Politics in General

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

User avatar
Julie T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1130
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:12 pm
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Re: Politics in General

Post by Julie T » Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:22 pm

Ian Volante wrote: I always wondered how obvious it must have been. Was probably around that time that my mother encouraged me to deal with my bedclothes rather than her having to play Rubik's Sheet.
My kids do their own laundry from 12/13 years onwards. Mainly so I'm freed from some of the machine loads necessary in a family with 5 children, and partly to teach them life skills. Sounds like my timing meant I avoided other loads too! :lol:
"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me." Benjamin Disraeli

User avatar
Andy Wilson
Kiloposter
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Andy Wilson » Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:45 am


User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9359
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Charlie Reams » Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:43 pm


User avatar
Phil Reynolds
Postmaster General
Posts: 3168
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Phil Reynolds » Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:11 pm

Distressingly, this thread seems to have wandered away from the discussion of masturbation. So here's an excellent link to bring us back on topic. (Make sure you scroll down to read the excellent response to a Freedom of Information request.)

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7148
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Matt Morrison » Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:15 pm

Quality response.

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Kiloposter
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:12 pm

Has anyone played with this? I quite like it but when you have Labour at 50% and Conservatives at 50% and the Lib Dems (obviously) at 0% then I find it amusing that the Lib Dems still end up with one seat!
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Eoin Monaghan
Kiloposter
Posts: 1461
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:33 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Eoin Monaghan » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:06 pm

I know this isn't political but rather than creating a new topic I thought I'd post this here as debates have come up.
Our school runs a senior debating competition each year and this was the first year I could enter it, I'm good enough at debates but nothing special, but I entered anyway. I was up against a team consisting of the winner of the last two years so was pretty nervous. The speech went okay but I get nervous speaking in front of people so I was desperately trying not to shake. Anyway, enough waffle, the motion was: "This house believes the allowance of enhancement drugs will not undermine the spirit of sport." (we were the proposition).

Any thoughts? Just thought you might be interested as to what I should have/could have said seeing as we didn't get on too well.

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Kiloposter
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:06 pm

Eoin Monaghan wrote:I know this isn't political but rather than creating a new topic I thought I'd post this here as debates have come up.
Our school runs a senior debating competition each year and this was the first year I could enter it, I'm good enough at debates but nothing special, but I entered anyway. I was up against a team consisting of the winner of the last two years so was pretty nervous. The speech went okay but I get nervous speaking in front of people so I was desperately trying not to shake. Anyway, enough waffle, the motion was: "This house believes the allowance of enhancement drugs will not undermine the spirit of sport." (we were the proposition).

Any thoughts? Just thought you might be interested as to what I should have/could have said seeing as we didn't get on too well.
You were probably flummoxed before you began when you reach subjects as this.

But in, fairness, I will give you a couple of things - just say if you did these:

Did you define the motion? (By "the spirit of sport", we mean X)
Did you have a 3-point argument?
Did you end with "I urge you to vote for the motion."?
Did you have any rebuttle?
Did you use a real-life example? (In 1995, Rubens Barrichello tested positive for drugs but had only taken cold remedies; he cannot have been taking performance-enhancing drugs if there was no improvement)
Did you point out that testing is inconsistent in several sports?


I actually have the junior competition coming up on Thursday 8 March, the last year I am eligible to apply. It's a house competition, and our subject is "This House believes that every school subject should be considered to be important." And I am against. I will leave what I will say until after the competition if anyone reads it!
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Eoin Monaghan
Kiloposter
Posts: 1461
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:33 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Eoin Monaghan » Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:33 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Eoin Monaghan wrote:I know this isn't political but rather than creating a new topic I thought I'd post this here as debates have come up.
Our school runs a senior debating competition each year and this was the first year I could enter it, I'm good enough at debates but nothing special, but I entered anyway. I was up against a team consisting of the winner of the last two years so was pretty nervous. The speech went okay but I get nervous speaking in front of people so I was desperately trying not to shake. Anyway, enough waffle, the motion was: "This house believes the allowance of enhancement drugs will not undermine the spirit of sport." (we were the proposition).

Any thoughts? Just thought you might be interested as to what I should have/could have said seeing as we didn't get on too well.
You were probably flummoxed before you began when you reach subjects as this. I don't know what you mean by this, is it because of the drugs-related issue, the fact I had the 'tougher' side to debate or something else?

But in, fairness, I will give you a couple of things - just say if you did these:

Did you define the motion? (By "the spirit of sport", we mean X) Yes, it was the basis of my argument
Did you have a 3-point argument? Err, not particularly
Did you end with "I urge you to vote for the motion."? Yes
Did you have any rebuttle? Not during my speech because I was first speaker but at the end I did use rebuttal
Did you use a real-life example? (In 1995, Rubens Barrichello tested positive for drugs but had only taken cold remedies; he cannot have been taking performance-enhancing drugs if there was no improvement) Yes
Did you point out that testing is inconsistent in several sports? Yes
Anyone else...?

User avatar
Clive Brooker
Devotee
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
Location: San Toy

Re: Politics in General

Post by Clive Brooker » Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:21 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Did you use a real-life example? (In 1995, Rubens Barrichello tested positive for drugs but had only taken cold remedies; he cannot have been taking performance-enhancing drugs if there was no improvement)
I don't understand the relevance of this example. The motion concerned whether allowing the use of performance-enhancing drugs is contrary to the spirit of sport - a quite different issue. Perhaps you're just illustrating one aspect of the art of debate.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3202
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:52 pm

