From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 60913
Date: 2008-10-15
----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> =======
> Sorry,
> but this is how things are explained.
By whom?
======
I'm not an historian of the Industrial Revolution.
I suppose you can get good references if you look for an answer.
Arnaud
=======
> The industrial revolution _first_ happened in England
> _because_ it had been made possible to happen
> _because_ majors advances in agricultural pratices had been made.
> Unemployed workers in agriculture got employed in new industrial
businesses.
It happened because it had been made possible to happen?
===
Basically, it amounts to that,
Most inventions are been thought before (Cf. Da Vinci)
but could not come into being
because the conditions were not met.
Arnaud
=====
I compared the conflict between two (sets of) peoples with another
conflict between two (sets of) peoples. If I thought properties of
peoples were immanent such a comparison would make no sense.
=======
I must have failed to see that
or you have not been clear enough.
Arnaud
=========
It seems to me that since I have opinions that differ from yours you
have identified me as the Enemy, and therefore repeat the best
critique you can think of of the Enemy, who is obviously the
Essentialist, who is guilty of Essentialism, which is a Bad Thing, if
I remember correctly from the introductory university exam of
philosophy. Better luck next time, after you read and understood what
I wrote.
Torsten
=========
I don't think you are the Enemy.
I wish you could be clearer.
That would help understand what you are trying to say.
Sometimes I'm lost in the fogs of your ethnolinguistic maze.
Arnaud