Australian Politics Forum - Coffee could lead to licentiousness

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Islam › Coffee could lead to licentiousness

(Moderator: polite_gandalf)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9

Coffee could lead to licentiousness (Read 16216 times)

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Coffee could lead to licentiousness
Reply #75 - Oct 27^th, 2013 at 1:18pm

Quote:

I confess it is difficult to keep track of an argument that goes from saying the British empire "dissolved" 100 years before WWII

As well as forgetting what I said, you keep making it up. This is another of the dozen or so examples of you substituting your little fantasy for what I actually posted.

Quote:

Why is it so difficult to comprehend the very simple concept that free trade and imperialism goes hand in hand?

Are they married or something? It happened at the same time. That does not one depends on the other.

Quote:

What we saw in Europe at the time was a mutually beneficial arrangement whereby they colluded with each other in conquering and exploiting the vast territories in the new worlds

Crap. They competed against and undermined each other. This competition was one of the causes of WWI. There was not even any need for collusion. It's not like Africa asked France whether it was OK for Germany to set up a colony.

It was mutually beneficial in the sense that they traded with each other instead of invading. Yet again your own evidence backs up my argument, but you are simply too blind to see how.

Quote:

Another point you stubbornly refuse to look at the actual historical evidence. When did Britain yield its territory?

Pretty much every single time. I am not saying they pushed them out the door. I am saying that compared to the model of traditional militant imperialism, it was far more peaceful, and the gradual shift in attitude to capitalism and free trade enabled that. I am looking at the same evidence as you. I can just see it for what it actually is.

Quote:

Apart from the traditional colonies - which were incorporated into the European market anyway - I can think of not a single British holding that was relinquished until the free market/capitalist system that fostered its acquisition and maintenance, effectively collapsed as a result of the free trade nations turning on each other.

Like I keep pointing out, Britain started the process of handing local control to India well before WWII. Your next most significant example - South Africa - was already handed over. Britain only had genuine control over the smaller basket case nations.

Furthermore, WWII did not cause capitalism to collapse. It was a victory for the new model over the old model.

Quote:

Or in other words, what territories of the British empire were yielded before WWI?

Changing your argument yet again eh? BTW, there were plenty.

Quote:

What examples are there of Britain yielding territory of their empire primarily as a result of willingly transitioning to a free trade arrangement within a thriving capitalist system - as opposed to yielding them as a result of a near collapse of their prosperity in the capitalist system as a result of WWI and WWII? I can think of none.

In every example of Britain yielding territory there was conscious consideration of establishing a good trade relationship. Every single one. You cannot think of any because you are making it up as you go along.

Quote:

Like I keep saying - saying that British imperialism was declining because it was quite successful at acquiring new territory with remarkably little military or economic cost to itself - is not an argument.

True, it is only part of an argument. The rest of the argument is also there, should you wish to read it.

Quote:

Thats not to say the expansion wasn't violent.

Which is why no-one is claiming that.

Quote:

Yet when you pit rifles against spears - as was the case in most of their conquest of Africa - the results are going to be somewhat lobsided.

Of course. And is conquering a bunch of spear waving tribesman the same as conquering France? Is it a massive expansion of imperialism, or the relegation of imperialism to the places that "don't matter"?

Quote:

The British were incredibly violent in conquering independent economic movements in India, Africa and China - violence that was many times the scale of the American war of independence, as already pointed out.

Only if you completely fail to put it into perspective. I gave an explanation and an example of this already. You are welcome to respond to that, rather than parroting the same nonsense and ignoring my response.

Quote:

In short, British imperialism was remarkably efficient - but it was still imperialism.

You are not actually contradicting anything I have said. Your entire argument seems to rest on pretending I am saying something that I am not. You asked me to explain the argument. I explained it. You went back to making it up as you go along - not just your own argument, but my argument as well.

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Brian Ross Gold Member Offline Representative of me Posts: 40920	Re: Coffee could lead to licentiousness Reply #76 - Oct 27^th, 2013 at 2:46pm freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 8:41am: Colonialism itself is a symptom of the end of imperialism and a transition towards a free trade model. Is it? It's normally seen as a means of consolidation of the Imperial hold on subjugated lands.
Back to top	Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48833 At my desk.	Re: Coffee could lead to licentiousness Reply #77 - Oct 27^th, 2013 at 2:58pm I see. So you capture and subjugate lands, then employ colonialism to hold onto them?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Coffee could lead to licentiousness
Reply #78 - Oct 27^th, 2013 at 6:06pm

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

As well as forgetting what I said, you keep making it up. This is another of the dozen or so examples of you substituting your little fantasy for what I actually posted.

