|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 11, 2014 12:44:32 GMT
I think you've completely misunderstood the point I was making so I'll make it clearer. I'm well aware that life existed before YouTube, and I'm well aware of who Tony Benn and Noam Chomsky are (I'll come back to this further down) and just to make it clear I have been influenced by them and I respect them both greatly. As others have pointed out they, as well many other ideological thinkers of our time, been making (roughly) the same things that Russell Brand is now. So with this in mind, if Benn and Chomsky have been providing the same messages for years and years then why has our society not changed for the better? According to the logic offered by some during this debate, even though what Russell is saying is correct, if people can't take the messenger seriously then the message won't get through. So lets take this logic and apply it people like Benn and Chomsky, surely they are the right people to provide this message right? I mean one was a politician and one is still a great ideological thinker of our time, neither of them considered celebrities, neither can really be considered hypocrites because of their massive wealth or their tax avoidance. So if they have been so influential on our society, and by your logic (which I actually agree with you on in theory) the 'right' people to make these points why has nothing changed during all the time they've been providing their message? Things have got worse, the current system in place has led us to the point where the UK is now the most unequal countries in the world. Here's my view on it. I'm aware of Benn and Chomsky and it's because I went University and studied a degree that was based on sociology, because my ideology, my views on the world pointed me in that direction, and if I'm honest if I hadn't gone to uni and if I wasn't interested in the things I am I would probably never have heard of either of them. And this is the point I'm making, I can't speak for the older generation but I believe that for my generation (certainly the vast majority of people I know) if you were ask them who Benn and Chomsky are, and if they understood what they actually stood for (and in Chomsky's case still stands for) most of them wouldn't have a clue. It's an incredibly sad reflection of our society, but unfortunately that's just how it is. Chomsky is still around now, he's still promoting his message but how often did/do you actually see his views in the mainstream media, across all formats? Sure his views might be represented in some publications, but only a certain section of people follow these publications and it's because such publications re-enforce their world view. The only way people have come across the views of Chomsky and Benn is if their influences/thinking (whether through education or self-education) have led them there. Basically people like Benn (whose opinions I know were discredited by most of the media) and Chomsky have only been preaching to the choir because their views have never been mainstream, popular views widely accepted by the media and therefore I think its fair to say there's a fair section of our society that are oblivious to such thinking. If you're not famous, if you haven't been accepted into the mainstream public eye then your views aren't likely to be heard by the majority. Some people don't pay attention to the news but even if you do then its still difficult to come across such views. Tabloids (the most read papers in our nation) don't air the views of people like Benn or Chomsky do they? No they'd rather talk about people like Katie Price, One Direction and ironically Russell Brand, they're also more likely to (incorrectly in my opinion) blame the minorities in our society for our problems like people on benefits, or immigrants etc. Then if you look at the modern advancements of things like YouTube and Twitter (for which unfortunately Benn or Chomsky haven't had the chance to properly utilise such platforms to air their views) this gives people a platform to promote views in a way that is unfiltered and undistorted by the mainstream media if people choose to listen to what people have to say directly. Through his status as a celebrity, due to his large fan base that was built-up by other means Brand has a larger target audience than Benn or Chomsky have ever had, but not only this, through Youtube and through Twitter, its easier to engage with and access and share his views with other people, and the more people that hear his views and agree with him (and even his detractors think he's mostly saying the right things) the far likelier it is that such views will be accepted into the mainstream consciousness and the more likely it is that the changes that are need will occur. SOCIOLOGY? That's all you had to say ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif) Whats wrong with sociology?
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Dec 11, 2014 12:47:32 GMT
7 pages! if he reads it he will love it - "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about" as his primary inspiration once said. god loves a trier edge ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif) - but I still think he is an uttercunt...
