Page 2 of 4

Posted: 5 Jun 2008, 5:25pm
by JQ666
reohn2 wrote:
JQ666 wrote:
What you have just said is exactly the outcome predicted by Marx & Engels - I just doubt their expected revolution will happen, as the newly created middle-class will find it hard to let go of their personal greed!


I once saw a something on TV about unscrupulous(sp?) people who catch young monkeys in the far east somewhere,they simply tie a coconut to a tree the coconut has the top cut off just big enough for a young monkey to get its hand in and some peanut butter smeared inside.
The trick is that the monkey gets its hand inside the coconut but when grasps and makes a fist it can't get its hand out,the silly monkey won't let go of the peanut butter its holding and so by its own greed sits and waits to be caught,when all it has to do is let go........


Couldn't put it better myself!

Posted: 5 Jun 2008, 5:26pm
by JQ666
thirdcrank wrote:I witnessed an exhibition of selfish driving this afternoon.

I was on my bike, waiting at traffic lights in an advanced stop box. I heard an emergency vehicle from the right. As the lights changed a paramedic ambulance car appeared - blue beacons on, yelp sounding, headlights flashing alternately. I stopped to let the ambulance continue but the two drivers following me pulled around me and drove across the junction. Luckily, the ambulance driver had slowed to a crawl so he was able to stop. He then waited in the middle of the junction looking at me. I waved to indicate that I was waiting and as the ambulance began to move forward, another car overtook me and forced a way across in front of the ambulance.

I know that it is a lot easier to hear an ambulance on a bike than it is in a car, but as this incident developed the ambulance was slap-bang in the middle of the junction and clearly visible on all the approaches.

If people are in such a rush that they cannot let an ambulance have a free run, what hope is there for anybody?


Thatcher's fault :wink:

Posted: 5 Jun 2008, 6:07pm
by nigel_s
Not sure about the general opinion of declining standards of behaviour. I don't think that it's changed much in my living memory (now approaching 6 decades).

Homo Sapiens is basically a nasty piece of work. As far a behaviour is concerned only eating, procreating and fighting comes naturally. Everything else has to be learned. We will behave if there's something in it for us. Homo Sapiens will only behave when not behaving will cause trouble for himself. In my schooldays we got hit if we got caught misbehaving. So we behaved in the presence of those who would hit us.

Such is the rest of life. People will be nasty and selfish if they think that they can get away with it.

Put two starving people in a room for a few days, then introduce a small bit of food. The one who gets to eat the food first will be the more selfish and ruthless one. And he's the one more likely to survive. That's why we are what we are.

Nothing to do with Thatcher! :roll:

Posted: 5 Jun 2008, 6:36pm
by JQ666
nigel_s wrote:
Homo Sapiens is basically a nasty piece of work. As far a behaviour is concerned only eating, procreating and fighting comes naturally. Everything else has to be learned. We will behave if there's something in it for us. Homo Sapiens will only behave when not behaving will cause trouble for himself. In my schooldays we got hit if we got caught misbehaving. So we behaved in the presence of those who would hit us.

Such is the rest of life. People will be nasty and selfish if they think that they can get away with it.

Put two starving people in a room for a few days, then introduce a small bit of food. The one who gets to eat the food first will be the more selfish and ruthless one. And he's the one more likely to survive. That's why we are what we are.

Nothing to do with Thatcher! :roll:


I agree about the nature of man - as defined by Adam Smith. Hence why any attempt to implement a Marxist economic order has ended in disaster, as man reverts to type and clings to power rather than allowing the 'people' to practice collective governence.

That is the issue - we have a prescription for a kind of mutual utopia, but it pre-supposes that man is not an inherently selfish individual. I'm with you that he is, hence why the economic order of capitalism is probably all we deserve!

Posted: 5 Jun 2008, 6:39pm
by Lawrie9
I blame the grandparents. My dad taught in London in the late 50's and tells me how unruly, disruptive and uncivilized they were back then.

Re: The Utter Bloody Rudeness of Road Use Today

Posted: 5 Jun 2008, 7:21pm
by byegad
mhara wrote:Lynnn Truss wrote an excellent sequel to her book Eats Shoots and Leaves. It’s called Talk To the Hand. It’s about the “utter bloody rudeness of everyday life” and it brilliantly features six examples of how our world has become ‘in your face’, uncaring of each other and totally without the civilising concept of good manners.

