Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
He was Danish, I meant competency in comparison to other Kings of the Anglo Saxon world. I was trying to avoid the term English King, because the boundaries and levels of control of the “English” king were very fluid.
Cnut (Cnut the Great) was from 1016 to 1035, not 1500 years ago.
Often seen as pretty competent as an Anglo Saxon king. If his line rather than the Norman line, the UK might have still been part of the Scandinavian world.
I have a vision of lots of conflicted Tory members, all struggling to work out whether their inbuilt sexism is stronger than their on built racism.
The Liberals might demand electoral reform as part of the package to support a minority government or form a coalition. Might actual get greater support this time around.
One thing that I am sick of hearing is that Johnson won a landslide victory with a huge majority. He won 43.6%, which is a plurality, not a majority and he only won 330,000 more votes than Theresa May.
He only got roughly 14 million votes, from a population of 47.5 million voters, about 29% of the possible votes.
Looks like the bible supports the concept of abortion.
Numbers 5:11-31
“Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray(A) and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her,(B) and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy(C) come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a](D) of barley flour(E) on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy,(F) a reminder-offering(G) to draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair(H) and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy,(I) while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse.(J) 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray(K) and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse(L) not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray(M) while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse(N)—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water(O) that brings a curse(P) enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.(Q)”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll(R) and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord(S) and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering(T) and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.(U) 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray(V) and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy(W) come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences(X) of her sin.’”
L Bird- “ Really, lads, if you want to debate politics, you have to debate with what your opponent argues, rather than make up stories, and then argue with those self-made stories.”
So presumably, in your view only males will be involved in political debate and your proposed voting process, a curious democracy you put forward!
Many of the right wing press have been using red herrings by referring to the wages that Train drivers get, it’s not them it is on strike. There’s is a separate dispute.
The Trots, et al are also not mentioning that LNER, Northern Trains and Southeastern trains are in public ownership.
I found the quote from Hardy, it was from Some Aspects of Marxian Economics pg 34
“In Britain the amount of notes in circulation in 1938 was £554 millions. It is now about £5,330 millions. Since 1938 the needed amount has been affected by certain changes, including greater total production (now more than double the 1938 level),
and increased population, which would operate to raise the needed amount of currency. Working in the opposite direction has been the wider use of cheques, etc. and corresponding reduced need for notes and coin”Obviously I was using the same argument about cashless payments that Hardy was with regards to cheques
“For Marx the Quantity Theory was valid only where there was an inconvertible paper currency (as today). In that case if the amount of money was increased the result would indeed be a rise in the general price level.”
But surely that was I was saying (and if I am right that Hardy was saying). i.e. If I keep the Kilgallon billions tucked away under the bed, it isn’t circulating.
In the same way a large amount of cash is resting in the form of money held as effectively cash in hand by the general population. As we move to more cashless societies millions of people hav stopped hanging on larger amounts of cash in hand dues to the fact that you don’t need to have as much. I personally carry far less cash than I used to, I’m sure commercial organisations work in the same way. for example, thinking about pubs, the amount of physical cash stored before banking must have fallen substantially as well as the amount held back in the form of a float. Or am I missing something?
DJP – “My thought on your third one is that the faster the velocity of money, the less of it is needed to do the same volume of transactions within the same period of time – all other things being equal. Faster velocity of circulation just means that the same amount of money is doing more work, not that more money is circulating.”
Surely due to less money being needed to do the same job, this would increase the amount of money being circulated? Is it not that a proportion of the cash that used to be hanging around in wallets, cash registers, down the back of the settee, in piggy banks, etc. is out and about circulating?
A bit like a football team where there used to be 11 players with 5 on the bench, the players on the bench (the cash that was in the wallets, purses, piggy banks, etc.) are now out the pitch.
I’m pretty sure Hardy wrote something about this. It might have been in “Some Aspects of Marxian Economics”, I can’t find my copy of it and I can’t find a PDF on line.
Lew – I am not a German scholar, but I have a good friend who is German and works as a German – English (and sometimes as a German Geordie) translator. Therefore I was working on the basis of his notes and guidance on the subject based on his use of early publications written in German.
My assumption has always been that due to Freud’s later use of das Unterbewusste that later English translations of das Unbewusste have been using Freud’s later expressed preference for das Unterbewusste. Perhaps a 1st edition of “The Interpretation of Dreams” in the original German, might solve the question.
