James McClean

[Finnaldo]

26 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Well no not really but I get the sentiement. The first World War yes I have no idea how it escalated into the bloody conflict that it did, many a theory knocking around, but I think had the main players known what we know about modern warfare you perhaps might have seen a more conservative approach, the way wars were fought changed dramatically during this conflict, I don't think either side were quite ready or were expecting the four years that followed.

 

World War 2 was necessary, in fact I would argue we should of kicked off a lot sooner than we did we might not have ended up in the shit back to the walls situation that we found ourselves in.  

 

I think the argument of futility transcends the geopolitical and ideological landscape. Yes, the Second World War was necessary to counter National Socialism and the corresponding extreme antisemitism and land grabs. But the NEED, as a collective species, for the solution to be a devastating worldwide war is needed to eliminate extreme nationalism, was avoidable in the first place and renders the entire thing futile. The fact we're a species capable of empathy and measured reason, with thousands of years of recorded warfare and suffering, and still regularly find enough hatred to bomb a hospital to push an ideal or take a bit of land is the point.

 

Obviously though, when you do factor in geopolitical and ideological standing of modern society it becomes a lot easier to understand. I will always be easier to kill a few hundred of 'them if you can save fifty of 'you', and it's pretty hard to move on from that when that's a mindset imprinted into so many people. 

[Manwell Pablo]

2 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

I think the argument of futility transcends the geopolitical and ideological landscape. Yes, the Second World War was necessary to counter National Socialism and the corresponding extreme antisemitism and land grabs. But the NEED, as a collective species, for the solution to be a devastating worldwide war is needed to eliminate extreme nationalism, was avoidable in the first place and renders the entire thing futile. The fact we're a species capable of empathy and measured reason, with thousands of years of recorded warfare and suffering, and still regularly find enough hatred to bomb a hospital to push an ideal or take a bit of land is the point.

 

Obviously though, when you do factor in geopolitical and ideological standing of modern society it becomes a lot easier to understand. I will always be easier to kill a few hundred of 'them if you can save fifty of 'you', and it's pretty hard to move on from that when that's a mindset imprinted into so many people. 

 

It's a good point but it it is Utopian thinking. Reality is while we are a species are capable of empathy and reason we are also capable of greed, megalomania, aggression and vengeance. There always be men who want war to force their religion, expand the borders of their country, increase their personal wealth, they will not view it as futile, nor will those attempting to prevent the damage they are causing. 

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

I think the argument of futility transcends the geopolitical and ideological landscape. Yes, the Second World War was necessary to counter National Socialism and the corresponding extreme antisemitism and land grabs. But the NEED, as a collective species, for the solution to be a devastating worldwide war is needed to eliminate extreme nationalism, was avoidable in the first place and renders the entire thing futile. The fact we're a species capable of empathy and measured reason, with thousands of years of recorded warfare and suffering, and still regularly find enough hatred to bomb a hospital to push an ideal or take a bit of land is the point.

 

Obviously though, when you do factor in geopolitical and ideological standing of modern society it becomes a lot easier to understand. I will always be easier to kill a few hundred of 'them if you can save fifty of 'you', and it's pretty hard to move on from that when that's a mindset imprinted into so many people. 

This. This this this fvcking THIS.

 

11 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

It's a good point but it it is Utopian thinking. Reality is while we are a species are capable of empathy and reason we are also capable of greed, megalomania, aggression and vengeance. There always be men who want war to force their religion, expand the borders of their country, increase their personal wealth, they will not view it as futile, nor will those attempting to prevent the damage they are causing. 

I have made this point on here before ad infinitum and I'm sorry to make it again, but if we accept what you're saying just as reality and human nature and it keeps happening, we're tacitally accepting the inevitable future extinction of humanity, either through wiping each other out when sometime doesn't know when to stop one day, or (more likely) failing to deal with an external threat caused by the Earth changing or something from further away until it's way too late.

[Manwell Pablo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

This. This this this fvcking THIS.

 

I have made this point on here before ad infinitum and I'm sorry to make it again, but if we accept what you're saying just as reality and human nature and it keeps happening, we're tacitally accepting the inevitable future extinction of humanity, either through wiping each other out when sometime doesn't know when to stop one day, or (more likely) failing to deal with an external threat caused by the Earth changing or something from further away until it's way too late.

