond merely pointing out the negative consequences of that behaviour. Pretty much everyone on the planet who smokes cigarettes is aware that they are causing damage to their health. A huge number even make a lot of noise about how they wish they didn't smoke, but can't help themselves. So long as it's only their own body they are destroying with their addiction, we tend not to feel comfortable sanctioning prohibitive intervention. And nor should we. But when an addiction -- like the addiction of over-consumption gripping the 'developed' world -- starts to threaten the well-being of large numbers of others, then most accept that intervention is necessary, whether or not the addict wants it. I pesonally see Climate Change as part of the larger, more complex issue of sustainability. I believe that if, as is likely, we fail to shift towards a sustainable social model within the next handful of years, we'll be condeming billions of people -- some living now, many as yet unborn -- to extreme and unnecessary suffering. What exactly could be more unethical than that? Ignoring the opinion of an over-fed and self-obsessed consumer public doesn't even come close. If we do, en masse, choose to cease our over-consumption then fantastic! And I'm right behind any attempts to make that happen. But based upon my reading of the public mind, I don't believe that we will choose to act in time. So those who seek ways of forcing that change also get my support. EDIT: I hope it goes without saying that I'm not claiming that chucking custard over Mandelson is necessarily an effective strategy for forcing social change. I was discussing the general, not the specific. |
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