Clive Brooker wrote:
Rhys Benjamin wrote:Did you use a real-life example? (In 1995, Rubens Barrichello tested positive for drugs but had only taken cold remedies; he cannot have been taking performance-enhancing drugs if there was no improvement)
I don't understand the relevance of this example. The motion concerned whether allowing the use of performance-enhancing drugs is contrary to the spirit of sport - a quite different issue. Perhaps you're just illustrating one aspect of the art of debate.
It's also a flawed argument - where is the evidence that the drugs didn't bring him up to his normal level from the lower level his assumed illness would have forced him to be at?
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Kiloposter
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:48 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Clive Brooker wrote:
Rhys Benjamin wrote:Did you use a real-life example? (In 1995, Rubens Barrichello tested positive for drugs but had only taken cold remedies; he cannot have been taking performance-enhancing drugs if there was no improvement)
I don't understand the relevance of this example. The motion concerned whether allowing the use of performance-enhancing drugs is contrary to the spirit of sport - a quite different issue. Perhaps you're just illustrating one aspect of the art of debate.
It's also a flawed argument - where is the evidence that the drugs didn't bring him up to his normal level from the lower level his assumed illness would have forced him to be at?
Let me elaborate (I would have done in reality):

His performance that weekend was consistent with his team-mates's (who had passed the test). He was consistently with his team-mate throughout that year.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Eoin Monaghan wrote:I know this isn't political but rather than creating a new topic I thought I'd post this here as debates have come up.
Our school runs a senior debating competition each year and this was the first year I could enter it, I'm good enough at debates but nothing special, but I entered anyway. I was up against a team consisting of the winner of the last two years so was pretty nervous. The speech went okay but I get nervous speaking in front of people so I was desperately trying not to shake. Anyway, enough waffle, the motion was: "This house believes the allowance of enhancement drugs will not undermine the spirit of sport." (we were the proposition).

Any thoughts? Just thought you might be interested as to what I should have/could have said seeing as we didn't get on too well.
You were probably flummoxed before you began when you reach subjects as this. I don't know what you mean by this, is it because of the drugs-related issue, the fact I had the 'tougher' side to debate or something else?You did have the tougher side... just last Friday when you discuss giving an amnesty to illegal immigrants or something.

But in, fairness, I will give you a couple of things - just say if you did these:

Did you define the motion? (By "the spirit of sport", we mean X) Yes, it was the basis of my argument
Did you have a 3-point argument? Err, not particularly Ah, that's where you fell down.
Did you end with "I urge you to vote for the motion."? Yes
Did you have any rebuttle? Not during my speech because I was first speaker but at the end I did use rebuttal
Did you use a real-life example? (In 1995, Rubens Barrichello tested positive for drugs but had only taken cold remedies; he cannot have been taking performance-enhancing drugs if there was no improvement) Yes
Did you point out that testing is inconsistent in several sports? Yes
Anyone else...?
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Eoin Monaghan
Kiloposter
Posts: 1461
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:33 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Eoin Monaghan » Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:01 pm

I'm pretty sure not having a 3 point argument isn't why we lost seeing as nobody else had one.

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Kiloposter
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:33 am

21 DAYS TO GO... AND COUNTING

The 2012 London Mayoral Election is coming up shortly. It is being held under the supplementary vote system, the only system which can match FPTP.

And I, your pet mini-Tory, is back with more propaganda.

Remember the last time Ken was mayor?
The Sun, 9 December 2000 - TAXPAYERS BUT KEN'S AIDE A £2M MANSION
The Independent, 10 January 2001 - Livingstone promises to join Tube workers' picket
Daily Express, 20 August 2003 - Ken puts Tube fares up by 25%
Evening Standard, 6 February 2004 - Council tax bills to rise by double inflation
The Independent, 6 July 2004 - Crony row as Livingstone gives aide £45,000 rise
Evening Standard, 7 September 2004 - Mayor attacked over £3.5 million spent on 'propaganda' magazine
Daily Mail, 1 October 2005 - Ken defies Londoners to widen congestion charge
Evening Standard, 11 December 2007 - KEN AND LOST £500,000: THE INQUIRY BEGINS
Evening Standard, 16 January 2008 - MAYOR 'MISLEAD PUBLIC OVER CASH SCANDAL'
Evening Standard, 4 August 2008 - THE £1m PAYOFF FOR KEN CRONIES


Ken has been boasting on BBC London about him cutting fares in the 80's but he had no control over fares then as there was no mayor. In fact, one could argue that he is a hypocrite (I apologise for the unparliamentary language) as he shouts and screams at people not paying full tax but he gives himself a tax "relief".

Boris' campaign, though, is second to none. Having delivered 90% of his 2008 pledges in a "brutally honest" report, then among the things he has done is freezing (and cutting this year) council tax. Yes, I know, it's a cut of £3.10, but any cut here can quite clearly trump Ken's record of increasing council tax by 152%!

Boris only has 9 pledges this time out:

Cutting waste at City Hall - freeing up £3,500,000,000 for services
Putting £445 back into your pocket by freezing the mayoral share of council tax
Creating 200,000 new jobs over the next four years
Making our streets and homes safer with 1,000 more police on the beat
Restoring 300 acres of green space and planting 20,000 street trees
Investing £221,000,000 to transform local high streets, supporting small businesses
Ensuring a true Olympic legacy - 11,000 new homes and 10,000 new jobs
Reducing Tube delays 30% by 2015. Building Crossrail and orbital rail to link our suburbs. Extending the Bike Hire scheme
Securing a better deal for London from No 10

I don't think there's much more to say here.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Devotee
Posts: 939
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:17 am

Rhys Benjamin wrote:And I, your pet mini-Tory, is back with more propaganda.
1. Your grammar really highlights what an excellent job the Tories are doing with education. :roll: 2. It's soundbites like this that imbue me with a feeling of dread whenever I see you're the last person to have posted in this thread.
Rhys Benjamin wrote:Remember the last time Ken was mayor?
The Sun, 9 December 2000 - TAXPAYERS BUT KEN'S AIDE A £2M MANSION
The Independent, 6 July 2004 - Crony row as Livingstone gives aide £45,000 rise
Evening Standard, 4 August 2008 - THE £1m PAYOFF FOR KEN CRONIES

...

I don't think there's much more to say here.
O rly? Here's one place where he can cut a few quid.And funny you should mention cronyism...
proud tiara owner and annoying publicity person who tells you to click links to the the FOCAL website.

(and also to my TRAVEL BLOG)

User avatar
Phil Reynolds
Postmaster General
Posts: 3168
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Phil Reynolds » Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:18 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:And I, your pet mini-Tory, is back
Booyakasha.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2560
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:13 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:21 DAYS TO GO... AND COUNTING

The 2012 London Mayoral Election is coming up shortly. It is being held under the supplementary vote system, the only system which can match FPTP.

And I, your pet mini-Tory, is back with more propaganda.

etc. etc.
Heh. If you look back on posts like these in five years time, you are going to be SO embarrassed.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7575
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:40 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:The 2012 London Mayoral Election is coming up shortly. It is being held under the supplementary vote system, the only system which can match FPTP.
But if your favourite candidate is knocked out in the first round, your vote will be counted twice, which is massively unfair. Also, the candidate who finishes second could end up winning. This is crazy!

User avatar
Phil Reynolds
Postmaster General
Posts: 3168
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Phil Reynolds » Mon May 07, 2012 8:13 am


User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Kiloposter
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:38 pm

Could I just take a moment of your time to fill this in?
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7575
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:16 am

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Could I just take a moment of your time to fill this in?
It's quite difficult to answer. Do I approve of David Cameron as leader of the Conservativ Party? Well, it depends what I'm looking for in such a leader. They are a party for cunts, so should I approve if I think he's a big enough cunt, or should I disapprove because he's a cunt?

User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Politics in General

Post by Kirk Bevins » Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:29 pm

I couldn't fill in the survey because there weren't enough voting options, e.g. "I don't care" or "I don't vote" or "Who is David Cameron?"

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Kiloposter
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:44 pm

"Other"? I do actually have a lot of "Don't know"s in the other fields.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3202
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:24 pm

Just redone the Political Compass test, and it appears I've lurched (cos that's the only way people move in this context) more to the libertarian. Well, -5.6 to -6.2 anyway.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Kiloposter
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:03 pm

I've written this, but the ending is very contentious!
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:11 am

Surprised there's been little mention of the Scottish Independance referendum. I'm interested to know what peoples thoughts are here. I don't know too much about it but from what I have seen I think a yes vote would be a bad idea. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise though.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3202
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Wed Sep 10, 2014 7:00 am

Mark James wrote:Surprised there's been little mention of the Scottish Independance referendum. I'm interested to know what peoples thoughts are here. I don't know too much about it but from what I have seen I think a yes vote would be a bad idea. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise though.
Can't legally say anything apart from expressing my utter boredom with the issue.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7575
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Sep 10, 2014 11:45 am

Mark James wrote:Surprised there's been little mention of the Scottish Independance referendum. I'm interested to know what peoples thoughts are here. I don't know too much about it but from what I have seen I think a yes vote would be a bad idea. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise though.
It's interesting. At least it would put an end to the bureaucratic nonsense that is devolution (well the Scottish part anyway). I personally don't want them to vote in favour of independence though.

People talk about politicians being Westminster-centric, and I think that is the problem that needs to be addressed rather than by having devolution and/or independence. Otherwise logically parts of England that aren't near Westminster should demand devolution/independence if we're going to take this to its logical conclusions. The problem to me is that the party brands (which might as well be Tesco's, Coca Cola, McDonald's etc.) are Westminster-centric, and the MPs seem to be there to represent their parties rather than the people who voted them in. Change that, and things might improve.

Scottish people don't have fundamentally different needs from other people in the UK. We all need money to be spend on health, education and the rest of it, and so I don't see any particular reason why they need to have a separate government. Countries splitting up because one part thinks another part isn't doing it right seems to me to make it more likely that things will go wrong somewhere. Take it to its logical conclusions and you'd have 60 million governments of one person who definitely knows best.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2560
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Wed Sep 10, 2014 7:06 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mark James wrote:Surprised there's been little mention of the Scottish Independance referendum. I'm interested to know what peoples thoughts are here. I don't know too much about it but from what I have seen I think a yes vote would be a bad idea. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise though.
It's interesting. At least it would put an end to the bureaucratic nonsense that is devolution (well the Scottish part anyway). I personally don't want them to vote in favour of independence though.

People talk about politicians being Westminster-centric, and I think that is the problem that needs to be addressed rather than by having devolution and/or independence. Otherwise logically parts of England that aren't near Westminster should demand devolution/independence if we're going to take this to its logical conclusions. The problem to me is that the party brands (which might as well be Tesco's, Coca Cola, McDonald's etc.) are Westminster-centric, and the MPs seem to be there to represent their parties rather than the people who voted them in. Change that, and things might improve.

Scottish people don't have fundamentally different needs from other people in the UK. We all need money to be spend on health, education and the rest of it, and so I don't see any particular reason why they need to have a separate government. Countries splitting up because one part thinks another part isn't doing it right seems to me to make it more likely that things will go wrong somewhere. Take it to its logical conclusions and you'd have 60 million governments of one person who definitely knows best.
I've been following it all for a while and agree with most of what you say. It's all been a bit of a mess. I think the main problem is that neither side can actually promise anything, because so much of what would happen in the event of independence is unknown; this was the Better Together's entire campaign up until last week and I think that's why they've allowed their support to haemorrhage. The frantic scrabbling-around since polling has started to suggest that they might lose the vote isn't going to make any difference now. The Yesses have at least been stressing the positives and I think their most notable gains have come simply from pointing out that independence is an opportunity to elect a fairer government that will more accurately represent the Scottish people.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7575
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Sep 11, 2014 11:50 pm

Mark James wrote:Surprised there's been little mention of the Scottish Independance referendum.
I'm not surprised. There's very little discussion in here any more.

By the way, the current odds are about 4/1 against a "yes" vote. They were a bit lower when I checked a few days ago, but this recent panic by the "no" campaign seems a bit premature. I trust bookies more than I trust opinion polls.

Steven M. McCann
Devotee
Posts: 502
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:07 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Steven M. McCann » Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:17 am

The horse SCOTLAND is generally available @ 20/1 for Saturday's big race (The St Leger), it's got to be worth a few quid each way at that price, it's Starting Price will be a good deal shorter, once the "Referendum Media" start going on about how topical it is!

