Philosophy Now Forum

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:40 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:34 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:26 pm 'Interesting' that when I google-searched yesterday to find out the percentage of the Swedish population that is muslim it came up as '12-15 percent'. Now the AI google says that it's 'challenging' and gives the 2016 estimate of 8 percent. At the same time it doesn't mind telling me that the muslim population world wide has increased by 150 million since 2020.
AI google's answers seem to change with whichever google nerd is in charge of it on that particular day (or hour). It's pathetic.Why would it be coy about the percentage of muslims in the country?

I could never understand why it's so high in Sweden.

Coincidentally, Sweden is also the rape capital of Europe, though I think that accolade might have very recently been taken by the UK.

Yes, it's very mysterious. It couldn't possibly be connected to the fact that it has a very high number of men who follow a radicalised religion that has a very low opinion of women.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:28 pm No empire in history was set up for altruistic purposes, though all of them, in their later stages, claimed that this was part of their mission. Yet all the great empires of history, the ones that lasted any length of time, were responsible for spreading civilisation, and their influence on history has been a hugely positive one. Have the Italians ever been asked for reparations for the Roman Empire? If not, why not? It was grotesquely exploitative, after all. Or how about the Greeks being forced to cough up cash for the various Hellenistic empires that were formed in the wake of Alexander? Why should there be any arbitrary cut off point?

The UK lost a third of its entire wealth, not to mention its empire, and its infrastructure was bombed to rubble, ridding the world of the Nazis, so as far as I'm concerned, that's debt paid, in full.

It does remind me of an anecdote, though, which may be apocryphal, like so many, about Churchill. He was on a speaking tour of the USA in the 1930s, at a time when Gandhi and his campaign for Indian independence was very much in the news. A member of the audience got up and said to Churchill, "When are you going to give the Indians their freedom?" Churchill replied, "Which Indians, yours or ours?"

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 2:36 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 1:51 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 12:55 pm
I have no quarrel with the above particular Right wing view, which I believe to be correct in some respects. However it's a huge event with repercussions today that the slave- owning Southern states were once part of the British Empire.

You have neglected to say whether or not it's a good thing that English is lingua franca. It is an interesting topic that deserves a separate thread .

The British Empire enriched itself exploiting slave labor in the Carribean. The notorious sugar plantations in which slaves were mistreated even more horrendously than in the American South fueled the industrial revolution. Along with the wealth from India, they made the UK the richest nation on earth. Britain is no longer quite that rich, but it is still wealthier than most of its former colonies. Yet some Brits -- who continue to benefit from the exploitive activities of their ancestors - want to deny those from former colonies the right to immigrate.

For further insight, read Jane Austen's "Mansfield Park", enriched by slave plantations on Antigua. The estate was named, perhaps, after Judge Mansfield, who made
a famous anti-slavery decision in Somerset v. Stewart. The heroine is named Fanny Price, and the same Sir Thomas who manages the slave plantation tries to browbeat her into marrying a rich man she dislikes.

Austen's other reference to slavery is when Jane Fairfax, in Emma, whines that the fate of governesses is almost as unhappy as that of slaves. What a twit!

In any event, Maia and other Brits continue to benefit from colonial exploitation and slavery, albeit indirectly. The "infrastructure" about which Maia boasts was built on the sweat and scars of slave labor. It seems fair that the Brits share the largess with less fortunate denisons of their former empire.

Boy, am I a dumbass, I thought a mind was responsible for the behavior of the body within which it resides.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 2:36 pm Now, I missed my chance to be an infinite cross-dresser. What a stroke of genius this fool is!
And I just bet he would expect to be an enforcer into this cross-dressing slavery scheme of his!
I expect more than this from my toilet paper.
It is a painful revelation when you figure out that your toilet paper is more functional than you.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 2:48 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 2:46 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 2:36 pm [
]Boy, am I a dumbass...]

You'll get no argument from me.

I thought I made that clear to even an idiot, no body gets an argument from you.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:45 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:28 pm No empire in history was set up for altruistic purposes, though all of them, in their later stages, claimed that this was part of their mission. Yet all the great empires of history, the ones that lasted any length of time, were responsible for spreading civilisation, and their influence on history has been a hugely positive one. Have the Italians ever been asked for reparations for the Roman Empire? If not, why not? It was grotesquely exploitative, after all. Or how about the Greeks being forced to cough up cash for the various Hellenistic empires that were formed in the wake of Alexander? Why should there be any arbitrary cut off point?

The UK lost a third of its entire wealth, not to mention its empire, and its infrastructure was bombed to rubble, ridding the world of the Nazis, so as far as I'm concerned, that's debt paid, in full.