FD, in response to my claim that WWII caused the British empire to dissolve:

"So, it dissolved because of something that happened a century or so after it dissolved?"

Is that not you saying the British empire "dissolved" a century or so before WWII?

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Pretty much every single time.

India was finally lost to the British in 1947. You'd have to have rocks in your head to think that the crippling effect of WWII wasn't the primary cause of this loss.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

I am not saying they pushed them out the door. I am saying that compared to the model of traditional militant imperialism, it was far more peaceful, and the gradual shift in attitude to capitalism and free trade enabled that. I am looking at the same evidence as you. I can just see it for what it actually is.

Right, even though no British territories were being yielded during that time. The British empire reached its peak at a time when they were simultaneously prospering in the European capitalist system. In the case of India, it went from a nominally corporate holding, to falling under direct British rule in 1858. They only started yielding territory when their prosperity within the capitalist system started faltering due to fighting against their fellow capitalists.

Once again, you have made no case whatsoever for your claim that the British empire "transitioned" and started dissolving as a result of their success in the capitalist system. History demonstrates that the opposite was the case.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Furthermore, WWII did not cause capitalism to collapse.

I never said it did. But it did cause the near collapse of the British economy.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Changing your argument yet again eh? BTW, there were plenty.

My argument has from the beginning been about the British Imperial Century - circa 1815-1914. That Britains empire started a long decline from WWI merely enhances my case - namely that internecine warfare with its fellow capitalists caused the mutually beneficial system that was in place at the time (ie the arrangement of aggressive conquest and subjugation in the provinces and capitalism/free trade between each other) - to collapse. Rather than your utterly baseless case that Britain willingly yielded its empire from a position of strength - at a time when the capitalist system was thriving.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

In every example of Britain yielding territory there was conscious consideration of establishing a good trade relationship.

Well duh! Of course there was - that just common sense. The question though is whether this consideration was made from a position of strength or weakness.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Every single one. You cannot think of any because you are making it up as you go along.

uh oh... someone's completely misunderstood my point.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Of course. And is conquering a bunch of spear waving tribesman the same as conquering France?

lol no - but both would be clear cases of imperialism.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Only if you completely fail to put it into perspective.

No, I think the perspective is pretty clear: you said Britain's maintenance of her empire was comparatively peaceful to the war in America. Yet the Boxer Rebellion is just one of the bloody wars the British initiated to maintain its empire that was far more bloody than the American war. Thats perspective for you.

The British took control of large parts of the globe with relative ease because they had total military superiority - not because they received some sort of epiphany about the need to take a more "free trade" approach to imperialism or whatever, and turn away from traditional military domination. Taking territory and maintaining it the old fashioned way - ie through total military domination is exactly what Britain did throughout the British Imperial century.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

You are not actually contradicting anything I have said. Your entire argument seems to rest on pretending I am saying something that I am not.

I am not pretending that you are attempting to explain away the fact that Britain's empire during the 19th century was acquired and sustained because of sheer brutality and military dominance and instead concoct this fantasy about Britain evolving a "free trade" version of imperialism (the first step towards abolishing imperialism) that was "comparatively" more peaceful than the old form of imperialism - because thats pretty much your entire argument.

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Coffee could lead to licentiousness
Reply #79 - Oct 27^th, 2013 at 6:57pm

Quote:

Is that not you saying the British empire "dissolved" a century or so before WWII?

It is saying that it dissolved a century "or so" before WWII. It began with the US. Some would say it hasn't finished. I was obviously not attempting to put a date on it.

Quote:

India was finally lost to the British in 1947. You'd have to have rocks in your head to think that the crippling effect of WWII wasn't the primary cause of this loss.

The primary cause of the loss was well established before WWII. The actual loss of power was also well established before WWII.

Quote:

Why wasn't the peak while it still had control of the US?

How does this contradict my argument?

They were yielding territories, prior to WWI even.