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2560
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Fri Sep 12, 2014 9:29 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mark James wrote:Surprised there's been little mention of the Scottish Independance referendum.
I'm not surprised. There's very little discussion in here any more.

By the way, the current odds are about 4/1 against a "yes" vote. They were a bit lower when I checked a few days ago, but this recent panic by the "no" campaign seems a bit premature. I trust bookies more than I trust opinion polls.
I would agree normally but I think the odds have been grossly skewed because most bookies already have big liabilities if the outcome is a "no" vote. People were piling money on "no" when the polls weren't close, so even if the bookies think it's a 50:50 bet now, they must offer reduced odds on "no" and more attractive odds on "yes" in an attempt to balance the book.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7575
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:34 am

JimBentley wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mark James wrote:Surprised there's been little mention of the Scottish Independance referendum.
I'm not surprised. There's very little discussion in here any more.

By the way, the current odds are about 4/1 against a "yes" vote. They were a bit lower when I checked a few days ago, but this recent panic by the "no" campaign seems a bit premature. I trust bookies more than I trust opinion polls.
I would agree normally but I think the odds have been grossly skewed because most bookies already have big liabilities if the outcome is a "no" vote. People were piling money on "no" when the polls weren't close, so even if the bookies think it's a 50:50 bet now, they must offer reduced odds on "no" and more attractive odds on "yes" in an attempt to balance the book.
Maybe, but this is on Betfair as well, although I suppose we're kidding ourselves if we think regular bookies don't reside on there. But if odds are massively out, money will get put down and things should equalise pretty quickly.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2560
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Sat Sep 13, 2014 5:47 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
JimBentley wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:By the way, the current odds are about 4/1 against a "yes" vote. They were a bit lower when I checked a few days ago, but this recent panic by the "no" campaign seems a bit premature. I trust bookies more than I trust opinion polls.
I would agree normally but I think the odds have been grossly skewed because most bookies already have big liabilities if the outcome is a "no" vote. People were piling money on "no" when the polls weren't close, so even if the bookies think it's a 50:50 bet now, they must offer reduced odds on "no" and more attractive odds on "yes" in an attempt to balance the book.
Maybe, but this is on Betfair as well, although I suppose we're kidding ourselves if we think regular bookies don't reside on there. But if odds are massively out, money will get put down and things should equalise pretty quickly.
Oh please. I've just been to Betfair and looked at the independence odds. People are offering 5/1 plus on a "yes" vote but look at the availability - it's pathetic. The combined available market for "yes" at the moment is £2,928 and the market for "no" is £39,029. I would assume much of that is made of up of professional bookies rather than lone wolves - if so, they're hardly exposing themselves to heavy losses.

User avatar
James Laverty
Enthusiast
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:45 pm
Location: West Bridgford

Re: Politics in General

Post by James Laverty » Sat Mar 14, 2015 7:58 pm

Definitely not Jamie McNeill or Schrodinger's Cat....

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Kiloposter
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:00 am

I'm just going to dump this here, considering I had a very long discussion about this today... http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.co.uk/2015 ... orism.html
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7575
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:46 pm

By the way, the whole thing about free market capitalism and that you should just let people sink or swim and "Let the markets decide" is basically saying "Be a psychopath" or "Be an arsehole".

But the reason people don't see it that way is that we are socially more removed from the people who are negatively affected by our own greed than we would have been years ago.

In a hunter-gatherer society, there might be one man who is better at hunting than anyone else. He might say "Well, I've killed all these animals that you lot all eat, so I'm having the rest of the month off. That means no hunting, no gathering, hacking up the animals to make them eatable, no anything. If you don't like it, I'm changing tribes." But people wouldn't accept that. They'd tell him to fuck off. He's quite clearly being a cunt. Surely even Rhys can see this.

But people who have jobs that earn ridiculous amounts nowadays, while others are cleaning their toilets for the minimum wage, are doing this exact same thing. "I earn this amount because my skills are rare. They are in demand so I can demand a nice high wage while everyone else struggles." The only difference between this and the other example is that he doesn't have to interact socially with the people who clean his office toilets and he can distance himself from them so he doesn't feel awkward. Oh, there is another difference too. While that hunter guy probably was the best hunter in his group, this guy probably got his job because he was born into a nice well-off family and got all the opportunities he needed. The people cleaning his toilets could probably actually do his job just as well with a little bit of training.

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Kiloposter
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Thu Nov 05, 2015 7:24 pm

I understand your point of view - but I don't agree to it. It's a very collectivist, Marx-cum-Mill way of thinking.

I think the second person and the hunter are very different, actually. The hunter is trying to justify being a lazy git - and as an advocate of performance-related pay, he deserves a raise or a bonus - but not an extended holiday. The second person, on the other hand, is justifying his pay - and I don't want to get into too much detail because there's far too many assumptions here in Gev's argument.

This is where Marx meets Mill for Gev. Gev's advocating equality of opportunity (Mill) but yet doesn't advocate self-realisation/actualisation (Marx). If the cleaner could be there, which he can - why doesn't he do the training? Where's the aspiration? Human beings are fundamentally selfish, meaning they are ambitious. Hence, I don't agree with Gev's succinctly-worded "inequatily is totally evil".
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Devotee
Posts: 939
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Thu Nov 05, 2015 8:03 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Hence, I don't agree with Gev's succinctly-worded "inequatily is totally evil".
Rhys Benjamin: so clueless about inequality that he can't even spell it right.
proud tiara owner and annoying publicity person who tells you to click links to the the FOCAL website.

(and also to my TRAVEL BLOG)

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2560
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Thu Nov 05, 2015 8:10 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:But people who have jobs that earn ridiculous amounts nowadays, while others are cleaning their toilets for the minimum wage, are doing this exact same thing. "I earn this amount because my skills are rare. They are in demand so I can demand a nice high wage while everyone else struggles."
What I don't understand is this: Now that we know that many of these supposedly indispensable, clever people earning ridiculous amounts of money (i.e. high-ranking bank officials and traders) were only making so much money because they'd rigged the markets in the first place, then why is there still such a furore whenever it is suggested that we should maybe tax them a bit more, or regulate them a bit more? It's very easy to make money in a rigged market and takes no sort of skill whatsoever. All it takes it a lack of morals.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7575
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Nov 05, 2015 8:17 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:I understand your point of view - but I don't agree to it. It's a very collectivist, Marx-cum-Mill way of thinking.

