Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

I've no problem with lawyers at all, provided that they're on MY side!

 

Otherwise, I prefer the Shakesperean assessment.....

That would be a disaster... ...see your first statement!

(The problem, as I see it, is that most laws are created by lawyers, under the guise of being Members of Parliament, which strikes me as a conflict of interest. ;) )

 

Went out with a couple of lawyers when younger. Great date, ‘cos you know that sinner [sic! *] or later you will get screwed...

 

* Autocorrect being amusing.

Edited by Regularity
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Optimistic, if I may say so!

Of course you may, just as I may say that I disagree!

(They are an essential part of due process.)

 

And autocorrect changed sooner to sinner in my post, which is rather funny so I shall leave it there!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

If everyone acted within the perspective of enlightened long-term self-interest, we wouldn’t need any laws at all, as we would always be looking forward to what is best for the sustainable survival of the human race and the planet. (Although sometimes I wonder if the latter might not be better served by the absence of the last 2 centuries of the former.)

Don't blame lawyers, or laws, or, even, law-makers.

 

Blame Original Sin.

 

My job is simply to help people to do the right thing (whether they want to or not, and they usually don't, to begin with anyway).

I presume you mean that if people behaved themselves, we wouldn’t need laws? ;)
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Ah. “Spare us The Cutter: couldn’t cut the mustard...”

 

(A truly excellent band: live performances had to be experienced.)

Edited by Regularity
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regularity

 

Even enlightened long-term self-interest probably wouldn’t obviate need for laws, because any individual might conclude that is perfectly well with their interests, or rather that of their descendants (gene-line), to murder vast numbers of other people, in order to protect future access to resources, provided that it could be done without igniting a mutually destructive train of events. And, even short of murder, the same could be said of simply preventing others having access to resources.

 

The logic of self-interest would seem to suggest that one ought to become as powerful as possible, so powerful as to guarantee conclusive, outright, take-no-prisoners, victory, then crash ahead with aggressive war. The bullies shall inherit the earth, so to speak.

 

And, tragically, it’s not as if I’m the first to think that, and even more tragically plenty of people/nations have acted upon it, and some are almost certainly acting upon it right at this very moment.

 

Anyway, back to playing trains, which is the best duvet to hide under.

 

Kevin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regularity

 

Even enlightened long-term self-interest probably wouldn’t obviate need for laws, because any individual might conclude that is perfectly well with their interests, or rather that of their descendants (gene-line), to murder vast numbers of other people, in order to protect future access to resources, provided that it could be done without igniting a mutually destructive train of events. And, even short of murder, the same could be said of simply preventing others having access to resources.

 

The logic of self-interest would seem to suggest that one ought to become as powerful as possible, so powerful as to guarantee conclusive, outright, take-no-prisoners, victory, then crash ahead with aggressive war. The bullies shall inherit the earth, so to speak.

 

And, tragically, it’s not as if I’m the first to think that, and even more tragically plenty of people/nations have acted upon it, and some are almost certainly acting upon it right at this very moment.

 

Anyway, back to playing trains, which is the best duvet to hide under.

 

Kevin

 

Indeed, the social contract is all very well, but I think Hobbes was right in thinking that the deontological imperative to behave in accordance with moral and religious precepts was insufficiently strong without enforcement by the Leviathan. Enlightenment rationalists overlook that to their peril, I reckon.

 

What?  Oh,yes, pass the mustard would you?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

In my mind, enlightened long-term self-interest means that no one individual is capable of making these decisions.

Unfortunately, that only leads to utilitarianism, relativism, and rule by the mob, and we are back where we started: bathing in the mustard.

 

That spinning noise you hear is my own mind going round in circles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind, enlightened long-term self-interest means that no one individual is capable of making these decisions.

Unfortunately, that only leads to utilitarianism, relativism, and rule by the mob, and we are back where we started: bathing in the mustard.

 

That spinning noise you hear is my own mind going round in circles.

 

You mean like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, never ending or beginning, on an ever-spinning reel?