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 11, 2014 12:48:01 GMT
I think you've completely misunderstood the point I was making so I'll make it clearer. I'm well aware that life existed before YouTube, and I'm well aware of who Tony Benn and Noam Chomsky are (I'll come back to this further down) and just to make it clear I have been influenced by them and I respect them both greatly. As others have pointed out they, as well many other ideological thinkers of our time, been making (roughly) the same things that Russell Brand is now. So with this in mind, if Benn and Chomsky have been providing the same messages for years and years then why has our society not changed for the better? According to the logic offered by some during this debate, even though what Russell is saying is correct, if people can't take the messenger seriously then the message won't get through. So lets take this logic and apply it people like Benn and Chomsky, surely they are the right people to provide this message right? I mean one was a politician and one is still a great ideological thinker of our time, neither of them considered celebrities, neither can really be considered hypocrites because of their massive wealth or their tax avoidance. So if they have been so influential on our society, and by your logic (which I actually agree with you on in theory) the 'right' people to make these points why has nothing changed during all the time they've been providing their message? Things have got worse, the current system in place has led us to the point where the UK is now the most unequal countries in the world. Here's my view on it. I'm aware of Benn and Chomsky and it's because I went University and studied a degree that was based on sociology, because my ideology, my views on the world pointed me in that direction, and if I'm honest if I hadn't gone to uni and if I wasn't interested in the things I am I would probably never have heard of either of them. And this is the point I'm making, I can't speak for the older generation but I believe that for my generation (certainly the vast majority of people I know) if you were ask them who Benn and Chomsky are, and if they understood what they actually stood for (and in Chomsky's case still stands for) most of them wouldn't have a clue. It's an incredibly sad reflection of our society, but unfortunately that's just how it is. Chomsky is still around now, he's still promoting his message but how often did/do you actually see his views in the mainstream media, across all formats? Sure his views might be represented in some publications, but only a certain section of people follow these publications and it's because such publications re-enforce their world view. The only way people have come across the views of Chomsky and Benn is if their influences/thinking (whether through education or self-education) have led them there. Basically people like Benn (whose opinions I know were discredited by most of the media) and Chomsky have only been preaching to the choir because their views have never been mainstream, popular views widely accepted by the media and therefore I think its fair to say there's a fair section of our society that are oblivious to such thinking. If you're not famous, if you haven't been accepted into the mainstream public eye then your views aren't likely to be heard by the majority. Some people don't pay attention to the news but even if you do then its still difficult to come across such views. Tabloids (the most read papers in our nation) don't air the views of people like Benn or Chomsky do they? No they'd rather talk about people like Katie Price, One Direction and ironically Russell Brand, they're also more likely to (incorrectly in my opinion) blame the minorities in our society for our problems like people on benefits, or immigrants etc. Then if you look at the modern advancements of things like YouTube and Twitter (for which unfortunately Benn or Chomsky haven't had the chance to properly utilise such platforms to air their views) this gives people a platform to promote views in a way that is unfiltered and undistorted by the mainstream media if people choose to listen to what people have to say directly. Through his status as a celebrity, due to his large fan base that was built-up by other means Brand has a larger target audience than Benn or Chomsky have ever had, but not only this, through Youtube and through Twitter, its easier to engage with and access and share his views with other people, and the more people that hear his views and agree with him (and even his detractors think he's mostly saying the right things) the far likelier it is that such views will be accepted into the mainstream consciousness and the more likely it is that the changes that are need will occur. SOCIOLOGY? That's all you had to say ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif) that tickled me mate an ology he says....you get an ology and you are a scientist
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 11, 2014 12:54:20 GMT
SOCIOLOGY? That's all you had to say ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif) that tickled me mate an ology he says....you get an ology and you are a scientist If you want to discredit me I'd rather you focus on what I actually said and come up with an intellectual response rather than dismiss my view because of sociology.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 11, 2014 12:58:03 GMT
I blame Sociology for a lot of todays problems. In the 1960s we had the (so called) poor and 'undeserving poor'. People, who through no fault of their own, needed support from The State. People with profound disabilities..profound mental health difficulties (and I worked in a psychiatric hospital, amongst other things, for a number of years)..the very old/sick..children who cannot protect themselves. Then along comes 'The History Man' and fucks it all up. Using Sociology as a theoretical base we started lumping the poor and undeserving poor together.