It does remind me of an anecdote, though, which may be apocryphal, like so many, about Churchill. He was on a speaking tour of the USA in the 1930s, at a time when Gandhi and his campaign for Indian independence was very much in the news. A member of the audience got up and said to Churchill, "When are you going to give the Indians their freedom?" Churchill replied, "Which Indians, yours or ours?"

And why do those idiots who bang on about 'colonialism' never mention the islamic empire? How exactly do they think there came to be so many muslim countries? Do they think there has only ever been one empire in the history of human kind--the British one? Plus, every single person alive has ancestors who would have been slaves.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:10 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 3:52 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 3:03 pm
It may indeed be "fair". However there must be an arbitrary cut- off point in time when reparations don't apply. Cromwell did huge wrongs to Ireland, so what?

Britain is comparatively rich, and on economic justification alone should pay her share of foreign aid.

It's not a matter of reparations. I'm referring to immigration law. I think (although I'm not sure) that it's easier for British commonwealth citizens to immigrate to the U.K. than for other people. That's what I'm referring to. Why should Maia partake of British infrastructure and wealth when an Indian or Jamaican (whose ancestors were as instrumental in creating the wealth and infrastructure as Maia's) be denied entry?

I admit that since I'm not British, I don't know the immigration laws well. Maybe that's already the case. After all (returning to literature) didn't Kamal's son join a troop of the guides?

Then perhaps you shouldn't comment on things that you know nothing about.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:10 pm It most definitely is not easier for people from Commonwealth countries to emigrate to the UK--quite the reverse in fact. In case you hadn't noticed, England is very densely populated already for somewhere with a small land mass. Western countries with essentially 'open door' immigration aren't exactly doing any favours to 'third world' countries either with their suicidal policies. All it's doing is making them even more 'third world' and causing them economic harm as well as environmental harm to the planet as a whole.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:28 pm No empire in history was set up for altruistic purposes, though all of them, in their later stages, claimed that this was part of their mission. Yet all the great empires of history, the ones that lasted any length of time, were responsible for spreading civilisation, and their influence on history has been a hugely positive one.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:28 pm Have the Italians ever been asked for reparations for the Roman Empire? If not, why not? It was grotesquely exploitative, after all. Or how about the Greeks being forced to cough up cash for the various Hellenistic empires that were formed in the wake of Alexander? Why should there be any arbitrary cut off point?

The UK lost a third of its entire wealth, not to mention its empire, and its infrastructure was bombed to rubble, ridding the world of the Nazis, so as far as I'm concerned, that's debt paid, in full.

It does remind me of an anecdote, though, which may be apocryphal, like so many, about Churchill. He was on a speaking tour of the USA in the 1930s, at a time when Gandhi and his campaign for Indian independence was very much in the news. A member of the audience got up and said to Churchill, "When are you going to give the Indians their freedom?" Churchill replied, "Which Indians, yours or ours?"

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:40 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:34 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:26 pm 'Interesting' that when I google-searched yesterday to find out the percentage of the Swedish population that is muslim it came up as '12-15 percent'. Now the AI google says that it's 'challenging' and gives the 2016 estimate of 8 percent. At the same time it doesn't mind telling me that the muslim population world wide has increased by 150 million since 2020.
AI google's answers seem to change with whichever google nerd is in charge of it on that particular day (or hour). It's pathetic.Why would it be coy about the percentage of muslims in the country?

I could never understand why it's so high in Sweden.

Coincidentally, Sweden is also the rape capital of Europe, though I think that accolade might have very recently been taken by the UK.

Yes, it's very mysterious. It couldn't possibly be connected to the fact that it has a very high number of men who follow a radicalised religion that has a very low opinion of women.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 6:11 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:28 pm No empire in history was set up for altruistic purposes, though all of them, in their later stages, claimed that this was part of their mission. Yet all the great empires of history, the ones that lasted any length of time, were responsible for spreading civilisation, and their influence on history has been a hugely positive one.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The greed and the selfishness, which comes from the spreading of so-called 'civilization/s', is what has and is, still, in the days when this is being written, contributing, causing, and/or creating the bickering, conflicts, stress, wars, and pollution, which are obviously the downfall of humanity and of their one and only home.

And, if you want to call 'that', a hugely positive one, then just how blind, closed, and stupid some people can become, then there is the proof.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:28 pm Have the Italians ever been asked for reparations for the Roman Empire? If not, why not? It was grotesquely exploitative, after all. Or how about the Greeks being forced to cough up cash for the various Hellenistic empires that were formed in the wake of Alexander? Why should there be any arbitrary cut off point?

