4 ms·
Regarding ex-colonies: Don't we have to eventually "let bygones be bygones"? Otherwise, where do we draw the line? How far do we go back? Those original human
by TrispusAttucks 5y ago
Regarding ex-colonies:
Don't we have to eventually "let bygones be bygones"?
Otherwise, where do we draw the line? How far do we go back? Those original human perpetrators are long dead.
"Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin."
~ Deuteronomy 24:16
- basisword 5y agoI'm not arguing that, it's a bigger debate. But claiming that the UK exists as it does because of a long commitment to freedom (when the colonies are a big example of the antithesis of freedom) is dishonest.
- TrispusAttucks 5y agoPerhaps, but there is some [1] history to suggest that the case could be made that the UK does have a long history of commitment to freedom. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28866094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28866094
- boffinism 5y ago"The Lord is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation." ~ Numbers 14:18
- TrispusAttucks 5y agoYes. ;) A phrase for ever situation. So versatile.
- sudosysgen 5y agoIf by letting bygones be bygones you mean accepting people brazenly lying about their history, then no.
- TrispusAttucks 5y agoWhat span of time must pass before achievements are permitted to no longer be stained by transgressions of the past? It is either: A. Never B. Sometime If you feel it's A then there's nothing to debate. If you feel it's B then let's haggle over the definition of sometime? It appears my definition is that that "sometime" is now. Your definition is sometime in the future.
- sudosysgen 5y agoWhat do you mean? The MP was talking about past achievements, saying that the history of the UK was enlightened by freedom. There is not even an argument about what you're talking about, because they actually are referring to historic achievements. It's not as interesting to talk about present achievements because the UK is clearly in decline. That's why this politician was identifying their ideology with the glorious past and romanticizing it.
- TrispusAttucks 5y agoSo there is literally no positives from UK's history? Any positives are negated by past malevolent actions?
- sudosysgen 5y agoI'm sure there are positives, but the UK's history is clearly not about freedom. The UK's history is subjugating a massive amount of people. So claiming that the UK has its historic achievements because of freedom is just blatant revisionism. You could definitely find some good things though.
- TrispusAttucks 5y agoThat's fair. I need to brush up on it's history. Thanks for your comments! -- EDIT: Upon some cursory research I still am not sure I can agree with your assessment. -- [1] Bill of Rights : 1689 [2] United Kingdom : 1707 [3] Civil Liberties in UK : (various dates) [4] Magna Carta : 1215 [5] Parliamentary Privilege -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#Kingdom_of_Great_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#Kingdom_of_Grea... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties_in_the_United_... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege