Baroness Thatcher has died.

Status
Not open for further replies.
BunnyKillBot said:
Since you are struggling to understand my point, I have re-written it to be more Universal, PG13 and otherwise generally acceptable.
Click to expand...

I am not struggling to understand your point, I simply do not think you have one as the two examples are contrary to each other, and while you seem to think you are not comparing them, you actually are albeit indirectly. The other point is that I don't agree my statement applies to Hitler as I do not agree that Hitler did what was best for Germany as he saw it, I think that he used his position not for the betterment of his country but for his own personal prejudices and thirst for personal power...and no matter how bad people think Thatcherism is it was not in the same ballpark as what Hitler did in Germany, neither is it comparable either directly or indirectly.

So I disagree that the same could be said about Hitler.

BunnyKillBot said:
Am i comparing Churchill, Hitler and Homer Simpsons? NO. I am expressing the blandness of your statement.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what you are doing frankly.
 
Colbaker said:
Unless his parents were so poor they could not afford milk and this poverty was due to something thatcher did then I guess my point is invalid and a bit insensitive.
Click to expand...

Well yes, plenty of kids had free school meals at my comprehensive, and that was one of the ones in a nice area.
The associated stigma that they had to bear, and were made to bear at the callous insistence of the teachers at the time, still sticks in my craw even today :mad:

I'd assume that milk was one of those items that were a luxury too, this is in the day when beans on toast was a proper meal.
If you can give all children a baseline of good health, then do it. If nothing else it gave the farmers a fixed market to supply.
 
elmarko said:
I found the street parties celebrating the death of Bid Laden to be in equally bad taste (not to compare Thatcher to Bin Laden, just the act of celebrating a death) - overall celebrating the death of another is a crass thing to do & over serves to undermine genuine criticism of the persons ideologies and policies.
Click to expand...

Quite.
 
elmarko said:
Subjective, pending on agreed measurable criteria it's entirely possible.
Click to expand...
I think I see what you mean, but I don’t agree. You’ll never get universal agreement to a set of criteria and the criteria you need are inherently non-measurable (if that’s a word). For example, how would you measure her impact on shipbuilding in the UK? Without a doubt shipbuilding declined and effectively died during her leadership. But it could be argued that it would have done so to a significant degree anyway? It’s the uncertainty over the outcome if she had not governed that is the stumbling block. Attempts can be made, but agreement will never be reached.



elmarko said:
The point was just because some people think she's good & other think she's terrible it doesn't mean she fits somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...
But it doesn’t mean she doesn’t either. To some she was undoubtedly bad, to others a god send. The difficulty comes in ascertaining the benefit of her policy’s to the UK as a whole. With this we’re back to it being subjective for the reasons I stated above.


elmarko;24087053She's both extremes & in the middle (pending on viewpoint).[/COLOR said:

"but attempts to paint her solely one way or the other are a disservice to history" - Is the part I was responding to (if that helps).

As it undermines the rest of the point he was making (which was in part valid).
Click to expand...


I don’t quite get this, but I might just be having a slow day.
I’ve always thought of the “argument to moderation” fallacy as being more clear cut. I just don’t think it is in this case.
Probably best to let the discussion get back on topic I suppose.
 
Castiel said:
Quite.
Click to expand...
It's also unproductive, people aren't won over by death celebrations or worship.

It's also crass to hold up in glee somebody who had a very real negative impact on a large sub-set of society, just as it's crass to celebrate her death.

Polite, respectful & honest is all that's required.

Saying "burn in hell witch!!!!!" or "she's the best thing that ever happened to the UK, she's amazing the best!!!!" are pretty clearly both going to cause friction.
 
Saw a bit of the news lastnight

why are most of the people celebrating with bottles of champagne teenagers? :confused: They weren't alive when Thatcher was in power?

Unless they are doing it for their parents, but then it should be the parents out in the streets with the champers?
 
Robbo said:
This tells you all you need to know about the kind of people that think protesting the death of an old woman is fine.
Click to expand...

The event was peaceful and no arrests were made.
Well done all round I think :)

Less embarrassing than elevating her to the status of the royal family, which is what the other side are doing. What next, a gong for Savile for his services to child care?

It's not unheard of to condemn the acts of a person after they are dead, nobody is obliged to keep quiet if they think that person had a malicious and detrimental effect on their lives or the lives of others.
 
glen8 said:
Saw a bit of the news lastnight

why are most of the people celebrating with bottles of champagne teenagers? :confused: They weren't alive when Thatcher was in power?

Unless they are doing it for their parents, but then it should be the parents out in the streets with the champers?
Click to expand...

Because they're a bunch of idiotic hippies who like to jump on the oh-so-easy "Thatcher was a monster" bandwagon of the last 20 years. They're lazy and clearly poorly educated and apparently have nothing better to do.
 
elmarko said:
It's also unproductive, people aren't won over by death celebrations or worship.

It's also crass to hold up in glee somebody who had a very real negative impact on a large sub-set of society, just as it's crass to celebrate her death.

Polite, respectful & honest is all that's required.

Saying "burn in hell witch!!!!!" or "she's the best thing that ever happened to the UK, she's amazing the best!!!!" are pretty clearly both going to cause friction.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
 
Last edited:
mothermachine said:
Because they're a bunch of idiotic hippies who like to jump on the oh-so-easy "Thatcher was a monster" bandwagon of the last 20 years. They're lazy and clearly poorly educated and apparently have nothing better to do.
Click to expand...

Equally they might have a brain and be capable of debating the negative consequences of her policies, in which they have a vested interest because the fallout from her government still affects people today.

You don't have to have to be 40 to have a valid opinion on Thatcher.
 
bitslice said:
Less embarrassing than elevating her to the status of the royal family, which is what the other side are doing. What next, a gong for Savile for his services to child care?
Click to expand...

Giving her a ceremonial funeral does not elevate her to royal status. One must guess that the Savile comment is an attempt at juvenile humour.
 
bitslice said:
Equally they might have a brain and be capable of debating the negative consequences of her policies, in which they have a vested interest because the fallout from her government still affects people today.

You don't have to have to be 40 to have a valid opinion on Thatcher.
Click to expand...

It's clear to me that anyone cheering her death does not have a valid, balanced opinion on Thatcher. I'm 29 as well, by the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom