[Ed]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

To socialist punk and northern light. Do not allow Ed or anyone else put you off the Party. The Party and its case is bigger than one or two members. I believe the attitude of Ed is driving members and potential members away. I have said in the past it would be difficult to pass a conference resolution dealing with such attituded but the party needs to deal with the problem, perhaps using the Rule dealing with action detrimental. To edYour comments 'bullshit' and 'shit' to refer to a socialist's comments are not welcome on this forum. Are you REALLY in the party for socialism? Or is there another reason? WHERE IS 'ADMIN'? HOW MANY WARNINGS  BEFORE BEING REMOVED FROM FORUM?

Cry me a fucking river pal you lot love to dish it out but you run away crying anytime anyone gives it back.Oh yeah conspiracy theories real c;lassy

[Ed]

northern light wrote:

 trying to make construcive suggestions,

that's a matter of opinion mainly I've just seen incessant whinging

northern light wrote:

Nothing threatening, nothing abusive.

Coming from the guy who threatened to punch my lights out. Fucking hypocriteI've behaved like a fucking saint and let a lot of your attacks slide but I've had enough of the constant attacks from you and Socialist Punk. I disagree with his unfounded assertion and he responds with an attack on me and I'm the fucking bad guy? Fuck that

northern light wrote:

Don't bother to reply, I won't be here to see.

My heart bleeds

[Ed]

Your post is utter shit you haven't even read what I've wrote more strawmen and ad hom. Lets examine what you think the problem is…………… The socialist party is not presenting it's message in a way that can be understood by the majority of workers,Can you show some evidence of this because I think the opposite is true. Here's two exampleshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6OAYYEQaQ0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fzGmajVtDAPerfectly clear, perfectly understandable. Now would you like to tell us why you feel that the two speakers in these videos are putting across a message which goes over workers heads?Time to start backing up your bull shitHope that question is not too intellectual for you, I know there was a few words over 3 syllables there

[Ed]

What one person finds intellectual another person would find normal. I was speaking to a couple of colleagues the other day about philosophy and I had to raise my game because my arguments were too basic, the other didn't know what a stock broker was or an eel or an avocado. (don't ask how those three things came up in a single conversation). it seems to me that you are saying that we need to stop using intellectual words (whatever they are) because workers don't understand them. Well workers are not a homogenous group. They have different levels of education in different areas. To some using basic language is more appealing but to others you just look stupid and utopian because they want the full argument presented in a scientific way. So when talking to workers about socialism you have to adapt what you are saying. If anything the membership should be improving their theoretical knowledge not trying to dumb down.

[Ed]

oh ok sorry I get it now

[Ed]

Of our recent debates the one I thought would go the worst actually went the best. I really enjoyed the positive money debate. Whereas the zeitgeist one was fairly embarrassing and the CPGB one was just a very strange atmosphere, but I think a lot of that was down to them.

[Ed]

SocialistPunk wrote:

You may have also missed my real frustration at how members often conduct themselves here and in the real world.Intellectual waffle and aggressive criticism do not win any popularity contests. I am afraid it boils down to the cliche of winning hearts and minds. If the party chooses to ignore this then all the activity, old and new will not change a thing.The party (ie members) needs to take a long hard look at itself. Is aggressive criticism the better approach, has it worked well to date. Or is it time for a less aggressive, more interactive, nurturing, educational approach.

I couldn't disagree more with this dumb it down use kid gloves approach. I think we all have our own individual style and I would hope that most of us try to tailor a conversation to the individual we're talking to. You'd get pretty boring if you just said the same thing over and over again in the same manner and even if a certain style works with most it may seem ridiculous to another. And I think if you stop using scientific language too much you risk loosing actual theory by diluting it. Anyway what I'm saying is it depends who you are talking to and people respond differently to different styles.I should also say that I used to hold the exact same position as you on this.But I was wrong  I think either you've had some very bad experiences with someone when you were in North East Branch or you are working off a false assumption. Because in my experience members are excellent at conveying their message on a one to one basis and I've not yet seen one member who has the same style as another.

[Ed]

SocialistPunk wrote:

DJP mentioned short films for the net, YouTube being the ideal place.

I believe one member who is very experienced in film making offered to hold training sessions at HO. I know one had been scheduled in the past but i was unable to make it so I'm not sure if it went ahead. But this is definitely an area we need to press on with. It doesn't have to be spectacular, we could just start off making visuals to go along with the many many audio files we have and then uploading them to youtube.

SocialistPunk wrote:

1)  Viral e-mails (not sure if that is the right term, the ones that you pass around) with humour and a message. The right wing seem to use this a lot, peddling their racist bullshit.

