The day that Thatcher dies

There are many possible means to get to the end:
sterilisation
murder
enforced isolation
mutilation
I'm sure there are loads of other means to the end, all of which are pretty vile but could be justified with long term goals, the overall suffering would decrease massively after a few generations and eventually be all but extinct.


I would just like to point out again that I'm only playing devils advocate here!

 

*shrug*

Then I really can't be assed debating it.

 

Most leaders seem to get voted in because of their charisma, personality and how good they are at public speaking. Not for their policies.

In my opinion some of the best politicians have not been skilled public speakers and that has always gone against them at election time.

Also it was Chamberlain who stood up to Hitler, he also did everything he could to prevent war, this was before Churchill became PM.

source: http://www.pcworks.demon.co.uk/magazine/documents/zzwinstonc.htm

 

Also Churchill was not voted to power, he was appointed by George V after the resignation of Neville Chamberlain in 1940

 

I strongly agree. I'm actually in the tiny minority that thinks that Neil Kinnock would've been a superb prime minister. I still remember when he lost his last general election, and stood in front of the cameras admitting defeat. He said words to the effect that he was not sorry for Labour or himself that they'd lost the election, but rather he was sorry for the people of Britain, whom they'd no longer have the chance to help. I was struck at the time by the genuine sincerity of the man. I saw a politician who actually wanted office in order to do good. Regardless of whether you agreed with his policies, he was that rarest of things - a politician with moral conviction. But the public never warmed to him because he was a poor public speaker and easily portrayed as a bufoon.

 

I agree with that totally, at that time the Conservatives were being professionally marketed by Saatchi and Saatchi and most of their campaign was not about what the conservatives could do for the country, but more about how bad the labour government could be.

 

Yeah, Satan and Satan! I remember them well.

 

so neville chamberlain stood up to hitler when did this happen he declared war after following a policy of appeasement for years ...was that standing up?

and as I remember labour at the time of kinnock and foot seemed to be following a very simular policy of disarmament thats partly why they didnt get elected it wasnt that kinnock was a bad speaker I thought he was pretty good and a nice man

eugenics wasnt considered as extream at the time as it is now I believe it was carried out by a number of countrys I believe switzerland and some nordic countrys apart from the nazis

its easy to say that churchill was just a amiable man with a cigar but he was a great war leader most people after dunkirk would have made a deal with hitler thats what most people in the world thought we would do

churchill didnt he fought a war against the germans and japanese after british forces had been run down by years of appeasement (which he warned about)
with a country that when he became prime minister was on the verge of defeat

I suppose you can paint neville chamberlain the man who sold out much of europe as a hero and churchill as just some bloke with a big cigar its not a view i take or most of my father and mothers generation who fought and won that war

 

yeah lets keep in topic here ppl. the majority on here dislike maggie thatcher slightly, if you did like her then why dont u just say "the day that Thatcher dies the world will end" or summink like that. save the reat for the politics forum please. love to you all... jen x

 

What you're missing out here are the individual's inalienable human rights. All the people you are talking about are individuals with rights. Regardless of whatever disabilities they have, how can you justify a government taking away a person's right to choose how to live their life? Certain disabilities offer positive cultural benefits, such as blind culture, deaf culture. What about Stephen Hawking? Would you sterilise him? Eugenics would lead to homogeneity and a lack of diversity and might even mean that geniuses like Hawking are not born. If the people in question feel they can lead perfectly fine lives and feel that they want to have children, the choice is nobody's but their own. And the world is a richer place for it.

Compulsory sterilisation is a matter of shaping society according to pretty short-sighted and limited criteria. That's how eugenics is essentially a form of fascism.

 

True, it's over looking the individuals human rights to look at the right to a proper standard of living for all the unborn children that will come after them.

Governments do this anyway. Want to test this, try getting out of capitalism or even just walking the streets naked

There will still be blind and deaf people as there are a lot of people who pick up disabilities during the course of their life, the difference is that they won't be inflicting their problems on their children who may have proffered to be able to see/hear etc.

Stephen Hawkins intellect was probably not genetic or he would have come from a line of genius's, so yes, he would have to be part of the program.

Unfortunately eugenics will deny people this choice for the overall benefit of the human race, surely the human race should be able to decide for itself how to best survive.

Eradication of genetic disability is far from short sighted but it is a limited criteria, the problems with eugenics arise when the criteria are broadened and that's why people are scared of it. Eugenics is far too easy to abuse and it's only public fear forcing the individuals with disabilities to live the substandard lives they have at the moment due to a lack of a eugenics program.

 

Actually it denies these unborn children any standard of living at all by curtailing any possible benefit they may bring to mankind before they even get the chance to be born.

Actually there's an interesting thing about heredity and intellect. On aggregate, the intellect of your children will always tend towards the average (towards an IQ of 100, by definition). If your parents are geniuses, you will probably have a well above average IQ. If they are morons, your intellect will move towards the average so you will be cleverer than them. Stephen Hawking's offspring would have a very good chance of being stunningly intelligent.

My argument isn't that only intelligent people are valuable - quite the reverse, but I just say that to demonstrate that your point above is flawed.

So by definition, people with disabilities are unable to live valuable and productive lives? That assumption is sweeping, judgemental and baseless and in itself is a fatal flaw in the argument for sterilisation.

 

How will I react?? Well... i won't really. Her being dead doesn't doing anything about her being alive in the first place.

 

I would be deeply saddened by the passing of Margaret Thatcher, it would be a tremendous loss for the country.

She was exactly what the country needed. The reason the left hates her so much is because she completely and utterly destroyed their cause. There is no chance that socialism will ever again be a meaningful political movement in this country.

What's tragic is that so many support her policies and benefit from her legacy yet blame her for being tough enough to get the job done.

 

What's tragic is twats like you blathering on about how great she was without having any concept of the amount of suffering and social devestation that she caused in this country. Fortunately, she'll be dead soon.

 

That may well be true but the overall population won't take a massive hit and will carry on growing at the same rate allowing a life without disability for a population of the same size.

That goes without saying really, if you're surrounded by morons then anyone with half a brain would want something better for themselves and being surrounded by intellects would make most people excel by making them feel inadequate if they didn't and being surrounded by a positive learning environment.

The point behind eugenics is that a disability is exactly that, a disability, the same person without the disability would be very likely to be a much more productive and valuable person even if only to themselves.

 

Must resist the urge ...

... must ... not .... feed ... the ... troll

 

There is actually one person, who, when he dies I will be truly sorry.

In my opinion he has to be the greatest politician this country has ever seen (in my lifetime) :



The fact that he retired from Parliament "to devote more time to politics" says it all really

 

I do like ol' Wedgewood-Benn. I have to admit to a bit of a soft spot for Red Ken, too.

Speaking of which, did you ever see the old Comic Strip, GLC? Twas great.... done in the style of a holywood movie with Robbie Coltrane playing Charles Bronson playing Ken Livingstone, and the inspired classic of Peter Richardson playing Lee Van Cleef playing Tony Benn!

 

I can't remember that one, but I do remember the Comic Strip 'Miners Strike' spoof with Al Pacino cast to play Arthur Scargill