So all of a sudden..heroin addicts..ex-offenders..the obese..people who smoke..people who abuse other drugs..the lazy and feckless..chronic alcoholics.. all get lumped together. They deserve 'our support' as much as people who are in the shit through no genuine fault of their own, according to the Sociologists. No matter how irresponsible and negligent you are there is a Sociological Theory that will excuse it. And some Sociologists are highly articulate and intelligent and can justify almost anything. Result? a third of the population who are completely dependent on the State for LIFE.
All this can be laid at the door of Sociology Departments who for decades have provided the theoretical underpinnings of Dependency Culture.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 11, 2014 13:04:57 GMT
that tickled me mate an ology he says....you get an ology and you are a scientist If you want to discredit me I'd rather you focus on what I actually said and come up with an intellectual response rather than dismiss my view because of sociology. if you are going to stick around here you need a sense of humour
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 11, 2014 13:05:39 GMT
I blame Sociology for a lot of todays problems. In the 1960s we had the (so called) poor and 'undeserving poor'. People, who through no fault of their own, needed support from The State. People with profound disabilities..profound mental health difficulties (and I worked in a psychiatric hospital, amongst other things, for a number of years)..the very old/sick..children who cannot protect themselves. Then along comes 'The History Man' and fucks it all up. Using Sociology as a theoretical base we started lumping the poor and undeserving poor together. So all of a sudden..heroin addicts..ex-offenders..the obese..people who smoke..people who abuse other drugs..the lazy and feckless..chronic alcoholics.. all get lumped together. They deserve 'our support' as much as people who are in the shit through no genuine fault of their own, according to the Sociologists. No matter how irresponsible and negligent you are there is a Sociological Theory that will excuse it. And some Sociologists are highly articulate and intelligent and can justify almost anything. Result? a third of the population who are completely dependent on the State for LIFE. All this can be laid at the door of Sociology Departments who for decades have provided the theoretical underpinnings of Dependency Culture. So in your eyes then out of the people in groups like the addicts, like the offenders, like the obese, like the people who abuse. Not one of these people who belong to these groups suffer from a form of mental illness? I suppose you also think depression is made up do you?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 13:08:28 GMT
very true salop and let's also remember that Tony Benn and Chomsky have both been around for years and years before youtube even existed!!!! to say things are more relevant/important/influential because of the amount of youtube hits they receive is absolutely ludicrous...edgepotter are you even aware that life existed for millennia before youtube came along and both these people have been extremely influential in their lives for years before Brand was even considered let alone before youtube came to the fore! so more people have watched Brand on youtube means what exactly??? sod all apart from the fact that these 2 people pre-date youtube...and both have had massively more influence on the world at large than Brand ever will regardless of how many hits he gets. to try to imply that Brand has more influence than tony Benn or Noam Chomsky have ever had simply because of the number of youtube hits???? really???? seriously????? do you know who Benn and Chomsky are exactly???? I think you've completely misunderstood the point I was making so I'll make it clearer. I'm well aware that life existed before YouTube, and I'm well aware of who Tony Benn and Noam Chomsky are (I'll come back to this further down) and just to make it clear I have been influenced by them and I respect them both greatly. As others have pointed out they, as well many other ideological thinkers of our time, been making (roughly) the same things that Russell Brand is now. So with this in mind, if Benn and Chomsky have been providing the same messages for years and years then why has our society not changed for the better? According to the logic offered by some during this