The UK lost a third of its entire wealth, not to mention its empire, and its infrastructure was bombed to rubble, ridding the world of the Nazis, so as far as I'm concerned, that's debt paid, in full.

It does remind me of an anecdote, though, which may be apocryphal, like so many, about Churchill. He was on a speaking tour of the USA in the 1930s, at a time when Gandhi and his campaign for Indian independence was very much in the news. A member of the audience got up and said to Churchill, "When are you going to give the Indians their freedom?" Churchill replied, "Which Indians, yours or ours?"

So, are you, here, suggesting or saying that 'two wrongs make a right', or, that 'because another is doing wrong then it is alright for us to keep doing wrong also'?

If no, then what are .meaning or suggesting, here, exactly?

Imagine being so blind that you actual believed that the country you live in was the, or one of the, 'greatest empires', and that what it has done has done, or has influenced, is hugely positive. LOL One only has to 'look at' 'the world', in the days when this is being written, to recognise and see that 'the world' is in the mess that it is in because of people want to take over and have control of countries and of others.

LOL Imagine being so blind and stupid that you believed that because you were into a family who already had money, and who were already stealing and/or controlling others, then you too also has some sort of 'right' to keep doing the same, obviously, very Wrong and very bad things.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:41 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:37 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 12:45 pm

I also said I'd think about carrying a brick around with me, but I was being ironic then, too.

There are no victims of any exploitation that the British Empire *might* have carried out left alive anywhere in the world today. There are, however, many hundreds of millions of people benefitting from the infrastructure the British Empire left behind in places like Africa and India, even if they haven't updated it much. And that's not to mention the fact that the whole world speaks English, now.

What do you mean by 'whole world', here, exactly?

And, how come in your own tiny little narrowed and closed world and perspective of things you believe there are absolutely no victims, at all, from "british terrorists" and "british colonialists"?

I said their were no victims of the British Empire left alive.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:41 pm Can you perhaps work out why?

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:45 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:28 pm No empire in history was set up for altruistic purposes, though all of them, in their later stages, claimed that this was part of their mission. Yet all the great empires of history, the ones that lasted any length of time, were responsible for spreading civilisation, and their influence on history has been a hugely positive one. Have the Italians ever been asked for reparations for the Roman Empire? If not, why not? It was grotesquely exploitative, after all. Or how about the Greeks being forced to cough up cash for the various Hellenistic empires that were formed in the wake of Alexander? Why should there be any arbitrary cut off point?

The UK lost a third of its entire wealth, not to mention its empire, and its infrastructure was bombed to rubble, ridding the world of the Nazis, so as far as I'm concerned, that's debt paid, in full.

It does remind me of an anecdote, though, which may be apocryphal, like so many, about Churchill. He was on a speaking tour of the USA in the 1930s, at a time when Gandhi and his campaign for Indian independence was very much in the news. A member of the audience got up and said to Churchill, "When are you going to give the Indians their freedom?" Churchill replied, "Which Indians, yours or ours?"

And why do those idiots who bang on about 'colonialism' never mention the islamic empire? How exactly do they think there came to be so many muslim countries? Do they think there has only ever been one empire in the history of human kind--the British one? Plus, every single person alive has ancestors who would have been slaves.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:50 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:45 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 03, 2025 5:28 pm No empire in history was set up for altruistic purposes, though all of them, in their later stages, claimed that this was part of their mission. Yet all the great empires of history, the ones that lasted any length of time, were responsible for spreading civilisation, and their influence on history has been a hugely positive one. Have the Italians ever been asked for reparations for the Roman Empire? If not, why not? It was grotesquely exploitative, after all. Or how about the Greeks being forced to cough up cash for the various Hellenistic empires that were formed in the wake of Alexander? Why should there be any arbitrary cut off point?

The UK lost a third of its entire wealth, not to mention its empire, and its infrastructure was bombed to rubble, ridding the world of the Nazis, so as far as I'm concerned, that's debt paid, in full.

It does remind me of an anecdote, though, which may be apocryphal, like so many, about Churchill. He was on a speaking tour of the USA in the 1930s, at a time when Gandhi and his campaign for Indian independence was very much in the news. A member of the audience got up and said to Churchill, "When are you going to give the Indians their freedom?" Churchill replied, "Which Indians, yours or ours?"

And why do those idiots who bang on about 'colonialism' never mention the islamic empire? How exactly do they think there came to be so many muslim countries? Do they think there has only ever been one empire in the history of human kind--the British one? Plus, every single person alive has ancestors who would have been slaves.

The Islamic empire used African slaves for many, many centuries longer than any European power, treated them worse (usually by castrating the men), and never had any change of heart by trying to stamp it out. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia has unlimited money sloshing around. So why don't they ask them for reparations?