I think the second person and the hunter are very different, actually. The hunter is trying to justify being a lazy git - and as an advocate of performance-related pay, he deserves a raise or a bonus - but not an extended holiday. The second person, on the other hand, is justifying his pay - and I don't want to get into too much detail because there's far too many assumptions here in Gev's argument.

This is where Marx meets Mill for Gev. Gev's advocating equality of opportunity (Mill) but yet doesn't advocate self-realisation/actualisation (Marx). If the cleaner could be there, which he can - why doesn't he do the training? Where's the aspiration? Human beings are fundamentally selfish, meaning they are ambitious. Hence, I don't agree with Gev's succinctly-worded "inequatily is totally evil".
I can change the hunter to him demanding more of the tribe's resources. Consider it done. But that doesn't really matter, when you consider that people can work part time. By demanding time off, he's just saying he wants more resources per hour of work, but wants to work part time. But the point is that we can clearly see that the hunter is being unfair by effectively saying "I'm better than you lot so I deserve more. Supply and demand innit." Whereas we don't seem to hold the same view in today's society. And I'm asking what the difference is.

Also, it's not always possible to do the training. First of all, for a lot of jobs there is no open training. It's just getting in and knowing the right people, and the rest is "on the job" training. Not all jobs are meritocratic. Look at your hero David Cameron. He's hardly where he is on merit! Also, training often costs money and always costs time. The cleaner can't necessarily afford to give up working hours to train. If things didn't work out when someone was at school and immediately after, they're often screwed for life.

Anyway, I'm not saying that all inequality is evil. It would be impossible to achieve complete equality with the number of people we have on this planet. For one thing, it would be an administrative nightmare! But the world is far more unequal than it needs to be. For example, humans being humans, there clearly needs to be some sort of motivation for people to train to do certain jobs, so to say everyone should earn the same is unrealistic. But that in no way justifies the levels of inequality we have. And it's also a massive leap from that to just say "Leave everything to market forces", which I think you want to do.

And what do you mean when you say I'm not advocating self-realisation/actualisation. Define these terms, and pinpoint where I have stated this.

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Kiloposter
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:59 pm

So, in no particular order...

Many post-war advocates of what is known as "modern liberalism" (although I see "capacitites" as a better word for them) define self-realisation/actualisation is the fulfilment of the potential of oneself. When you made so few circumstances initially regarding the cleaner, one has to take a position of ceteris paribus and presume that the cleaner has the ability to become a whatever-it-is and get there. Hence, you strongly implied the cleaner lacks any ambition, until the latest post, which rather clarified things. Never settle for what you've got. Push on for things that are better, faster, stronger, etc.

Considering that the ultimate job interview is getting the mandate of the general public, I'd say Cameron's clearly in Number 10 on merit, or people wouldn't have voted for him. It's the biggest mandate in terms of the entire electorate for a single party since 1997, and thanks to Blair, we've moved towards more of a presidential style of politics, with people saying (to me, they did, anyway), that "I'm voting for David Cameron" rather than "I'm voting Conservative". Our research at CCHQ during the election campaign was that people were far more likely to vote based upon the leader, rather than the party. Oddly, the amount of people who said they'd vote for the Labour Party but wanted David Cameron as Prime Minister (!?) was very high (under the Data Protection Act, I can't reveal the exact figures). In this famous PMQs in 1997, we see that Blair is able to turn a soundbite. The Left present to the general public that he "won" the exchange, although, if you were to read it on paper (such as here), the exchange is clearly not the resounding victory for Blair that it is presented by the Left-wing media as. We're in an era of personality politics, as gallant as Corbyn's attempt to change it is. Cameron has to seek to persuade the electorate, and he does so.

I infer the "first" hunter scenario very difficulty to the "second" hunter scenario. In your initial post, the hunter (as I said earlier) is clearly a lazy git and doesn't get what he asks for.
By demanding time off, he's just saying he wants more resources per hour of work, but wants to work part time.
No, he shouldn't be allowed this. Per hour, he should receive performance-related pay, or a flat rate. The difficulty with a flat rate is that it really doesn't encourage productivity, and seeing as the productivity rate of the UK is very low, this isn't the right path. Conversely, performance-related pay can lead to this issue. It's a tricky one. My stance is that you have some deviation relating to performance, but not directly related to the specific quantity, per se. The most productive worker in the office for the month gets (say) an extra £100 (save for special circumstances), no matter if he outsells/outworks/outmanufactures everyone by 10 units, 11, or 12 - encourages aspiration, which is a key principle of human nature.
But the point is that we can clearly see that the hunter is being unfair by effectively saying "I'm better than you lot so I deserve more. Supply and demand innit." Whereas we don't seem to hold the same view in today's society. And I'm asking what the difference is.
[citation needed], seeing as I can't find anything other than an incredibly niché survey of teachers on this. You're right to say that not all jobs are meritocratic (looking at you, Mr Berbatov) but the large majority certainly are.
If things didn't work out when someone was at school and immediately after, they're often screwed for life.
This is very simplistic. A friend of mine didn't ever do well at school, but ended up with the job he wanted down to hard work and determination. What you're advocating is that people give up should they fail to get University places, but things like apprenticeships, which have grown exponentially since 2011, have ended this notion.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7575
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Nov 06, 2015 12:00 am

Rhys Benjamin wrote: What you're advocating is that people give up should they fail to get University places, but things like apprenticeships, which have grown exponentially since 2011, have ended this notion.
I'll respond to the rest later, but this bit annoyed me. I did not advocate this.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7903
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon Corby » Fri Nov 06, 2015 9:06 am

I don't understand your analogy Gev. It seems perfectly reasonable that the best hunter is rewarded (be that in time off, larger share of the spoils, whatever). I don't see he's being unfair.

