Let's put this in perspective. We're all rightly very concerned here about the damage the EU is doing to us. We're all rightly very concerned here about the coming monetary and economic collapse. But forget those problems. Whatever happens they're survivable.
This isn't. Coming to your location soon, if you haven't been blessed already:
If this is England, where are the English? (from a commenter's link on the Telegraph
UK facing middle-class brain drain as professionals seek better lives abroad.) Yes, it was produced by the National Front [Ooh!] so I guess some of you might have a problem with that. But don't fret. Try to focus on the 'big picture' here, as the management gurus and other wasters might say. Do that and you'll find you have far better things to worry about. And I mean: really worry — y'know, utter fucking despair type of worry. Yeah.
Now, I'd like to ask some of you a
moral question.
Actually, I have no time for morals and morality, or rather I have no time for
other people's morals and morality but plenty of time for my own. You see, in my experience people generally invoke these on the spot when they have no ARGUMENTS. In principle and to a large extent morals function as axioms, in the mathematical sense. That is, and
very loosely, they are fundamental universal building blocks
for arguments — they are the
givens, the equivalent of the ultimate
undefined terms etc yak yak. As I say, the trouble is that, with most people, they just pull their morals out of a hat or conjure them up out of thin air when they're backed into an argumental corner ['argumental' ought to be word] inventing them just for the purpose in their attempts to
ad hoc their way out of their difficulty. But then they never examine them or their
system of thought (what a joke!) for
consistency. And consistency is very important. Without it every proposition, and its negation, can BOTH be
proved true. In other words, an inconsistent system is worthless. But you know all that. I just wanted to remind you. Incidentally, this explains why law is such a conceptual sewer — but that's a further digression. The upshot is that in building one's version of morality one needs to be extremely parsimonious and extremely careful in his choice of morals otherwise he'll very quickly end up disappearing up his own backside.
And the moral question I want to ask?
Oh, never mind — forget it.
Hi Dai. :)
I have a friend in your position — there's nothing wrong with a little 'spice' but it should be avoided as the nation's main diet. He's needlessly concerned too, but I'm not entirely sure I'm enamoured of his 'morality'. I have no desire to set myself up in the business of puritanical judgement but it strikes me that he's rather keen on 'externalising' the cost of his, which is not really very nice, especially when one considers the "
do as you would be done by" maxim. Some might even call it immoral, but there ya go. Consistency is a funny business. Maybe he'll revisit it — yeah,
revisit (he's no dummy either) — when he's up to ears in wogs and coons. Just give it a few more years. It'll probably take a little longer for, say, outer rural Pembrokeshire to be nicely enriched but on present course it's just a matter of time. Then you too can have fun with the axiomatics.
'Decent' people (that's most of them) need to get their heads out of their arseholes. Meanwhile, Rosie and others should send them their bill, along with a freebie jar of Vaseline and a six-pack of Andrex to ease their passage back to rationality.