Quote:

In the case of India, it went from a nominally corporate holding, to falling under direct British rule in 1858.

This supports my argument also.

Quote:

They only started yielding territory when their prosperity within the capitalist system started faltering due to fighting against their fellow capitalists.

Wrong again.

Quote:

Once again, you have made no case whatsoever for your claim that the British empire "transitioned" and started dissolving as a result of their success in the capitalist system.

I never argued that the success of capitalism caused it, although it obviously helped those who argued for capitalism. I also have never claimed that it was somehow unique to the British empire either. That is entirely your imagination (again). It is probably a good fortune that the British happened to be in power at the time, but I expect the transition would have happened anyway. It's as if you think I am claimng that England invented capitalism and forced it on everyone else.

Quote:

History demonstrates that the opposite was the case.

No it does not. You have merely claimed that a bunch of apparent correlations (many of them not even correlations) somehow contradict my argument.

Quote:

I never said it did. But it did cause the near collapse of the British economy.

You claimed that it caused the loss of India, South Africa and many other territories. The loss of South Africa was formalised well before WWII and the transition of governance to locals was well underway in India prior to WWII. This is nothing more than an elaborate and ever-changing (in the face of evidence) argument of correlation equals causation - that you are determined to hold onto even when the timeline is backwards.

Quote:

My argument has from the beginning been about the British Imperial Century - circa 1815-1914.

Crap. Did you get your world war's mixed up? You did not even mention WWI until I pointed out to you (it took several times) that the bulk of the loss occurred prior to WWII.

It is also ludicrous to suggest it only started after 1815. That is merely when things started to get a bit more difficult for them.

Quote:

Rather than your utterly baseless case that Britain willingly yielded its empire from a position of strength - at a time when the capitalist system was thriving.

Sigh. Once again you resort to replacing my actual argument with yet another of your silly little fantasies. This really would be a lot simpler if you would just stick to what I actually say.

Quote:

Well duh! Of course there was - that just common sense. The question though is whether this consideration was made from a position of strength or weakness.

So you are even changing the question now?

Quote:

uh oh... someone's completely misunderstood my point.

You asked. I answered.

Quote:

The British took control of large parts of the globe with relative ease because they had total military superiority - not because they received some sort of epiphany about the need to take a more "free trade" approach to imperialism or whatever

Not just "whatever". Please stop inventing absurd little fantasies and substituting them for my actual argument. I have been very patient in explaining it to you. They did not have total military superiority. Had they attempted to invade a single one of their neighbours they probably would have failed.

Quote:

Taking territory and maintaining it the old fashioned way - ie through total military domination is exactly what Britain did throughout the British Imperial century.

But they did not take it or maintain it the old-fashioned way. It was vastly different. They took it far more easily because they were not willing to obtain it the old fashioned way and instead chose, at great risk, to go to the ends of the earth instead. They gave it up far more easily also, because they thought differently to previous empires about the role of empire vs trade between independent nations. I challenge you to find any situation even remotely similar to that of Gandhi occuring under any empire that was maintained "the old fashioned way".

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Coffee could lead to licentiousness
Reply #80 - Oct 27^th, 2013 at 6:59pm

Quote:

Even your fantasy about what my argument is chops and changes as it suits you.

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Coffee could lead to licentiousness
Reply #81 - Oct 27^th, 2013 at 9:28pm

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

It is saying that it dissolved a century "or so" before WWII. It began with the US. Some would say it hasn't finished. I was obviously not attempting to put a date on it.

Dissolved FD, not dissolving. The British empire had not dissolved - past tense - 100 years before WWII, or anywhere near that time, thats just ridiculous, and your own arguments subsequent to this statement acknowledge that it is ridiculous.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

Why wasn't the peak while it still had control of the US?

Because Britain didn't hold as much territory around the world while it had the US. It was not expanding its empire nearly as aggressively until after it lost the US. I believe I've mentioned the British Imperial Century around 1000 times now. Its not called that for nothing.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

How does this contradict my argument?

It contradicts your claim that British territories were being "yielded" during that time. You can't even name a single territory that was yielded during the imperial century. Thats because there was none - they were being acquired at record pace during that time, not yielded.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

They were yielding territories, prior to WWI even.

