[Livia]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

Thanks i try to be....good spot tho'.

Yeah well, sometimes it saves time to let someone else have written it down what you were thinking. I've never done it myself of course. Never. Not ever. Not even once. Do you believe that?!?

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Livia

Yeah well, sometimes it saves time to let someone else have written it down what you were thinking. I've never done it myself of course. Never. Not ever. Not even once. Do you believe that?!?

I know..i usually post it in italics or as a quote, but pure expediancy got the better of me.

off home now tally ho!

[vesavius]

The problem here I think is that Ben was arguing form a logistical standpoint, with a focus on the loss and wealth and empire for the country, while the others were arguing from a ethical standpoint (the moral stand against Nazism).

The two priorities are always gonna clash.

It's just how Ben sees things... he dosent emotionally connect to anything- people or events. He dosent get the concept of ethical politics (as we have seen from his cold lying and using of others in the house) and sees no value for fighting in something just because it 'right', especially if there is an attached personal cost.

We see exactly the same dynamic when he is arguing with JJ... Ben argues from a calm unemotional stance, disattached and logical, and JJ argues from the heart for what he believes. Ironically, this is the very reason why many consider JJ to 'lose' this arguments, because many see being calm as an automatic win, no matter what is actually said.


If Ben had been around during WW2 he would have been a British Nazi apologiser, appeaser, and sympathiser, simply because that would have been the stance in which he would have seen the least personal cost for himself and potentiolly he best financial choice for the Empire.

There were nore of them around then many think, and most of them came from the very social classes that Ben tries so hard to emulate.