When will the BBC be held accountable for their lack of patriotism

[longfingernails]

Why does this far-left propoganda group continually try to do Britain down?

Why can't they have more presenters who think like the majority of Brits - people who believe that Britain is truly great - indeed, the best country in the world.

People who believe in our institutions, who love the monarchy, who revere the military, who speak in hushed awe about the majesty of our traditions. Presenters who are over-awed by the silent beauty of our countryside, and the glory of our heritage and history. Why do they always use their sneering, supercilious, Guardianista attitude - this constant insinuation that Britain should always be taking the blame and apologising. Coincidentally, it seems to stem from the same sort of sneering middle-classery that is prevalent on MN...

The most recent, shameful episode is the Beeb trying their best to spoil the England 2018 bid. Now I have no time at all for football - I can't stand it - but I fully recognise how important it is for our economy, and also for our national psyche.

The sooner the BBC withers and dies the better. Sadly, it has gotten away with a miniscule 16% cut in the TV tax over 6 years. They will continue their ramblings for the foreseeable future.

Coalition.possibly you, as you seem to agree with coalition.

Ah. "Human nature."

Okay, I must bow out at this point as I feel the points of difference are too great.

I leave you with love.

Appletress - that's very defeatist. You probably can't benefit everyone equally, but I HOPE you can benefit everyone. This often isn't the case.

Natural according to whom though? Slave holding societies wouldn't agree. Patriarchal societies don't want to benefit women.

Societies probably generally act to the general benefit of society as a whole. That can be pretty shitty for some members of it and pretty sweet for others.

That might mean it's 'natural' in an economic/social science sense. It doesn't mean it is a biologically determined. It's an emergent behaviour of the system of people just getting on with shit.

"I believe in God, it doesn't have to be a Christian God, any God, and I believe that goodness in nature comes from that God. I think there is a battle between that good and the evil on the earth. But I don't have any evidence-based research to back it up."

I can't leave without saying that is quite possibly one of my favourite paras ever.

I am a Christian but you don't need that to establish the moral imperative of society. Whether good is handed down to us, or we have defined good to be the best way to organise ourselves to minimise suffering, it is still there.

Appletrees - "Coalition.possibly you, as you seem to agree with coalition."

IS one of those names wrong or am I mis-reading the thread?

I'm not surprised you are off. It's tough sometimes at the coalface of debate.

As a (very last aside) I do find it interesting that when I engage upon a discussion that develops into something with the feeling of slippery lemon mousse about it, it invariably turns out that the debatees are Christian. Strange, that.

Claig - What I can't see is how your paranoid conspiracy theories co-exist with your essential goodness ones.

Appletrees - my point is it isn't a debate.

"Feelings" are neither evidence nor valid opinion.

Of course one hopes everyone can benefit. Society is driven by that. It is impossible because we are all different. We cannot indulge a man's desire to have all the money in the world to bane down to his children. Some people are always going to be disappointed. You have moved from nihilism to idealism at the speed of light.

My argument isn't based on Christianity. You can't mock it or engage with it so you are off.

I believe that justice and truth and beauty are ideals, as Plato said. They are perfect in the absolute, but are unattainable on earth. We only approach a fraction of these ideals in this realm. I think there is a realm above ours, which is the absolute, from which our ideas and ideals ultimately stem from. We are like flowers that blossom according to a predefined external, universal plan. Our human spirit is constantly eveolving in accordance with that absolute plan and it overcomes evil bit by bit and fights the evil on earth carried out often by the powerful such as Mao.

Claig: not a vote-winner :)

What a surprise.

LonFingerNails - See? THIS is why the BBC is great, because a conversation about it turns into one about universal goodness instead.

Claig - Plato was full of shit though

Plato was only human, so he could only aspire to a fraction of the absolute truth and knowledge in the universe. But he was closer to it than the evidence-based researchers at the University of East Anglia.

QED

I find it completely bizarre that someone whose argument is that human nature drives us down, has disappeared when human nature is cited as something that drives us up, simply on the grounds that one has cited human nature.

Calig - He really wasn't though.

yes, that's human nature for you

You think the Climategate evidence-based scientists were smarter than Plato, one of the greatest thinkers in human history? People study Plato's thought the world over. People are trying to forget about Climategate as fast as they can.

TCNY, you know about Plato. Can you explain his theory about forms etc.? I haven't read it, but I am sure it is very interesting.

Claig - You didn't ask who was smarter, you said that Plato had a larger fraction of the absolute truth and knowledge of the universe.

Plato didn't even know that most of the Universe existed.