No they weren't. You can't name a single territory despite making this BS claim over and over. And no, white colonies like Australia and Canada who had already annihilated the natives and were seamlessly incorporated into the European market, don't count.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

In the case of India, it went from a nominally corporate holding, to falling under direct British rule in 1858.

This supports my argument also.

Prey tell, how? Seizing territory through a bloody war and declaring sovereignty over that territory is a sign of Britain abandoning their 'old school' militant expansionism I suppose. Cheesy

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

They only started yielding territory when their prosperity within the capitalist system started faltering due to fighting against their fellow capitalists.

Wrong again.

Percentage of British empire that was yielded after the combined clashes of WWI and WWII = 100%. Percentage of British empire yielded before WWI = 0%.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

You claimed that it caused the loss of India, South Africa and many other territories.

WWII absolutely did cause the loss of India. The British promised autonomy during the war in a desperate attempt to mobolise Indian resources in their war against the Japanese. Its true, WWI also was a significant contributor, but that merely reinforces my point. But had it not been for WWII, its likely India would have remained under British control for decades longer than it did.

The point is, I have seen no evidence - and certainly not from you - that indicates there were any factors that led to Britain's relinquishing of India that were not directly related to their economic demise from the cataclysmic wars with her fellow capitalists.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

Crap. Did you get your world war's mixed up? You did not even mention WWI until I pointed out to you (it took several times) that the bulk of the loss occurred prior to WWII.

Your last statement is flat out wrong, as mentioned.

But here you go again, avoiding dealing with the actual points of discussion so you can "win" the argument by pointing out one or two supposed inconsistencies in what I've said over 4 pages of tedious debate. Even if you were right, it wouldn't make any difference to my point about Britain's demise within the capitalist system causing their loss of empire. In any case, for what its worth, just so you can't call me a liar (again), I was pointing out that "British prosperity peaked during the "British imperial century" - when coincidentally, the British empire was at its peak." before you ever "pointed it out" to me. And just so we're clear, the British imperial century was 1815-1914 - hence British prosperity (and with it imperialism) started to end when they launched themselves in a suicidal war with her fellow capitalists - ie WWI.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

It is also ludicrous to suggest it only started after 1815.

I didn't coin the phrase.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

Rather than your utterly baseless case that Britain willingly yielded its empire from a position of strength - at a time when the capitalist system was thriving.

Sigh. Once again you resort to replacing my actual argument with yet another of your silly little fantasies. This really would be a lot simpler if you would just stick to what I actually say.

Right, sorry, I totally forgot about the time you said the British were forced to relinquish their empire because they were weakened from catastrophic economic damage - as opposed to initiating a transition of empire at a time when they were at their greatest economic and military strength. Roll Eyes

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 40920

Re: Coffee could lead to licentiousness
Reply #82 - Oct 28^th, 2013 at 8:54pm

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 2:58pm:

I see. So you capture and subjugate lands, then employ colonialism to hold onto them?

Yes. That's how the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Europeans (including of course the UK), Chinese, Japanese and all the others did it. Even the Americans did it. Not sure why you find that hard to understand, FD.

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: Coffee could lead to licentiousness Reply #83 - Oct 29^th, 2013 at 6:53am Its almost as if FD thinks that Britain was the first imperial power to employ a 'rule by proxy' method of running their empire. As you point out, the most successful empires throughout the ages employed this.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48833 At my desk.	Re: Coffee could lead to licentiousness Reply #84 - Nov 1^st, 2013 at 8:06pm Quote: Because Britain didn't hold as much territory around the world while it had the US. So conquering Antarctica would have been a greater feat than conquering all of Europe? And would have been more "aggressive"? How much territory did it actually have?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: Coffee could lead to licentiousness Reply #85 - Nov 2^nd, 2013 at 6:20am freediver wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 8:06pm: How much territory did it actually have? Look at a map. Put it this way, they ruled over a hell of a lot more people after they lost America
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48833 At my desk.	Re: Coffee could lead to licentiousness Reply #86 - Nov 2^nd, 2013 at 9:57am So it is not actually territory that counts, but number of people?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Coffee could lead to licentiousness
Reply #87 - Nov 2^nd, 2013 at 10:16am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

Adam Smith (5 June 1723 OS (16 June 1723 NS) – 17 July 1790) was a Scottish moral philosopher and a pioneer of political economy. One of the key figures of the Scottish Enlightenment,[1] Adam Smith is best known for two classic works: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The latter, usually abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations, is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work of economics. Smith is cited as the "father of modern economics" and is still among the most influential thinkers in the field of economics today.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