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Devotee
Posts: 939
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:03 am

Rhys Benjamin wrote:one has to take a position of ceteris paribus
Please stick to layman's terms. Pretentious terminology helps no-one.
Rhys Benjamin wrote:Considering that the ultimate job interview is getting the mandate of the general public, I'd say Cameron's clearly in Number 10 on merit, or people wouldn't have voted for him.
This misses the point entirely. Regardless of whether he is Prime Minister on merit, Gev was arguing that he didn't get into the position of being able to be Prime Minister on merit. Just a cursory look at his Wiki reveals how much of his work experience was gained through nepotism (a godfather as an MP, his dad getting him a job in Hong Kong...), not merit.

Anyone else would have to have earned or be gifted enough money to fund themselves through an internship or volunteering to be able to work for an MP without the requisite qualifications.
If things didn't work out when someone was at school and immediately after, they're often screwed for life.
This is very simplistic. A friend of mine didn't ever do well at school, but ended up with the job he wanted down to hard work and determination. What you're advocating is that people give up should they fail to get University places, but things like apprenticeships, which have grown exponentially since 2011, have ended this notion.
So what happens to:
- People who don't know what their desired career path is until later in life, who may have responsibilities such as child-rearing or rent/a mortgage to keep up which restricts their ability to embark on the necessary qualifications or experience to get into their desired career path
- People with physical disabilities that restrict their ability to pursue their careers
- People with mental disabilities who may generally be highly ambitious, but whose work/ambition is strongly affected by their disorder

Apprenticeships may be of use to young people who know what they want to do but didn't excel academically, but are absolutely not a cure-all. Most apprenticeship positions I've looked at advertised are only open to those under the age of 20 and pay poorly (again meaning a certain amount of financial privilege is necessary for the apprentice's living expenses - can someone afford to be an apprentice if circumstances dictate that they are unable to live with their family during their apprenticeship? £2.73 an hour isn't paying for anyone's rent).

Additionally, the high cost of training and funding apprenticeships has led to at least some industries being unable or unwilling to take on graduates or otherwise qualified new workers, meaning that those that have worked hard at school may be unable to get a starting position on the job they want anyway.
proud tiara owner and annoying publicity person who tells you to click links to the the FOCAL website.

(and also to my TRAVEL BLOG)

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7575
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Nov 06, 2015 2:11 pm

Jon Corby wrote:I don't understand your analogy Gev. It seems perfectly reasonable that the best hunter is rewarded (be that in time off, larger share of the spoils, whatever). I don't see he's being unfair.
We're talking about a tribe presumably in some sort of struggle for existence, trying to live the best sort of existence they can. This guy is part of that tribe and yet he's put himself above the interests of the tribe because he thinks he can.

If someone knew how to get a good deal on train tickets and was travelling somewhere with friends, but then decided to charge his friends a bit more to keep some more of the savings for himself, you'd think "What a cunt. He might as well be Hansfording conundrums".

All the situations are people saying "They need me, so I can exploit them."

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7575
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Nov 06, 2015 2:25 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:So, in no particular order...

Many post-war advocates of what is known as "modern liberalism" (although I see "capacitites" as a better word for them) define self-realisation/actualisation is the fulfilment of the potential of oneself. When you made so few circumstances initially regarding the cleaner, one has to take a position of ceteris paribus and presume that the cleaner has the ability to become a whatever-it-is and get there. Hence, you strongly implied the cleaner lacks any ambition, until the latest post, which rather clarified things. Never settle for what you've got. Push on for things that are better, faster, stronger, etc.
The cleaner clearly wasn't supposed to be a specific individual with an entire life history. I was using an example of a guy who also had a cleaner. Just because I didn't define the cleaner's entire life, it doesn't make it right that you can make any old assumptions just to help your point. It's pretty desperate stuff!
Considering that the ultimate job interview is getting the mandate of the general public, I'd say Cameron's clearly in Number 10 on merit, or people wouldn't have voted for him.
As Jen has said, it's not just about winning the vote; it's about becoming the leader of the Conservative party as well. And there are basically only two choices for Prime Minister once the election is under way. We also have an awful electoral system that entrenches this. Furthermore, winning is not just down to him. It's all the "spin" and rubbish that goes with it, like the predominantly right-wing press rubbishing Ed Miliband.
In this famous PMQs in 1997, we see that Blair is able to turn a soundbite. The Left present to the general public that he "won" the exchange, although, if you were to read it on paper (such as here), the exchange is clearly not the resounding victory for Blair that it is presented by the Left-wing media as. We're in an era of personality politics, as gallant as Corbyn's attempt to change it is. Cameron has to seek to persuade the electorate, and he does so.
This is very interesting. It seems that you're implicitly admitting that David Cameron's policies are awful, but he won the election through being the smarmy slimeball that he clearly is. If that's what you mean by merit, then I think we can leave it there, because I don't think we're a million miles away from each other's opinion on this.
No, he shouldn't be allowed this. Per hour, he should receive performance-related pay, or a flat rate. The difficulty with a flat rate is that it really doesn't encourage productivity, and seeing as the productivity rate of the UK is very low, this isn't the right path. Conversely, performance-related pay can lead to this issue. It's a tricky one. My stance is that you have some deviation relating to performance, but not directly related to the specific quantity, per se. The most productive worker in the office for the month gets (say) an extra £100 (save for special circumstances), no matter if he outsells/outworks/outmanufactures everyone by 10 units, 11, or 12 - encourages aspiration, which is a key principle of human nature.
This is all beginning to get a bit waffly, and any point is getting lost.
Gavin Chipper wrote: But the point is that we can clearly see that the hunter is being unfair by effectively saying "I'm better than you lot so I deserve more. Supply and demand innit." Whereas we don't seem to hold the same view in today's society. And I'm asking what the difference is.
Rhys Benjamin wrote:[citation needed], seeing as I can't find anything other than an incredibly niché survey of teachers on this. You're right to say that not all jobs are meritocratic (looking at you, Mr Berbatov) but the large majority certainly are.
Just to be clear, what I'm saying is that I think most people would see the hunter as a bit of an arsehole. But in today's society, people earn much more than others and much more than they need without people thinking much of it. That's my main point. And it seems to be that it's mainly because we don't have a close-knit society where everyone knows everyone else, so people don't need to justify their riches to other people. The economy is far more complex and indirect than in hunter gatherer days, so you can exploit it much more without looking like a cunt. And it's become normal.
Gavin Chipper wrote:If things didn't work out when someone was at school and immediately after, they're often screwed for life.
Rhys Benjamin wrote:This is very simplistic. A friend of mine didn't ever do well at school, but ended up with the job he wanted down to hard work and determination. What you're advocating is that people give up should they fail to get University places, but things like apprenticeships, which have grown exponentially since 2011, have ended this notion.
There are always rags to riches stories (not that your story is necessarily about riches), but the point is that it's far less likely for people born into poor families to do well for themselves than for people born into rich families. Merely saying it's possible is to miss the point.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7903
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon Corby » Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:37 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:I don't understand your analogy Gev. It seems perfectly reasonable that the best hunter is rewarded (be that in time off, larger share of the spoils, whatever). I don't see he's being unfair.
We're talking about a tribe presumably in some sort of struggle for existence, trying to live the best sort of existence they can. This guy is part of that tribe and yet he's put himself above the interests of the tribe because he thinks he can.