 

Not really. 

 

The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old during that time 1000's of species of creatures have flourished and been wiped out, there are many theories on how long this planet will be habitable but it's a least another Billion years, a million years ago our ancestors had just started to walk up right, and now I am talking to you on the other side of the planet on a computer. At the moment the human species is incapable of what he is suggesting, in fact it's nowhere near, that's not to say in 10 Million years it will not have evolved into something that is capable of it. But for now, it's a reality. 

 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Not really. 

 

The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old during that time 1000's of species of creatures have flourished and been wiped out, there are many theories on how long this planet will be habitable but it's a least another Billion years, a million years ago our ancestors had just started to walk up right, and now I am talking to you on the other side of the planet on a computer. At the moment the human species is incapable of what he is suggesting, in fact it's nowhere near, that's not to say in 10 Million years it will not have evolved into something that is capable of it. But for now, it's a reality. 

 

That's all true Pabs, but perhaps I wasn't making my point clear.

 

I agree that driven by evolution species have grown, thrived, and died, with new ones coming up to replace them. That's due to conflict and competition that the evolutionary principle drives. And for now, as you say, it's likely humans are no exception.

 

However, doesn't it follow that because we aren't that different from other animals that have come before us in that way, that we will end up eventually dying out as they did because we didn't respond to a change in the right way or simply from fighting each other to extinction, as they did?

 

That is what I mean by acceptance of the inevitable future extinction - if humans behave like animals (in the way you describe above), they're going to die like them.

 

Thing is, humans are smart enough to be aware of this situation, and so can choose to not have it happen. If they want to. It's like knowing the future and so being able to change it. Or perhaps not - perhaps it is inevitable, which would be depressing.

[Manwell Pablo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

That's all true Pabs, but perhaps I wasn't making my point clear.

 

I agree that driven by evolution species have grown, thrived, and died, with new ones coming up to replace them. That's due to conflict and competition that the evolutionary principle drives. And for now, as you say, it's likely humans are no exception.

 

However, doesn't it follow that because we aren't that different from other animals that have come before us in that way, that we will end up eventually dying out as they did because we didn't respond to a change in the right way or simply from fighting each other to extinction, as they did?

 

That is what I mean by acceptance of the inevitable future extinction - if humans behave like animals (in the way you describe above), they're going to die like them.

 

Thing is, humans are smart enough to be aware of this situation, and so can choose to not have it happen. If they want to. It's like knowing the future and so being able to change it. Or perhaps not - perhaps it is inevitable, which would be depressing.

 

Smart enough to be aware, just not smart enough to do anything about it but that is not the point. Perhaps I am not making myself clear I am not talking about a separate entity here, we change dramatically, for example the species I refer to in the previous post was Homo Erectus which is an extinct sub species, it is just inevitable if the theory of evolution is correct homo sapiens will cease to be and become a more advanced humanoid life form, then they will be replaced, etc, etc. The point is if go from being half monkey half man to what we have now in a million years, who knows what we could be in 10.

 

I personally do think we will wipe ourselves long before this planet comes under threat though.  

 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Smart enough to be aware, just not smart enough to do anything about it but that is not the point. Perhaps I am not making myself clear I am not talking about a separate entity here, we change dramatically, for example the species I refer to in the previous post was Homo Erectus which is an extinct sub species, it is just inevitable if the theory of evolution is correct homo sapiens will cease to be and become a more advanced humanoid life form, then they will be replaced, etc, etc. The point is if go from being half monkey half man to what we have now in a million years, who knows what we could be in 10.

 

I personally do think we will wipe ourselves long before this planet comes under threat though.  

 

 

 

 

 Yeah, that's all pretty plausible. Damn shame, though.

[Finnaldo]

1 hour ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

It's a good point but it it is Utopian thinking. Reality is while we are a species are capable of empathy and reason we are also capable of greed, megalomania, aggression and vengeance. There always be men who want war to force their religion, expand the borders of their country, increase their personal wealth, they will not view it as futile, nor will those attempting to prevent the damage they are causing. 

 

Oh yeah, that's what I meant by the second part of the post, in some way or another human nature will always trump what's 'right' to do, but my point was rather what we see as importance generally only has human meaning on it, and therefore most violent pursuits of it are futile.

