Cost of visiting period properties

[biffvernon]

 

[Flyfisher]

Talking of anti-capitalism protests . . .

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Lol. You failed to also point out that those who do work, probably do so for an enterprie that pays for their wages though the forces of capitalist markets, whilst those that don't work are probably being paid for by the rest of us. Those who fall into neither of the above, are independently wealthy and should think of investing their capital somewhere! 8)

The only course of action for any serious Occupy anti-capitalist protestor is to go and live naked in a cave somewhere remote, and drink rainwater and eat dung.

I, for one, would enthusiastically encourage every one of them to go and do just that.

A serious point from Biff at the top though - very expensive. I read that St Pauls costs £20k per day to run (how?!) and that visitors' fees bring in £16k per day. Even the numpty protestors outside could probably probably point out the flaw in their market economics! <face-palm> :roll:

 

[LadyArowana]

I thought it was usually possible to go to St Pauls for a service on Sunday? Not that I ever have done, or probably ever will. Nothing against people singing hymns etc, but the Buddhists and Hindus seem to have a lot more fun. I am particularly partial to offering coconuts to Ganesh, nothing like 14 and a half of our British pounds to do that.

 

[biffvernon]

Lol. You failed to also point out that those who do work, probably do so for an enterprie that pays for their wages though the forces of capitalist markets, whilst those that don't work are probably being paid for by the rest of us. Those who fall into neither of the above, are independently wealthy and should think of investing their capital somewhere! ...numpty protestors

Some of us are self-employed, working to conserve our cultural heritage by doing appropriate woodwork, but, hey! who was ever offended by generalised prejudice from those who think our financial system is all hunky-dory?

 

[Pford75]

It is a fair point raised by Biff. We are doing a home exchange right now and staying in Northumbria. We visited Alnwick Castle and Gardens which was pricey (can't recall theexactfigure, but was in excess of £50 for the family). However, all of us should appreciate how expensive it can be to maintain and repair period properties. Apart from the fact that Alnwick was very impressive and gave us 2 full days of family entertainment, I see these entrance fees as our way of contributing to the upkeep of important heritage assets.

We also visited Newcastle, where there is another small 'occupy' protest. Protesters there were happily tucking into the lunch that they had just bought from Greggs (national capitalist bakers, that is) :lol:

 

[Pford75]

Occupy Bristol do their shopping at Tescos.....
http://www.abristolgeek.co.uk/2011/10/occupy-bristol/

 

[Pford75]

And so do Occupy London....they also enjoy Coca Cola.

Hypocrites
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2050223/Occupy-London-Stock-Exchange-Its-protesting.html

 

[FamilyWiggs]

We also visited Newcastle, where there is another small 'occupy' protest. Protesters there were happily tucking into the lunch that they had just bought from Greggs (national capitalist bakers, that is) :lol:

"Down with Greggs!" - at last a slogan we can all unite behind. 8)

 

[Pford75]

Seems that the 'occupt' protest in the US is starting to resemble Lord of the Flies.

http://strelzbacktalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=National&action=display&thread=14153&page=1

This all looks worringly like capitalism in action! :wink: Who would have thought that anti-capitalism protestors would be arguing over how to split their profits?

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Some of us are self-employed, working to conserve our cultural heritage by doing appropriate woodwork, but, hey! who was ever offended by generalised prejudice from those who think our financial system is all hunky-dory?

Aha - the free market and exchange of labour at work. Building a business is far more sensble approach than pitching a tent outside a cathedral (which you then don't sleep in) to protest against capitalism.

Besides, who says all is hunky dory? Not me. Sounds like the famous Mt Straw-man you keep mentioning :wink: . Lots of tweaks we could make to banks to increase lending and reduce the risk of casino-style activities to us/wider economy. But set against those who are motivated by petty jealousy ("rich toffs") or are "anit-capitalist" or "anti-globalisation", I know which mast I nail my colours to.

 

[biffvernon]

Hypocrisy, The Fallacy of. The fallacy that, if what I do falls below the standards of what I say, my argument can be dismissed without more ado. The fallacy arises from the obvious discomforts of a contrast between good words and bad deeds, like those of Measure for Measure’s Angelo, upright in public, outrageous in private.

