mrjonno wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

mrjonno wrote:
Well we don't have an empire but we can still fuck over America (but nowhere near as much as we fuck over ourselves)

Oh yeah? Well, I've changed my mind and now I'm going to vote for Trump. That'll show you!

I currently looking at houses and jobs in Edinburgh , as long as I stay near to a golf course I will be fine

Are you feeling alright Jonno? You jest, sir. You do know it's crawling with "toxic" nationalists up here.

Are you feeling alright Jonno? You jest, sir. You do know it's crawling with "toxic" nationalists up here.

I support Scottish independence in the same way I support the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, a necessary evil to prevent something far worse

Anyway Edinburgh is only in Scotland in the same way London is in England. It's hopefully a future world city.

But in general I'm definitely not feeling very right at the moment

Remember where you live in Edinburgh is important.

Corneel wrote:

Among people who were condemned by the revolutionary tribunals, about 8% were aristocrats, 6% clergy, 14% middle class, and 72% were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, or rebellion.

So the 2% of the population that were aristocrats and clergy represented 14% of the executions, while the peasants and workers who made up 90%+ of the population were 72% of the executions.

In other words, the aristocrats and clergy had nine times the chance of being executed that the rest of the population had, pretty much in line with jamest's "tenfold" degree of suffering of the elites when this sort of thing really comes to a head. And even among peasants, it was those rich enough to have something to hoard that got executed.

Warren Dew wrote:

Corneel wrote:

Among people who were condemned by the revolutionary tribunals, about 8% were aristocrats, 6% clergy, 14% middle class, and 72% were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, or rebellion.

So the 2% of the population that were aristocrats and clergy represented 14% of the executions, while the peasants and workers who made up 90%+ of the population were 72% of the executions.

In other words, the aristocrats and clergy had nine times the chance of being executed that the rest of the population had, pretty much in line with jamest's "tenfold" degree of suffering of the elites when this sort of thing really comes to a head. And even among peasants, it was those rich enough to have something to hoard that got executed.

do you understand that dead people don't suffer?

You seem to be stupidly missing that most obvious of points.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Remember where you live in Edinburgh is important.

Heh. That is true.

ronmcd wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Remember where you live in Edinburgh is important.

Heh. That is true.

Is it not. I used to live in West Mains but referred to living next to Kings Buildings which was the university area. Much posher.

scott1328 wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:

Corneel wrote:

Among people who were condemned by the revolutionary tribunals, about 8% were aristocrats, 6% clergy, 14% middle class, and 72% were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, or rebellion.

So the 2% of the population that were aristocrats and clergy represented 14% of the executions, while the peasants and workers who made up 90%+ of the population were 72% of the executions.

In other words, the aristocrats and clergy had nine times the chance of being executed that the rest of the population had, pretty much in line with jamest's "tenfold" degree of suffering of the elites when this sort of thing really comes to a head. And even among peasants, it was those rich enough to have something to hoard that got executed.

do you understand that dead people don't suffer?

I understand that you take a position that implies the best way to end the suffering of poor people is to execute them all, yes.

I disagree that that's a good solution, because I think your definition of suffering is ridiculous.

There are lovely flats in Dumbiedykes. Very central too.

VazScep wrote:There are lovely flats in Dumbiedykes. Very central too.

An improvement on West Pilton. (I worked there when I was in the police).

Warren Dew wrote:

Corneel wrote:

Among people who were condemned by the revolutionary tribunals, about 8% were aristocrats, 6% clergy, 14% middle class, and 72% were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, or rebellion.

So the 2% of the population that were aristocrats and clergy represented 14% of the executions, while the peasants and workers who made up 90%+ of the population were 72% of the executions.

In other words, the aristocrats and clergy had nine times the chance of being executed that the rest of the population had, pretty much in line with jamest's "tenfold" degree of suffering of the elites when this sort of thing really comes to a head. And even among peasants, it was those rich enough to have something to hoard that got executed.

Your words - ''it wasn't the poor people being put under the guillotine''. That's quite a clear statement, which is easily refuted. The fact of the matter is that IT WAS the poor being put under the guillotine. The fact that the rich were also put under the guillotine does not make your comment accurate. No amount of faffing about trying to argue that it happened to the rich more makes your claim that the poor weren't guillotined correct.

Your words to my sarcastic comment that throughout history the rich suffer tenfold more than the poor - ''yes, in fact they do'', because French Revolution plus some big companies in WWII. It's not as simple as you're trying to make it sound, for reasons which I've mentioned previously.

Your claim now seems to have switched to ''more rich people got guillotined, so therefore throughout history, they suffer tenfold more than the poor when these things come to a head''. Even if we exclude all other ''crunch'' points in history, even if we go with your bizarre focus on two events out of the whole of human history, even if we accept that more rich people were executed, and that being guillotined is a good way to gauge suffering, you're completely excluding all the other ways in which the poor suffered during that time. These ways included ongoing rioting and civil war, starvation, disease, the continuation of all these problems despite the Ancien Régime being overthrown, being drafted into the army often against their will and having to fight for the Revolution both at home and elsewhere, plus being summarily put down if they resisted. Oddly, you completely ignored my having spelled this out previously, in favour of continuing to tinker around the edges in order to salvage something, no matter how petty, to show that you are right. This has caused us to come an awful long way from your two easily refuted claims, but you're still wrong.