I think she should have added a seventh example – the utter bloody rudeness of everyday driving, which, thanks to our minority status and vulnerability on the road we get to experience on an everyday basis.

My theory is that the generation schooled during the disastrous 18 Years Of Thatcherism (no such thing as society, only individuals… :evil: .) are now the 18 to 38 yr old generation driving as if nothing and no-one should come between them and the most rapid arrival at their destination.

These ‘Thatcher’s Children’ have grow up into the predictable generation of anti-social, rude, me-me-me, my-rights motorists. We may have said Never Again! to the Tories, but we have the by-products of their 18 years with us daily on the roads.

I dread to think what cycling will be like when their own children reach driving age :shock:


Absolutely Bang On!

Re: The Utter Bloody Rudeness of Road Use Today

Posted: 5 Jun 2008, 7:41pm
by mhara
hubgearfreak wrote:... the one generalisation you can make about this [18 to 38] age group, is that we weren't the ones stupid enough to vote for thatcher, as a majority of the people in you age group did

Fair point, and nicely made. You're right, it was a sweeping generalisation, damn, just when I thought I'd weeded that bad habit out of my system.

My apologies Hugbearfreak - like you I've never voted Tory my whole life, and yes, rudeness can occur in any age group. For instance - making sweeping statements about 18 to 38 year olds. :oops:

Re: The Utter Bloody Rudeness of Road Use Today

Posted: 5 Jun 2008, 10:08pm
by hubgearfreak
mhara wrote:Fair point, and nicely made. You're right, it was a sweeping generalisation, damn, just when I thought I'd weeded that bad habit out of my system.

My apologies Hugbearfreak - like you I've never voted Tory my whole life, and yes, rudeness can occur in any age group. For instance - making sweeping statements about 18 to 38 year olds. :oops:


good chap, no hard feelings :D

Re: The Utter Bloody Rudeness of Road Use Today

Posted: 6 Jun 2008, 7:13am
by adinigel
hubgearfreak wrote:....the one generalisation you can make about this age group, is that we weren't the ones stupid enough to vote for thatcher, as a majority of the people in you age group did....


OK, so if, by your definition, we were stupid to vote for Thatcher, what on earth does that make those that voted for the current government?

Incidentally, the drivers of cars that caused me the biggest problems when I commuted by bike were 30-40 yo women changing lane when I was already there (and then denying that they changed lane! :shock: )

Nigel

Posted: 6 Jun 2008, 8:31am
by commuter world
ah, but just like major first time round, nobody voted for the current pm.

Posted: 6 Jun 2008, 8:45am
by pioneer
Well...

I voted for Thatcher and Major, glad I did too.

Not Blair and certainly not now Brown,Cameron and who's the other bloke?

(Ann Widecombe for P.M. I say, She's the chap for me!)

It's no good continually blaming the countrys' ills on people that left office a long time ago. Sure, they had a hand in it' but our current "leaders" have an awful lot to answer for.

Posted: 6 Jun 2008, 8:51am
by commuter world
not to be deliberately argumentative, but as politics in this country is geard to short termism - making sure you get elected every five years - rather than what's good for the country in the long term, implementing policies that would do good, but may take some 10 years to really kick in, a lot of the current problems are caused by the governments predecessors rather than current inhabitants of no 10 - & i don't just mean tony here.

it's the main inherent flaw in the current system we have.

Posted: 6 Jun 2008, 9:03am
by ianr1950
One of the biggest problems we have when we have a general election and one party gets an overall majority we then do not have any effective opposition as the government can then just railroad anything through without any fear.

Posted: 6 Jun 2008, 9:08am
by pigman
commuter world wrote: but as politics in this country is geard to short termism - making sure you get elected every five years
it's the main inherent flaw in the current system we have.


all too true, but the short-termism you describe of 5 years is too long in reality. Its all about firefighting the here-and-now. So come an election, we have some good mainfestos; once in, they are not borne out and the emphasis is on current PR management. But, its not just politics thats like this - its everything: business, sporting performance, celebrities etc etc

Posted: 6 Jun 2008, 9:13am
by pioneer
Commuter World, quite so. But likewise,in the early years of the "New Labour" government,the country was in a very good financial position. That was not of thier doing. It was down to groundwork already done by the Tories who proceeded them. Labout harped on' about what good managers they were,what a great Chancellor Gordon was, he was O.K.,nothing more.
The real work to put us back on our feet in the world marketplace (though yes, some parts of society did suffer there's no doubt) was done by the Tories (should that now be "Old Tories"?).