debate, even though what Russell is saying is correct, if people can't take the messenger seriously then the message won't get through. So lets take this logic and apply it people like Benn and Chomsky, surely they are the right people to provide this message right? I mean one was a politician and one is still a great ideological thinker of our time, neither of them considered celebrities, neither can really be considered hypocrites because of their massive wealth or their tax avoidance. So if they have been so influential on our society, and by your logic (which I actually agree with you on in theory) the 'right' people to make these points why has nothing changed during all the time they've been providing their message? Things have got worse, the current system in place has led us to the point where the UK is now the most unequal countries in the world. Here's my view on it. I'm aware of Benn and Chomsky and it's because I went University and studied a degree that was based on sociology, because my ideology, my views on the world pointed me in that direction, and if I'm honest if I hadn't gone to uni and if I wasn't interested in the things I am I would probably never have heard of either of them. And this is the point I'm making, I can't speak for the older generation but I believe that for my generation (certainly the vast majority of people I know) if you were ask them who Benn and Chomsky are, and if they understood what they actually stood for (and in Chomsky's case still stands for) most of them wouldn't have a clue. It's an incredibly sad reflection of our society, but unfortunately that's just how it is. Chomsky is still around now, he's still promoting his message but how often did/do you actually see his views in the mainstream media, across all formats? Sure his views might be represented in some publications, but only a certain section of people follow these publications and it's because such publications re-enforce their world view. The only way people have come across the views of Chomsky and Benn is if their influences/thinking (whether through education or self-education) have led them there. Basically people like Benn (whose opinions I know were discredited by most of the media) and Chomsky have only been preaching to the choir because their views have never been mainstream, popular views widely accepted by the media and therefore I think its fair to say there's a fair section of our society that are oblivious to such thinking. If you're not famous, if you haven't been accepted into the mainstream public eye then your views aren't likely to be heard by the majority. Some people don't pay attention to the news but even if you do then its still difficult to come across such views. Tabloids (the most read papers in our nation) don't air the views of people like Benn or Chomsky do they? No they'd rather talk about people like Katie Price, One Direction and ironically Russell Brand, they're also more likely to (incorrectly in my opinion) blame the minorities in our society for our problems like people on benefits, or immigrants etc. Then if you look at the modern advancements of things like YouTube and Twitter (for which unfortunately Benn or Chomsky haven't had the chance to properly utilise such platforms to air their views) this gives people a platform to promote views in a way that is unfiltered and undistorted by the mainstream media if people choose to listen to what people have to say directly. Through his status as a celebrity, due to his large fan base that was built-up by other means Brand has a larger target audience than Benn or Chomsky have ever had, but not only this, through Youtube and through Twitter, its easier to engage with and access and share his views with other people, and the more people that hear his views and agree with him (and even his detractors think he's mostly saying the right things) the far likelier it is that such views will be accepted into the mainstream consciousness and the more likely it is that the changes that are need will occur. that's actually a very good post!
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 11, 2014 13:11:55 GMT
Have you ever worked in a psychiatric hospital?
I have...of course depression isn't made up, who said it was?
Save your sympathy for young people getting their legs blown off on the front line..not wearing baseball caps back to front selling drugs.
If people choose to do certain things then they must expect certain consequences.