 

Yeah, I get that.  I reckon it's tinnitus.

 

Meanwhile, I have elsewhere, for the moment, addressed the invidious suggestion that yellow vans should start appearing in west Norfolk: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/129858-colmans-wagons-real-and-model/page-2&do=findComment&comment=3001862

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of this, mustard aside, depends upon whether you believe that human beings, taken as whole, have a tendency towards some kind of perfection, or a tendency towards a rather nasty form of savagery, and I think that C18th philosophers identified that dichotomy pretty clearly.

 

I’m afraid that, on balance, my view is that we tend to biologically-driven savagery, only having occasional flashes of enlightenment, and that charismatic individuals are quite capable of pulling the herd in all sorts of directions, savage or enlightened.

 

If we are progressing towards an enlightened future, it seems to be on a “two steps forwards, one and nine-tenths steps backwards” basis.

 

(Maybe an hour before dinner, spent refereeing my daughter and nephew in a chess match that tended towards fisticuffs has coloured my view)

 

Horseradish sauce, anyone?

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of this, mustard aside, depends upon whether you believe that human beings, taken as whole, have a tendency towards some kind of perfection, or a tendency towards a rather nasty form of savagery, and I think that C18th philosophers identified that dichotomy pretty clearly.

 

 

 

Yes, that is a fair point. To understand people's frailties, to attack the wrongs of society, and, yet, evince a profound empathy with people and remain essentially optimistic about them is a rare trick.  I think we look to fiction for a man who accomplished this in the Eighteenth Century; Henry Fielding.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A few hours away from the computer and we've all gone philosophcal and In Our Timey!

 

Some pretty good points and, given the babblings of the self-proclaimed Stable Genius, all I can echo is, "pass me the duvet"!

 

Ah. “Spare us The Cutter: couldn’t cut the mustard...”

(A truly excellent band: live performances had to be experienced.)

 

Ahh EaTB....

 

I saw them at Erics when they still had the drum machine!

 

(Now there's a place where "falling down drunk" didn't apply as the floor was so sticky...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Ahh EaTB....

 

I saw them at Erics when they still had the drum machine!

 

Echo himself!

(Now there's a place where "falling down drunk" didn't apply as the floor was so sticky...)

Now, what were you thinking of, when you dreamt that up?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is a fair point. To understand people's frailties, to attack the wrongs of society, and, yet, evince a profound empathy with people and remain essentially optimistic about them is a rare trick.  I think we look to fiction for a man who accomplished this in the Eighteenth Century; Henry Fielding.  

The human condition is beset with conundrums,

 

Most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally evil, but by people being fundamentally people

Terry Pratchett

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm lost. Electric shocks, philosophy, mustard vans, drum machines, Dr Who, scantily dressed ladies (and not so scantily dressed) and of course trap points - or are all the other topics actually variants of the last?

But it just proves yet again that here is the nether world of the Edwardians we can have a civilised conversation about almost anything (all at the same time) without any one throwing their toys out of the perambulator.

I must remember not to turn my back for more than five minutes.

Jonathan

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning tea is served.

 

I have ordered an H2 Brighton Atlantic in SR Olive green, which is barely Edwardian in any sense, but at least it diverts the mind.  One needs to be careful of Atlantic overindulgence at all times, and given that I have continuing doubts about LBSCR colours, I shall remain calm, undiverted by the call to the prescribed thinking many, some of whom are called,so I believe, celebrities, even in the world of modelling..

 

That said, if Oprah stands for US President, we are lost.

 

Yesterday I received a book, 'LMS Locomotive Profiles No.13 The Standard Compounds' by Hunt, Essery and Jennison, Wild Swan, and it is full of Edwardian posed photos, full plate pages from glass negatives, fold-out plans showing every rivet, I believe it should be required reading in any good school.

 

edit; as well as Dickens, Hardy, Maughn, Priestley, perhaps Hector Hugh Munro, and O S Nock of course..... 

Edited by robmcg
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...