The loss of such a large portion of British America, at the time Britain's most populous overseas possession, is seen by historians as the event defining the transition between the "first" and "second" empires,[54] in which Britain shifted its attention away from the Americas to Asia, the Pacific and later Africa. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, had argued that colonies were redundant, and that free trade should replace the old mercantilist policies that had characterised the first period of colonial expansion, dating back to the protectionism of Spain and Portugal.[51][55] The growth of trade between the newly independent United States and Britain after 1783 seemed to confirm Smith's view that political control was not necessary for economic success.[56][57]

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Coffee could lead to licentiousness
Reply #88 - Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 8:24am

freediver wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2013 at 9:57am:

So it is not actually territory that counts, but number of people?

populated territory. Obviously.

freediver wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2013 at 10:16am:

The loss of such a large portion of British America, at the time Britain's most populous overseas possession, is seen by historians as the event defining the transition between the "first" and "second" empires,[54] in which Britain shifted its attention away from the Americas to Asia, the Pacific and later Africa. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, had argued that colonies were redundant, and that free trade should replace the old mercantilist policies that had characterised the first period of colonial expansion, dating back to the protectionism of Spain and Portugal.[51][55] The growth of trade between the newly independent United States and Britain after 1783 seemed to confirm Smith's view that political control was not necessary for economic success.[56][57]

Thats nice, so Adam Smith had an opinion. Good for him. Shame that it had no bearing whatsoever on actual British imperialistic policy though.

From the same source:

Quote:

Between 1815 and 1914, a period referred to as Britain's "imperial century" by some historians,[82][83] around 10,000,000 square miles (26,000,000 km2) of territory and roughly 400 million people were added to the British Empire.[84] Victory over Napoleon left Britain without any serious international rival, other than Russia in central Asia.[85] Unchallenged at sea, Britain adopted the role of global policeman, a state of affairs later known as the Pax Britannica,[86] and a foreign policy of "splendid isolation".[87] Alongside the formal control it exerted over its own colonies, Britain's dominant position in world trade meant that it effectively controlled the economies of many countries, such as China, Argentina and Siam, which has been characterised by some historians as "informal empire".[88][89]

British imperial strength was underpinned by the steamship and the telegraph, new technologies invented in the second half of the 19th century, allowing it to control and defend the empire. By 1902, the British Empire was linked together by a network of telegraph cables, the so-called All Red Line.[90]

At the same time Smith was extolling the virtues of free trade, and while Britain was putting this into effect with its racially worthy white former colonists, Britain was running rampant around the rest of the world, asserting its political and economic control over inferior non-white races; militarily quashing independent economic movements in India and China, annexing Egypt, and systematically barring the native blacks from political and economic processes in Rhodesia and South Africa. It was the same time also that King Leopold of Belgium transformed The Congo into the world's largest ever labor camp to make him a fortune out of rubber profits, killing around half the entire population in the process.

But no matter, as long as Adam Smith was putting his thoughts down on the virtues of free trade, thats all that matters right? Roll Eyes

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Coffee could lead to licentiousness
Reply #89 - Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 8:49am

Quote:

populated territory. Obviously.

I see. So conquering the Australian aborigines was more than twice as "agressive" as conquering India?

Quote:

Thats nice, so Adam Smith had an opinion. Good for him. Shame that it had no bearing whatsoever on actual British imperialistic policy though.

He did. His views helped shape the world today. The modern global economy is a reflection of his views on free trade between independent nations. The debate was raging among Europe's intellectual elite while all this was happening. Without that intellectual shift, the age of empires would not have ended.

Quote:

At the same time Smith was extolling the virtues of free trade, and while Britain was putting this into effect with its racially worthy white former colonists

Well done Gandalf, you are starting to agree with me already. I'm not sure how many times I have already pointed out that it makes sense for Europe to extend this new standard to fellow Europeans first. That does not mean the change was not happening, and your expectation that they would suddenly apply the new standard to the whole world is just a ludicrous exercise in shifting the goal posts.

Again, your argument is nothing but an endless strawman. You will even say the same thing I have been saying and think you are contradicting me.

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page