If someone knew how to get a good deal on train tickets and was travelling somewhere with friends, but then decided to charge his friends a bit more to keep some more of the savings for himself, you'd think "What a cunt. He might as well be Hansfording conundrums".

All the situations are people saying "They need me, so I can exploit them."
Hmm. I'm still not convinced. You've basically just put it down as the basis of your argument as if it's an indisputable fact, when it's nothing of the sort. If I was that hunter (and I am) I would think the others just weren't pulling their weight because they knew that I would bring home the spoils. If I felt I could do better without the tribe, I would. It's obviously very difficult to opt out of today's society though in comparison. And I wouldn't want to.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7575
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:55 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:I don't understand your analogy Gev. It seems perfectly reasonable that the best hunter is rewarded (be that in time off, larger share of the spoils, whatever). I don't see he's being unfair.
We're talking about a tribe presumably in some sort of struggle for existence, trying to live the best sort of existence they can. This guy is part of that tribe and yet he's put himself above the interests of the tribe because he thinks he can.

If someone knew how to get a good deal on train tickets and was travelling somewhere with friends, but then decided to charge his friends a bit more to keep some more of the savings for himself, you'd think "What a cunt. He might as well be Hansfording conundrums".

All the situations are people saying "They need me, so I can exploit them."
Hmm. I'm still not convinced. You've basically just put it down as the basis of your argument as if it's an indisputable fact, when it's nothing of the sort. If I was that hunter (and I am) I would think the others just weren't pulling their weight because they knew that I would bring home the spoils. If I felt I could do better without the tribe, I would. It's obviously very difficult to opt out of today's society though in comparison. And I wouldn't want to.
Well, it's not that they're not pulling their weight. They're putting the same effort in, but maybe he can throw a spear more accurately or further. They're all working together as a tribe for the best of everyone except him who's saying "I'm better than you so I deserve more." Maybe you don't think what he's doing is a problem, but as far as I understand, tribes are generally far more egalitarian than big western societies, and most would cut him down to size pretty quickly (i.e. see what he's doing as arseholery).

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2560
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:44 pm

Jon Corby wrote:I don't understand your analogy Gev. It seems perfectly reasonable that the best hunter is rewarded (be that in time off, larger share of the spoils, whatever). ... If I was that hunter (and I am) I would think the others just weren't pulling their weight because they knew that I would bring home the spoils. If I felt I could do better without the tribe, I would. It's obviously very difficult to opt out of today's society though in comparison. And I wouldn't want to.
In a society like that though, the hunter would be rewarded as he would be providing for the tribe. He would provide the food and others in the tribe would naturally feel obliged to give him something in return, whether that be sexual favours, totemic gifts, whatever. Presumably the hunter - through these tokens of return - would then feel an obligation to the tribe himself.

The hunter who realises that he can be better off alone would have to have no real need of contact with other humans - not necessarily a bad thing - but I would guess that social pressures would make this sort of hunter quite rare.

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7903
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon Corby » Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:22 pm

Well yeah, which is at odds with what Gev was saying. Isn't it?

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2560
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:32 pm

Jon Corby wrote:Well yeah, which is at odds with what Gev was saying. Isn't it?
Absolutely. Gevin was arguing from a standpoint that ignored what would really happen.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7575
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Nov 12, 2015 8:53 pm

JimBentley wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:Well yeah, which is at odds with what Gev was saying. Isn't it?
Absolutely. Gevin was arguing from a standpoint that ignored what would really happen.
I don't think what I said was that unrealistic. And in any case, the main point is that there is no way that the hunter would be able to get away with having so many more riches than the others in the tribe, and would probably feel bad doing so anyway because of his social connections with them. At most it would be a small increase in "wealth". So my original point still largely stands, even if you want to quibble over details.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2560
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Fri Nov 13, 2015 5:13 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
JimBentley wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:Well yeah, which is at odds with what Gev was saying. Isn't it?
Absolutely. Gevin was arguing from a standpoint that ignored what would really happen.
I don't think what I said was that unrealistic. And in any case, the main point is that there is no way that the hunter would be able to get away with having so many more riches than the others in the tribe, and would probably feel bad doing so anyway because of his social connections with them. At most it would be a small increase in "wealth". So my original point still largely stands, even if you want to quibble over details.
Then we all agree! Hurray!

To completely change the subject and as it's been in the news (due to the Becky Watts murder case): Capital punishment - for or against? There's been another call from the usual suspects to bring it back for cases like this.

The other reason I mention it is because it's one of those issues that the majority of MPs (who are against) are apparently out of step with public opinion (the majority of whom are considered for). But is this actually true?