I just checked on line and the earliest German edition for sale is from 1921 (22 years later) and is priced at £437.00, so buying a copy might have to be a unfulfilled wish. I’ll let you know what it’s like if I ever dream about it.
With regards to the subconscious-unconscious debate (going on for at least the last 100 years.
Freud originally used it interchangeably with “unconscious” at the outset. The words in German are similar (subconscious is das Unterbewusste; unconscious is das Unbewusste), although I agree he eventually stuck with the term unconscious. (similar debate between the orignal use of the word Socialism and Communism)
I used the term subconscious, to differentiate it from unconscious in this debate as I didn’t want to link it to the more common use of the term i.e. knocked out cold.
Well, to be fair, MS, if those are the topics you want to post about, no one is stopping you or critising you for your posting.
Nor does any discussion I have with L Bird or with who ever I, or any one else choose to get into discussion, stop you from starting any discussions you want to start or contribute to, or in any way hamper you from having those discussions.
If you feel it “dominates” discussion, put some other topics on the board.
Anyway 29 posts in 8 days, is hardly dominating anything.
You say that “I like to be concrete and I go directly to the point and I do not turn it into an academic discussion”, however it is implied that you are saying that others should follow your preference and only have the kinds of discussion you wish to have.If you don’t want to read these postings, there is no requirement that you do.
Socialism is also about choice and free expression.
I don’t want to turn this into a spat, however I openly responded to YOUR postings. I don’t and have not criticised any area of debate you want to take part in, I would really appreciate it if you would respect my right to discuss topics that interest me, and in my right to dicuss them in the way that I choose to.
Yours for Socialism
I am using the term conscious mind, within the commonly used framework derived from Freud. The conscious mind in this sense means, as a part of mind which is responsible for rationalizing, paying attention, logical thinking and reasoning.
For example, if an individual is asked to add one and one, it is the conscious mind which will work out the calculation and give the answer.
In this framework the subconscious mind includes the parts of the mind that are not actively consciously being engaged, i.e. out of awareness, but are still influential on the outcomes of thought and behaviour.
An example of this is sub conscious bias. Say for a person’s formative years they been subjected to a plethora TV shows titles Saturday sunshine showtime or such like, full of cheerful, happy go luck Liverpudlian comedians, such as Stan Boardman, Tom O’Connor and Jimmy Tarbuck, and this had been further supplemented by fecking Cilla Black shouting “Surprise, surprise” over the bloody television. This unhappy individual might find that they have the subconscious desire when they meet another Liverpudlian to squeeze the throat of said Liverpudlian, so tightly that they strangle the poor hapless stranger to death, without realising that it is the build up of scouse tomfoolery that has led to this behavioural impulse.
Also included in that subconscious activity (note I am using the term subconscious, not unconscious) are the instinctual behaviours that I used as examples.
The reason that I made the examples I gave were aimed to discount the view of the Behaviourist school, such as BF Skinner, who argued that effectively all human personality is a result of a collection of operantly conditioned responses, based on reward and punishment.
I am not saying that these behaviours are not part of the human mind, just not part of the conscious mind
I’ve got to say that I’m surprised and perhaps even a little disappointed about the replies some of the members of this forum have put on the boards about this topic:
“What’s the point of these kinds of non exchanges”
“Every topic must be converted into a cockfight and an academic discussion”
for example
If one of the topics on the board is not something that interests you, then don’t read it.
If you think there should be some other topic being discussed, then put a post on the board about it.
No one is forcing you to read the topics you’re not interested in, there is no rationing on debate on the forum, so other members discussing whatever interests them does not interfere with your right to discuss what you want.
Surely we are part of a libertarian organisation, not some kind of Leninist group think sect, where all debate and discussion needs to be focussed on the needs of the vanguard.
I am fully aware of the fact that engaging with L Bird is like arm wrestling a double jointed octopus which has covered itself in baby oil and dropped a tab of acid, but if I choose to engage with him, what the F**k has it got to do with anyone else. L Bird may be a lot of things, but he doesn’t demand that other posters stop posting about issues that he is not particularly interested. Similarly I know my interests are often not the ones that other posters feel strongly about, the one going vegan/veggie debate does nothing for me, for instance, but I don’t try and suggest that we stifle debate about this subject.