[fuchsntf]

4 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

It's a good point but it it is Utopian thinking. Reality is while we are a species are capable of empathy and reason we are also capable of greed, megalomania, aggression and vengeance. There always be men who want war to force their religion, expand the borders of their country, increase their personal wealth, they will not view it as futile, nor will those attempting to prevent the damage they are causing. 

Sad, but true . Even in the most civilised societies, including ours we See misuse,  Political  and financial corruption.

[Strokes]

Yeah but guys, without war there would no decent books to read on holiday.  

[GaelicFox]

5 hours ago, Strokes said:

Yeah but guys, without war there would no decent books to read on holiday.  

Can honestly say never read a war book , can you recommend one ? 

[leicsmac]

56 minutes ago, GaelicFox said:

Can honestly say never read a war book , can you recommend one ? 

 Anything by Larry Bond. He does some awesome ones.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, GaelicFox said:

Can honestly say never read a war book , can you recommend one ? 

Crikey that's a vast field, Sniper one by Dan Mills is one of the best factual accounts I've ever read. I prefer fiction set within factual events, so anything by jack Higgins.

[GaelicFox]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Crikey that's a vast field, Sniper one by Dan Mills is one of the best factual accounts I've ever read. I prefer fiction set within factual events, so anything by jack Higgins.

I'll have a look at these 

 

 I have read lots of books on the troubles in ireland , but they would all be historical factual books 

[Strokes]

Just now, GaelicFox said:

I'll have a look at these 

 

 I have read lots of books on the troubles in ireland , but they would all be historical factual books 

Try Jack Higgins pay the devil, starts with the American civil war and moves to the Irish independence struggle, a fantastic read. You will love it.

[GaelicFox]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Try Jack Higgins pay the devil, starts with the American civil war and moves to the Irish independence struggle, a fantastic read. You will love it.

My old man used to rave about him 

[GaelicFox]

To recap 

 

war is futile , but needed to save Europe , war is pointless , but is needed to assert safety and power , war is evil , but it is needed to make the world safe 

 

and I need to read lots of war books , @Strokes amongst others need to update the lost "war books for @GaelicFox to read"

[Strokes]

43 minutes ago, GaelicFox said:

To recap 

 

war is futile , but needed to save Europe , war is pointless , but is needed to assert safety and power , war is evil , but it is needed to make the world safe 

 

and I need to read lots of war books , @Strokes amongst others need to update the lost "war books for @GaelicFox to read"

Pop around anytime pal i'll happily loan you any you want

[Blue ROI]

I am no great fan of Mcclean as a footballer but I admire him for not falling to the bullying pressure from the likes of Sky and BBC to wear a poppy as so many Irish people and other nationalities are on live TV. It’s good to see someone making a stand against ‘poppy fascism’. I admire Jon Snow for his stance too.

 

FWIW I would have little issue with those from Britain choosing to wear them as a gesture for the people who fought either but it is being turned into a modern day cog for patriotism and anyone who doesn’t fall into line is treated with scorn.  I dare say that Mcclean as someone who is proud of his heritage and culture is also appreciative of several aspects of his life in England and how fortunate he is to have made it in professional football.

 

He has no obligations to pander to the people of England. His obligations are to the West Bromwich Albion club and its supporters. They are the ones who have the most right to express their opinions of him as a professional. 

 

We have our own 1916  events this year but the British born people in our community don’t feel obliged or threatened to get involved to anything like the Irish do in Britain. Judy Murray attended one of our significant events at a Gaelic Football match in Croke Park in April as a guest but I doubt she was forced into our ideals.Premiership Football is hijacked every November by the poppy. Why should it be used when there is so many nationalities in the league.

 

The British would want to scale back the excesses of the poppy obsession. I would be equally dismayed if my relatives from Leicester were given abuse about not respecting the Irish if the roles were reversed.

 

Leicester city fans were rightfully annoyed when accused of not reaching out to the Asian community back in April and May. People  could learn from this video especially the man speaking at the 1.00 mark.

 

 

 

 

[Soar Fox]

The Asian lads I know from Leicester have never been interested one bit about Leicester City. They always claimed to be Liverpool & Man United fans. 

 

They only started taking an interest in Leicester last season when we were challenging at the top. Now we aren't doing well they have gone back to "i've always supported Liverpool innit"