Warren Dew wrote:

scott1328 wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:

Corneel wrote:

So the 2% of the population that were aristocrats and clergy represented 14% of the executions, while the peasants and workers who made up 90%+ of the population were 72% of the executions.

In other words, the aristocrats and clergy had nine times the chance of being executed that the rest of the population had, pretty much in line with jamest's "tenfold" degree of suffering of the elites when this sort of thing really comes to a head. And even among peasants, it was those rich enough to have something to hoard that got executed.

do you understand that dead people don't suffer?

I understand that you take a position that implies the best way to end the suffering of poor people is to execute them all, yes.

I disagree that that's a good solution, because I think your definition of suffering is ridiculous.

Excuse me for saying so, but this is pure bollocks and a blatant misrepresentation of scott's position. OK, no, I'll just say it. It's an outright lie.

Warren Dew wrote:
I understand that you take a position that implies the best way to end the suffering of poor people is to execute them all, yes.

There really is no logical pathway from what Scott said to this interpretation of what he said.

Warren Dew wrote:

scott1328 wrote:

Warren Dew wrote:

Corneel wrote:

So the 2% of the population that were aristocrats and clergy represented 14% of the executions, while the peasants and workers who made up 90%+ of the population were 72% of the executions.

In other words, the aristocrats and clergy had nine times the chance of being executed that the rest of the population had, pretty much in line with jamest's "tenfold" degree of suffering of the elites when this sort of thing really comes to a head. And even among peasants, it was those rich enough to have something to hoard that got executed.

do you understand that dead people don't suffer?

I understand that you take a position that implies the best way to end the suffering of poor people is to execute them all, yes.

I disagree that that's a good solution, because I think your definition of suffering is ridiculous.

That is a blatant lie. If you continue to misrepresent me I will seek moderator intervention.

Mean while Boris and Farage the clowns with the hammers - run away laughing madly to themselves. Leaving behind a country in ruins. They simply didn't have a plan for BREXIT.

CarlPierce wrote:Mean while Boris and Farage the clowns with the hammers - run away laughing madly to themselves. Leaving behind a country in ruins. They simply didn't have a plan for BREXIT.

To be honest we do live in a bit of a bubble, for people on crap jobs ,low wages and benefits. They will still be on crap jobs, low wages and benefits but now they have 'freedom'. They are happy as far as they are concerned economics is for rich people and they are very happy in their poverty knowing they have brought the rest of us down a bit

Bullshit.

First, the reason many are enduring "crap jobs, low wages and benefits", is because the Panama Papers parasite rich preferred to squirrel billions out of the country to spend on mansions, bling yachts and private jets, instead of paying the taxes that would have funded proper investment in social infrastructure, including education. As for the idea that they are "happy" in their poverty, this is the sort of pernicious propaganda that we'd expect to see coming from the Iain Drunken Shit school of Tory stereotyping. If you think those people wouldn't prefer to be given a chance to earn a decent living wage without handouts, then you obviously haven't moved outside your comfortable rentier circle of golf clubs and subsidised corporate entertainment.

As for those who "brought the rest of us down a bit", the blame with that lies with Johnson and Farage, two rich, privileged wankers who were happy to peddle lies in order to further their own pursuit of unearned wealth. At least Johnson has woken up to the manner in which he's shit on his own career as well as the country, whilst dodgy Dulwich wheeler-dealer Farage, who unlike some of the people in the EU he sneered at, never had a proper job himself (please, a fucking commodities speculator?) continues to pretend in public that he's some sort of hero of the masses, whilst doubtless laughing all the way to the bank as he coins it in more commodities speculation.

What actually happened, was that entirely justifiable discontent at fake "austerity" economics (fake because the rich aren't experiencing any "austerity", unless you count having to keep your his and hers Bentleys an extra year before moving on to the shiny new model) was hijacked by the Panama Papers parasite rich, with a diversionary campaign aimed at blaming "migrants" for our woes instead of the real culprits, and sadly, it succeeded.

I wasn't commenting on why people are in crap jobs, low wages and benefits, I'm just saying that that they are quite happy to have screwed over London and the other major cities filled with middle class graduate wankers (from their point of view)

With 17% of EU GDP heading for the door, TTIP and CETA may be kicked into the long grass.

The market would stay large, transparent, stable and attractive enough even without the UK 17%. Its the UK who would have to negotiate everything on its own. However, as mrjonno noted in the other thread, the rationality bubble popped in the UK. Its beyond any reason to think there is something to be gained from exit. If it also pops in the rest of EU, and the world, we can kick ourselves to grass ;)

---
edit: They want to send mongrels home and who will replace them? 4.7% unemployment and they cry about internal immigration. I guess you want external then, mongrels. Wtf is wrong with you?