And yet, if an argument is a good one, dissonant deeds do nothing to contradict it. In fact, the hypocrite may have something to be said for him. For instance, he may not be making any claims at all about how he lives, but only about his values in the context of the argument. There is no reason why he should not argue for standards better than he manages to achieve in his own life; in fact, it would be worrying if his ideals were not better than the way he lives. He is not dazzled by his high personal standards; he does not make an icon of himself as the model of high moral standing. He is not defended by his sincerity from the possibility of self-criticism. His ideals are not limited to what he can achieve himself. What matters is whether his argument is right or not. With accusations of hypocrisy in the air, difficult questions about real problems short-circuit into *ad hominem quarrel.

Hypocrisy is a bad thing with good qualities. Sincerity is a good thing with bad qualities; it shines a light on the simple certainties of your feelings on the matter, rather than on the awkward realities of the case. Some of the most intensely savage people this planet has ever produced were noted for their sincerity and their incorruptible and austere lives. There was Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794), largely responsible for the reign of terror during the French revolution, but, in his own life, he was the “Sea-Green Incorruptible”. And there as Conrad of Marburg (d. 1233), thin with fasting, who, in imitation of Jesus, rode on a donkey from place to place on his mission to discover and burn heretics and witches. For ground-breaking catastrophes, we have to turn to the incorruptible. We are safer with those who are not preoccupied with admiration of their own moral standing, confident that they can think no wrong.

If required to choose between sincerity and hypocrisy (writes the theologian David Martin), “Give me a friendly hypocrite any day”.

http://www.leanlogic.net/

 

[Flyfisher]

That's all fair enough but, ignoring emotive terms such as 'hypocrisy', which is only a word after all, what is the point of harbouring views that are not acted upon? Unless the idea is for everyone else to act upon them, leaving one to carry on as they wish. Hmm, now that couldn't possible happen could it? :wink:

 

[robgil]

£14.50 :shock:

 

[biffvernon]

Try reading the Fleming quote again, Fly.
What's £14.50, Rob?

 

[robgil]

Try reading the Fleming quote again, Fly.
What's £14.50, Rob?

A lot of things Biff, entrance fee into a cathedral though is day light robbery.

 

[Pford75]

Biff - I'm afraid that I simply don't buy into the "do as I say, not as I do" mantra of the 'occupy' rent a mob. Same goes for Al Gore and his jet set lifestyle.

These people lack any real clarity of thought as to what it is they are actually protesting about, or what they want down about it. It has so many echoes of a recalcitrant toddler, stamping their feet and wailing.

The point in highlighting the 'hypocrisy' or whatever else you want to call it is that, if these people who claim to be so vehemently opposed to capitalist enterprise can't avoid munching on a Tescos sandwich, supping Coke or similar....it is patently unrealistic to expect others to do so. Not just from a moral perspective, but a practical one.

I see that you ignored the financial infighting which has already emerged within the group. I entirely support their right to protest peacefully (which they are doing).... But I'm not going to be lectured/hectored by someone who doesn't believe passionately enough in what they are saying, that they heed their own advice.

 

[Flyfisher]

Try reading the Fleming quote again, Fly.

Sorry Biff but if it's that cryptic then you'll have to spell it out, I've only got so much time to waste.

 

[biffvernon]

You haven't understood the Fleming quote either then, Pford75.

>what it is they (we) are actually protesting about

How about the fact that 1% control most of the wealth and 99% don't. The unfairness of the world that the global financial system has exacerbated in recent years. Maybe you're happy with that. I'm not.

As for the hypocrisy, I spend a small amount of my energies trying to help people who are worse off than I am. However, I am, at heart, a selfish sod who does not want to experience a diminution of my very comfortable lifestyle. Should I give up all my charitable work because I am not prepared to give away everything I own? I'm not going to do either. I'm happy to remain a hypocrite for exactly the reasons that Fleming explains.

Mind you, I can think of no good excuse for eating a sandwich from Tesco. I've been boycotting them for years. Can't remember when I last had a coke.

 

[biffvernon]

That's all fair enough but, ignoring emotive terms such as 'hypocrisy', which is only a word after all, what is the point of harbouring views that are not acted upon? Unless the idea is for everyone else to act upon them, leaving one to carry on as they wish. Hmm, now that couldn't possible happen could it? :wink:

That is exactly the point that Fleming addressed in the quote I posted on the previous page.