Moderator: Jon O'Neill
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!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.
You were probably flummoxed before you began when you reach subjects as this.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.
Anyone else...?Rhys Benjamin wrote: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?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.
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
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.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)
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?Clive Brooker wrote: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.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)
Let me elaborate (I would have done in reality):Ian Volante wrote: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?Clive Brooker wrote: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.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)
Eoin Monaghan wrote:Anyone else...?Rhys Benjamin wrote: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.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.
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
1. Your grammar really highlights what an excellent job the Tories are doing with education.Rhys Benjamin wrote:And I, your pet mini-Tory, is back with more propaganda.
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.O rly? Here's one place where he can cut a few quid.And funny you should mention cronyism...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.
Booyakasha.Rhys Benjamin wrote:And I, your pet mini-Tory, is back
Heh. If you look back on posts like these in five years time, you are going to be SO embarrassed.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.
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!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.
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?Rhys Benjamin wrote:Could I just take a moment of your time to fill this in?
Can't legally say anything apart from expressing my utter boredom with the issue.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.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.
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 wrote: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.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.
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'm not surprised. There's very little discussion in here any more.Mark James wrote:Surprised there's been little mention of the Scottish Independance referendum.
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 wrote:I'm not surprised. There's very little discussion in here any more.Mark James wrote:Surprised there's been little mention of the Scottish Independance referendum.
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.
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.JimBentley wrote: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 wrote:I'm not surprised. There's very little discussion in here any more.Mark James wrote:Surprised there's been little mention of the Scottish Independance referendum.
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.
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.Gavin Chipper wrote: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.JimBentley wrote: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 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.
Rhys Benjamin: so clueless about inequality that he can't even spell it right.Rhys Benjamin wrote:Hence, I don't agree with Gev's succinctly-worded "inequatily is totally evil".
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 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."
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.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".
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.By demanding time off, he's just saying he wants more resources per hour of work, but wants to work part time.
[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.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.
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.If things didn't work out when someone was at school and immediately after, they're often screwed for life.
I'll respond to the rest later, but this bit annoyed me. I did not advocate this.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.
Please stick to layman's terms. Pretentious terminology helps no-one.Rhys Benjamin wrote:one has to take a position of ceteris paribus
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.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.
So what happens to: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.If things didn't work out when someone was at school and immediately after, they're often screwed for life.
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.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.
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!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.
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.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 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.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 all beginning to get a bit waffly, and any point is getting lost.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.
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.
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.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.
Gavin Chipper wrote:If things didn't work out when someone was at school and immediately after, they're often screwed for life.
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.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.
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 wrote: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.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.
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."
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).Jon Corby wrote: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 wrote: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.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.
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."
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.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.
Absolutely. Gevin was arguing from a standpoint that ignored what would really happen.Jon Corby wrote:Well yeah, which is at odds with what Gev was saying. Isn't it?
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.JimBentley wrote:Absolutely. Gevin was arguing from a standpoint that ignored what would really happen.Jon Corby wrote:Well yeah, which is at odds with what Gev was saying. Isn't it?
Then we all agree! Hurray!Gavin Chipper wrote: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.JimBentley wrote:Absolutely. Gevin was arguing from a standpoint that ignored what would really happen.Jon Corby wrote:Well yeah, which is at odds with what Gev was saying. Isn't it?
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.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.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.
Bin Laden was murdered. From what I understood at the time there was no threat, so it's pretty open and shut.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.
Yep.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?
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.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?
