ecobob Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 32 minutes ago, La Colombe said: Nothing else that claimed the lives of so many young men would be tolerated. What about sending our young men to war? Never mind war, what about sending our young men in armies to keep the peace? 418 young men have been killed in Afghanistan alone between 2001 and 2018. Not only tolerated but positively encouraged with the Army visiting secondary schools every year to pander their recruitment message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 26 minutes ago, ecobob said: What about sending our young men to war? Never mind war, what about sending our young men in armies to keep the peace? 418 young men have been killed in Afghanistan alone between 2001 and 2018. Not only tolerated but positively encouraged with the Army visiting secondary schools every year to pander their recruitment message. Yes, I suppose that is the only thing that can be used as a comparison. Bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 8 minutes ago, La Colombe said: Yes, I suppose that is the only thing that can be used as a comparison. Bizarre. Not really, at least not in terms of its prime purpose. One is pure thrill seeking and entertainment, the other is for the greater good and is aiming to save more lives than it costs. Sure, you can take a stance against warfare in general, or with regard to specific conflicts such as Iraq, but there’s not many that would argue against the existence of armed forces per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 I was being generous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 The people who do it. It's what they are. It is a part of their existence every bit as much as eating, sleeping and breathing. If a rider's brother gets killed this week, he will still go out and ride next week. Whether others or the state should intervene to prevent them doing so is a moral dilemma; but whose dilemma? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 4 minutes ago, woolley said: It's what they are. It is a part of their existence every bit as much as eating, sleeping and breathing. Lol. What a stupid comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecobob Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 6 minutes ago, La Colombe said: Lol. What a stupid comment. No. No it isn't. Just because you have no comprehension of what woolley is talking about doesn't mean it is stupid. He is right in what he says, not for you perhaps because you don't have the capacity to understand because the whole racing culture is not part of your psyche and is never likely to be but for others that is exactly how it is. I understand your compulsion to display your revulsion about the racing but you like many are outside looking in. Like most people with a Saviour Complex you are wasting precious time that you could devote to something where you are far more likely to effect positive change. Your stuck record approach does nothing but encourage supporters to become even more entrenched in their views which would appear to be the exact opposite of what you are trying to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 18 minutes ago, wrighty said: Not really, at least not in terms of its prime purpose. One is pure thrill seeking and entertainment, the other is for the greater good and is aiming to save more lives than it costs. Sure, you can take a stance against warfare in general, or with regard to specific conflicts such as Iraq, but there’s not many that would argue against the existence of armed forces per se. In WW1 men were conscripted to fight and if they refused they were shot . One can choose to take part in a dangerous occupation/hobby/pastime . I'd rather ride a bike than don a uniform and kill people I don't know at the behest of a self serving politician . I take the view that I wouldn't ask anyone to do something I wouldn't be prepared to do myself . Just saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecobob Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 31 minutes ago, wrighty said: One is pure thrill seeking and entertainment, No. This is not accurate. Like LC you are looking from the outside in. These men and the occasional woman consider themselves to be sportsmen and women. Racing is sold as a spectacle to make money but at grass root level and for the entrants it's a sporting event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 6 minutes ago, ecobob said: No. No it isn't. Yes it is. If you don't eat you die. If you don't drink you die. If you don't breathe you die. If you aren't allowed to race motorcycles you won't die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 Just now, La Colombe said: Yes it is. If you don't eat you die. If you don't drink you die. If you don't breathe you die. If you aren't allowed to race motorcycles you won't die. It's an analogy to express how that community feels about its sport. Obviously. It is a part of their being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 It's a silly analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 Why do folk insist on 'criticising what they can't understand' and asserting that anyone with a contrary view is silly ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 1 minute ago, paswt said: Why do folk insist on 'criticising what they can't understand' and asserting that anyone with a contrary view is silly ? Because they think they are winding you up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yootalkin2me Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 2 hours ago, wrighty said: Not really, at least not in terms of its prime purpose. One is pure thrill seeking and entertainment, the other is for the greater good and is aiming to save more lives than it costs. Sure, you can take a stance against warfare in general, or with regard to specific conflicts such as Iraq, but there’s not many that would argue against the existence of armed forces per se. But wouldn't it be better if armed forces were used for national.defence not as invading and occupying forces? If my neighbour was beating the shit out of his kid and I went in and kicked the living shit out of him I can assure you that it would be me and not him who was arrested and jailed....and forces and war as they are are a total hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.