I'd be against this, I don't think I've ever received one but generally I would have thought they are either ignored or filtered as spam. The cost would also have to be taken into account. Companies who send spam e-mails actually buy lists of e-mail addresses and frankly I'd oppose giving money to scum bags who make their living off of collecting information on people and selling it to the highest bidder.

[Ed]

Thanks for the link Jon great article

[Ed]

northern light wrote:

Do I believe the creation of the Universe is a scientific question ? You bet your bottom dollar I do, 100%

Whoopie we got there. I was starting to feel like Paxman interviewing Michael Howard.

[Ed]

northern light wrote:

Ed wrote:

Now I appreciate humor is incredibly difficult in conversation over the internet. So much of being able to tell when someone is joking or not is down to facial expression, tone of voice and body language. That's why in this medium I always find it better to answer a straight question with a straight answer. Otherwise you end up with a breakdown in communication and misunderstanding like the one we have now.

Hi Ed, I thought you frowned on joking , on a serious political forum, such as this. Ok, cheap shot, I just couldn't resist it………. no need to explain, it's just light banter.

Except you fail to have noticed that I wasn't answering a straight question with a completely unrelated surreal joke, whereas you were.So for the 4th or 5th time nowWhy do you consider that the creation of the universe is a religious question rather than a scientific one?

[Ed]

gnome wrote:

Yeah, but Russell's observation about the teapot was analogous and seems to have been missed; here it is again:-

nah don't worry I got it the first time

[Ed]

northern light wrote:

Hi Ed,  I just want to put a different slant on the teapot reasoning.As mankind has never been in this region of our solar-system, the tea pot can not be of man's making, but because the teapot is a manufactured, and not a natural object it must belong to the Creator.      Silly isn't it.

Firstly it was a joke so it was meant to be silly But there would be more than one answer, a creator carelessly leaving a teapot floating in space would not be the most likely scenario. Not least because the space station jettisons it's rubbish into space. But here's one for yaIs the universe infinite?If it isn't what's on the other side?If it is then that has some rather bizarre consequences. Since there is a finite number of molecules in the universe the possibilities of what is out there is infact endless. If you put a finite quantity into an infinite space eventually the same sequence will start to repeat. Meaning that somewhere in the universe there is another version of earth there is another version of the SPGB there is even another version of me and you having this exact same conversation. And then there would also be another version of me and you having the exact same conversation in reverse it would be completely endless.That's if the universe is an infinite space. Now that may seem impossible and it actually makes my brain hurt to think about for too long. But the point is it's backed by physics and mathematics as a possibility. Where as the existence of god isn't.I also think it's funny that the thread has come back around to the question I asked which you refused to answer which is why must the creator have a religous, supernatural answer to it instead of a scientific one?

[Ed]

gnome wrote:

In his books A Devil's Chaplain (2003) and The God Delusion (2006), Richard Dawkins used the teapot as an analogy of an argument against what he termed "agnostic conciliation", a policy of intellectual appeasement that allows for philosophical domains that concern exclusively religious matters.  Science has no way of establishing the existence or non-existence of a creator.  Therefore, according to the agnostic conciliator, because it is a matter of individual taste, belief and disbelief in a supreme being are deserving of equal respect and attention.  Dawkins presents the teapot as a reductio ad absurdum of this position; if agnosticism demands giving equal respect to the belief and disbelief in a supreme being, then it must also give equal respect to belief in an orbiting teapot, since the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being or creator.

Or more so since we can confirm the existence of teapots and of objects which are in orbit

[Ed]

Tom Rogers wrote:

Then there are the political critics.  As I understand it, their arguments against the SPGB (and thus against socialism) can be summarised as follows:-From the radical Left: "The SPGB has theorised itself into inactivity and sterility.  What we need is revolutionary activity rooted in the working class and centred around transitional demands.  You SPGB'ers sneer and call us reformists, but we're not.  Our party will lead the working class to socialism by providing a bridge to class consciousness proper.  Relentless, day-to-day political campaigning activity is needed otherwise the working class has no hope of attaining consciousness and a revolution will never happen."I think the criticism from the Right is fairly easy to dismiss so I won't bother discussing it further here.  The strongest criticism – in my view – comes from the radical Left.  Should we take any of it to heart?  Is there anything we can learn from our opponents' methods?  Are they right on some points?  Do they have a point at all?  

I always ask them to show me the evidence that all their action actually helps to spread class consciousness. They can't. Because raising class consciousness is not a priority. They want followers not a conscious working class who will be able to hold them to account.The other argument which has a little more weight is that class consciousness comes about through learned class struggle, i.e.. through the struggle for reforms. At which point I usually bring up the Lenin/Kautsky quote about trade union consciousnessBut whatever the left are not really doing any better than us despite all of their action.

[Author]

Posts