Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
What Happened To Honour And Integrity?
139 Answers
Lies, spin and double-speak seem to be the order of the day in more than one area of life, and moreover that dishonesty appears to be not only accepted, but welcomed, encouraged and exacerbated by many. What happened to the once cherished philosophy of honour and integrity?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Athens, eh, Jim? Not a relevant example given that Athens was constitutionally a direct[i democracy of the sort some Momentum types and all Swiss like, whereas under a representative democracy such as ours a plebiscite is an extraordinary event, whereby Parliament willingly devolves the determination of a specific decision to the electorate.
I'd rather like to see that devolved decision (2016) honoured by the Parliament which granted it and which promised it would accept it - [i]whatever].
I see the same trick being played by the "People's Vote" campaigners. Obviously if the "People" (with a capital P) who vote in referendum two come up with the same answer as the small p "people" who voted Out the first time, then Parliament will redeploy all the old rationalisations for safeguarded the stoopids from their folly. And you've already said that you will accept the result of a second referndum only if it goes your way.
PS: Athens "reversing" votes. (In our system its called "elections", Jim. As in that's normal: sometimes the Greens win and sometimes the Blues. A successful democracy is premissed on the willingness of the loser to accept the result. Or do you think otherwise? As in Trump Derangement Syndrome: I've been used to getting my own way for so long I'm not used to having to listen to the country hicks and red-necks and accept a President an policies of their choosing, and I damned well won't.)
I think your "reversal" may be a reference to the Melos massacre, and the marvellous debates recorded/embellished/scripted by Thucydides some years later which prevented (by the stroke of an oar) its repetition when another "ally" seceded. If you haven't read it (and you probably have) you should read the "Pelopponesian War". I think it's Europe's greatest work of history. A judgment based, let me add, not on a comprehensive knowledge of the literature, just on my own very limited reading.
I'd rather like to see that devolved decision (2016) honoured by the Parliament which granted it and which promised it would accept it - [i]whatever].
I see the same trick being played by the "People's Vote" campaigners. Obviously if the "People" (with a capital P) who vote in referendum two come up with the same answer as the small p "people" who voted Out the first time, then Parliament will redeploy all the old rationalisations for safeguarded the stoopids from their folly. And you've already said that you will accept the result of a second referndum only if it goes your way.
PS: Athens "reversing" votes. (In our system its called "elections", Jim. As in that's normal: sometimes the Greens win and sometimes the Blues. A successful democracy is premissed on the willingness of the loser to accept the result. Or do you think otherwise? As in Trump Derangement Syndrome: I've been used to getting my own way for so long I'm not used to having to listen to the country hicks and red-necks and accept a President an policies of their choosing, and I damned well won't.)
I think your "reversal" may be a reference to the Melos massacre, and the marvellous debates recorded/embellished/scripted by Thucydides some years later which prevented (by the stroke of an oar) its repetition when another "ally" seceded. If you haven't read it (and you probably have) you should read the "Pelopponesian War". I think it's Europe's greatest work of history. A judgment based, let me add, not on a comprehensive knowledge of the literature, just on my own very limited reading.
// A successful democracy is premissed [sic] on the willingness of the loser to accept the result. Or do you think otherwise? //
Yes, but the loser isn't also shut out of the debate for ever after -- or at least for the foreseeable future. Various Brexit supporters on AB have sometimes allowed the idea that a second referendum** may be appropriate in, say, ten years' time following actually leaving, whenever that may be.
One other thing about the definition of democracy as requiring "the loser to accept the result" is that there's also at least some sense in which the winner accepts the loser. They remain part of the conversation. Their views are taken on board. And certainly they aren't deemed "traitors" or the like for continuing to express their views and hold the victors to account. And, finally, the losers have to have the opportunity to become the winners in future.