For the record (which will be available through the normal outlets, iTunes, Amazon, HMV etc. in due course, with a special 12" dance version to follow) I'm quite firmly against it under any circumstances. Pretty much everyone I've ever spoken to about it is also against it (although I realise this is a self-selecting sample).

I'm aware that there is a significant cohort that is all for hanging anyone for anything, but I see these people as extremist weirdos who are all members of hyper right-wing organisations such as Britain First, the BNP or the Tory party. However, there must be loads of normal people who want it brought back if the received wisdom is true.

Anyone got any thoughts?

User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 7903
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jon Corby » Fri Nov 13, 2015 6:52 pm

I'm pro-death penalty, but only for Hansfording and copying-your-opponent's-declaration-and-then-going-looking-for-it.

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Fri Nov 13, 2015 6:56 pm

Does anyone remember the case of the guitarist from heavy metal band Pantera who was shot on stage and then a policeman shot the shooter? Does that count as capital punishment? For some reason I have no problem with that even though it may still have been possible to subdue the attacker rather than kill him outright. And if he had been subdued, arrested, brought to trial and pleaded no contest I would have been against executing him.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2560
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by JimBentley » Fri Nov 13, 2015 7:18 pm

Mark James wrote:Does anyone remember the case of the guitarist from heavy metal band Pantera who was shot on stage and then a policeman shot the shooter? Does that count as capital punishment? For some reason I have no problem with that even though it may still have been possible to subdue the attacker rather than kill him outright. And if he had been subdued, arrested, brought to trial and pleaded no contest I would have been against executing him.
I do remember that, but that's not really what I'm talking about. In cases like that, I think you have to assume that the policeman acted with good intentions to prevent further shootings - it was in the USA, after all. But I suppose you could spin that to make out it was a state-sponsored execution. I wasn't there, so I don't know how feasible it would have been to subdue and arrest the attacker.

Funnily enough this links in to both the Osama Bin Laden and "Jihadi John" assassinations; in the first case it's become clear that an apprehension/arrest would have been possible but for one reason or another didn't happen and in the second case, we're currently being told that the drone attack was "self-defence" (???) and it's unclear whether he could have been captured instead.

Anyway, I suppose my point is that it's always got to be better, whenever possible, to bring criminals to account lawfully. And even if their crimes are so horrendous and seemingly inhuman, wouldn't it be more useful to try to find out why they are like that, rather than summarily executing them?

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7575
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:19 pm

Mark James wrote:Does anyone remember the case of the guitarist from heavy metal band Pantera who was shot on stage and then a policeman shot the shooter? Does that count as capital punishment? For some reason I have no problem with that even though it may still have been possible to subdue the attacker rather than kill him outright. And if he had been subdued, arrested, brought to trial and pleaded no contest I would have been against executing him.
If it was possible to subdue him, then it's just murder as far as I can see. You say you have no problem with it, but I don't see why logically you wouldn't be against that but you would be against capital punishment. I can see that people would in the heat of the moment with their bloodlust act in that way or react positively to it. If someone hits you, you're likely to hit them back even if you know that they won't do it again so there's no self-defence reason. But if I did that, I'd know deep down that it's no more right than sentencing someone to a punch in the face. Obviously you can use someone's psychological state as a defence, but that's to defend them against committing a wrongful act - it doesn't make the act itself righter.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7575
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:26 pm

JimBentley wrote:Funnily enough this links in to both the Osama Bin Laden and "Jihadi John" assassinations; in the first case it's become clear that an apprehension/arrest would have been possible but for one reason or another didn't happen and in the second case, we're currently being told that the drone attack was "self-defence" (???) and it's unclear whether he could have been captured instead.
Bin Laden was murdered. From what I understood at the time there was no threat, so it's pretty open and shut.

Jihadi John is an interesting case. That and all the other drone attacks etc. Self-defence doesn't seem to quite fit. It seems strange that in normal cases, self-defence generally means when someone is posing an immediate threat to you (or someone else), like they are pointing a gun at you *right now*. But if it's someone in another country, the same rules don't apply. David Cameron would never authorise a drone attack on some building in the UK because there might be some dangerous criminal inside, and then just write off other casualties as "collateral damage". And if, say, the Pakistani authorities knew of a terrorist in this country so blew up the building with him in, that wouldn't be considered acceptable by people here either.
Anyway, I suppose my point is that it's always got to be better, whenever possible, to bring criminals to account lawfully. And even if their crimes are so horrendous and seemingly inhuman, wouldn't it be more useful to try to find out why they are like that, rather than summarily executing them?
Yep.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7575
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:31 pm

JimBentley wrote:To completely change the subject and as it's been in the news (due to the Becky Watts murder case): Capital punishment - for or against? There's been another call from the usual suspects to bring it back for cases like this.

The other reason I mention it is because it's one of those issues that the majority of MPs (who are against) are apparently out of step with public opinion (the majority of whom are considered for). But is this actually true?

For the record (which will be available through the normal outlets, iTunes, Amazon, HMV etc. in due course, with a special 12" dance version to follow) I'm quite firmly against it under any circumstances. Pretty much everyone I've ever spoken to about it is also against it (although I realise this is a self-selecting sample).

I'm aware that there is a significant cohort that is all for hanging anyone for anything, but I see these people as extremist weirdos who are all members of hyper right-wing organisations such as Britain First, the BNP or the Tory party. However, there must be loads of normal people who want it brought back if the received wisdom is true.

Anyone got any thoughts?
I'm against it too, and I've often heard that most people are in favour but I don't know what the evidence is. However, unlike you, I have encountered many people who are in favour.

There's lots of reasons to be against it, but one is that regardless of whether you think someone "deserves" to die, I think it simply isn't the job of the state to be making this judgement on people. The state is there to run the country, or to ensure the smooth running of the country etc. Sometimes people need to be imprisoned for the safety of others or as a deterrent or for rehabilitation. But their job isn't moral philosophy. It's not for them to say someone deserves the death penalty or indeed any other punishment. It's just outside of their remit. Plain and simple.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests