Home   |   Browse       NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

Giving kids a chance.   Share:  
Thrust of argument: Susan Babbitt writes 'Bolívar was a liberal, a man of the Enlightenment, admirer of Hobbes and Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau. But Bolívar considered European philosophers naïve about political freedom. They were ignorant about colonies, not knowing what it meant to be 'even lower than servitude . . . lost, or worse, absent from the universe''. Direction of resistance / implied resistance: She tells us 'He raised a question that would not occur to European philosophers: If one is lost or absent from the universe, how is one known? How does one know others? If one rules the world, one doesn't ask how the world's peoples are known. One assumes they are known or one doesn't care, or need to.'


bae (at half strength)
AT APPROX 565.00 capita (at half strength)
AT APPROX 486.20 centrica AT APPROX 145.00 directline AT APPROX 358.70 g4s AT APPROX 252.90 gkn AT APPROX 298.40 glencore AT APPROX 343.00 m&s AT APPROX 319.30 rollsroyce (at half strength)
AT APPROX 839.50 rsa (at half strength)
AT APPROX 601.00 standardlife AT APPROX 417.90



Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:


Removal of resistance: Who would make kids poor, knowingly, for their OWN PERSONAL GAIN? Unification: Well, apparently Britain and America's rich. But remember reader - 'their' kids - are also kids. If you would turn it on THEM - how can you be any better? You have to protect all humanity's kids. All of them. The good person, the allies of love and decency - are not covering only one lot of asses. All asses must be covered. Since the status quo doesn't do that, the status quo is apparently not a legitimate authority, if by authority you mean those who protect all kids, who cover everyone's ass when the chips are down. Look at that NHS, at the housing, schools, supermarkets, the food people have to eat, by wealth bracket. Authority, human establishment, is supposed to be about protecting them. We do need establishment, but not just any old thing you want to give that name. Corporations selling stuff to make high profits - ought to never be considered establishment, that's for sure, though. Yet right now they dominate it. A sudden shift in what money is and how it is carried will leave them all out at sea with their former 'consumers' liberated and far far away.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns


Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

1 versions:

1. Server time: 14:55:8 on 20/11/2017

Related points:





previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid


Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.