Yes, I agree that "People's Vote" is a stupid and insulting name. I refuse to use it. It's a second referendum. As to the result of this hypothetical referendum, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But there is a difference between accepting the legitimacy of the result and the correctness of it. Although I'd love to be proved wrong about this, if the UK voted a second time for Brexit, and subsequently left without a deal, then I can't see how it can possibly be the best decision for the country.
Yes, but the loser isn't also shut out of the debate for ever after -- or at least for the foreseeable future. Various Brexit supporters on AB have sometimes allowed the idea that a second referendum** may be appropriate in, say, ten years' time following actually leaving, whenever that may be.
One other thing about the definition of democracy as requiring "the loser to accept the result" is that there's also at least some sense in which the winner accepts the loser. They remain part of the conversation. Their views are taken on board. And certainly they aren't deemed "traitors" or the like for continuing to express their views and hold the victors to account. And, finally, the losers have to have the opportunity to become the winners in future.
Yes, I agree that "People's Vote" is a stupid and insulting name. I refuse to use it. It's a second referendum. As to the result of this hypothetical referendum, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But there is a difference between accepting the legitimacy of the result and the correctness of it. Although I'd love to be proved wrong about this, if the UK voted a second time for Brexit, and subsequently left without a deal, then I can't see how it can possibly be the best decision for the country.
On the off-chance that anyone cares, I cut out a good chunk of that last post which was trying, again, to explain my rationale for my position. But, in short, all it really amounts to is a plea for understanding. I don't agree with you, with pixie, with many on AB about what is best for the country. But I care for its future just as much as you do.
//One other thing about the definition of democracy as requiring "the loser to accept the result" is that there's also at least some sense in which the winner accepts the loser//
Yes. The "loser" is my fellow citizen, Jim. And, therefore, my ally in the future success of my country. And that bit we share, don't we?
I wrote a post in June 2016 hoping that the "winners" wouldn't crow, and that the losers wouldn't whinge. And that because it was a binary decision which produces a very sipped-off loser. And that my "victory" wasn't a deliberate matter of self-harm by a little Englander on his death bed, but a reclamation of sovereignty (for my descendants of all stripes). And that the referendum was a peaceful resolution of a conflict which would in an earlier context could have been resolved only by bullet rather than ballot.
ion to the contradictions surrounding sovereignty..
The irony is that Brexit What a shame that
Yes. The "loser" is my fellow citizen, Jim. And, therefore, my ally in the future success of my country. And that bit we share, don't we?
I wrote a post in June 2016 hoping that the "winners" wouldn't crow, and that the losers wouldn't whinge. And that because it was a binary decision which produces a very sipped-off loser. And that my "victory" wasn't a deliberate matter of self-harm by a little Englander on his death bed, but a reclamation of sovereignty (for my descendants of all stripes). And that the referendum was a peaceful resolution of a conflict which would in an earlier context could have been resolved only by bullet rather than ballot.
ion to the contradictions surrounding sovereignty..
The irony is that Brexit What a shame that
Jim, //I care for its future just as much as you do//
I don’t doubt that but the question here is not about the whys and wherefores of political aspirations, but about the disingenuous methods employed to achieve them and the fact that deceit is now accepted and encouraged not only by our politicians but by a considerable section of the electorate. That has to be fundamentally morally wrong.
I don’t doubt that but the question here is not about the whys and wherefores of political aspirations, but about the disingenuous methods employed to achieve them and the fact that deceit is now accepted and encouraged not only by our politicians but by a considerable section of the electorate. That has to be fundamentally morally wrong.
spath - minorities do always win. You only have to read on a regular basis, one person, only one, complains about something and whatever that person has complained about it is either removed, changed or never heard of again - fact !! But that is just a small example and I am not bitter, I am speaking the truth. Seven Op. no idea what the hell you are talking about.
My last post for over 10 days now, off on my hols - YAY !!
My last post for over 10 days now, off on my hols - YAY !!
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
Film, Media & TV45 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles47 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.