But the people I feel most sorry for are their kids..brought into this world by scum.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 13:16:17 GMT
I blame Sociology for a lot of todays problems. In the 1960s we had the (so called) poor and 'undeserving poor'. People, who through no fault of their own, needed support from The State. People with profound disabilities..profound mental health difficulties (and I worked in a psychiatric hospital, amongst other things, for a number of years)..the very old/sick..children who cannot protect themselves. Then along comes 'The History Man' and fucks it all up. Using Sociology as a theoretical base we started lumping the poor and undeserving poor together. So all of a sudden..heroin addicts..ex-offenders..the obese..people who smoke..people who abuse other drugs..the lazy and feckless..chronic alcoholics.. all get lumped together. They deserve 'our support' as much as people who are in the shit through no genuine fault of their own, according to the Sociologists. No matter how irresponsible and negligent you are there is a Sociological Theory that will excuse it. And some Sociologists are highly articulate and intelligent and can justify almost anything. Result? a third of the population who are completely dependent on the State for LIFE. All this can be laid at the door of Sociology Departments who for decades have provided the theoretical underpinnings of Dependency Culture. So in your eyes then out of the people in groups like the addicts, like the offenders, like the obese, like the people who abuse. Not one of these people who belong to these groups suffer from a form of mental illness? I suppose you also think depression is made up do you? he hasn't said that at all has he? more that unfortunately many sociologists would simply clump all together and presume they all have the same "condition" so it's easier to then "group" them together what we're dealing with is nothing more than personal opinion..not just about Brand but about individuals' personal political idealogies...for instance, you have stated how things have "Got worse" despite the same message being put across for years by Benn and Chomsky. what you have to remember is that things HAVEN'T got worse; YOU think they have got worse based on your PERSONAL political leanings...there is a massive difference between "Have" and "Personally, i believe they have". there are plenty out there who are more than happy with the way the country is and the political system it's based on as they have benefited greatly precisely because of that system and it's this that sociology just doesn't cover, because like most fields it has to group/herd people together as it's completely and logisitically impossible to take every single person's personal belief system,personal experiences and circumstances, moral compass and political ideas into account. therefore all too often people who have the same afflictions or "sociological symptoms" as it were are just clumped together regardless of the personal reasons and circumstances (that admittedly may have led to similar conclusions in their lives and the situation they now find themselves in) being completely different. you complained about him not giving you a proper and intellectual response then come back with a complete strawman argument ![(slaphead)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/x7GhxArXJzjvmIlugu2X.gif)
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 11, 2014 13:29:41 GMT
So in your eyes then out of the people in groups like the addicts, like the offenders, like the obese, like the people who abuse. Not one of these people who belong to these groups suffer from a form of mental illness? I suppose you also think depression is made up do you? he hasn't said that at all has he? more that unfortunately many sociologists would simply clump all together and presume they all have the same "condition" so it's easier to then "group" them together what we're dealing with is nothing more than personal opinion..not just about Brand but about individuals' personal political idealogies...for instance, you have stated how things have "Got worse" despite the same message being put across for years by Benn and Chomsky. what you have to remember is that things HAVEN'T got worse; YOU think they have got worse based on your PERSONAL political leanings...there is a massive difference between "Have" and "Personally, i believe they have". there are plenty out there who are more than happy with the way the country is and the political system it's based on as they have benefited greatly precisely because of that system and it's this that sociology just doesn't cover, because like most fields it has to group/herd people together as it's completely and logisitically impossible to take every single person's personal belief system,personal experiences and circumstances, moral compass and political ideas into account. therefore all too often people who have the same afflictions or "sociological symptoms" as it were are just clumped together regardless of the personal reasons and circumstances (that admittedly may have led to similar conclusions in their lives and the situation they now find themselves in) being completely different. you complained about him not giving you a proper and intellectual response then come back with a complete strawman argument ![(slaphead)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/x7GhxArXJzjvmIlugu2X.gif) I asked a basic question which he didn't answer. The reason I asked the question is because I needed a better understanding of his view, on my last response to you, you told me it was a good post and its because I explained myself further so that people like yourself could clearly understand the point I was trying to make and it was because you had jumped to conclusions and made assumptions about what I was saying that were inaccurate. And you're doing it again now. So I'll ask my question again to wizzardofdribble worded in a slightly different way. Of the groups mentioned by yourself do you believe that some of the people in them (not all) are legitimately affected by mental illness or mental health problems? edited: and with regards to you saying its my point of view that society is getting worse I take your point. I've posted a link a few times now that shows that the UK is one of the most unequal countries in the world. Sure its my opinion but its an opinion backed up by statistics. Even if you disagree that things aren't worse than before things certainly haven't improved, the same problems that Benn and Chomsky were talking about 30 years ago are still prevalent in society.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Dec 11, 2014 13:34:42 GMT
SOCIOLOGY? That's all you had to say :D :D :D that tickled me mate an ology he says....you get an ology and you are a scientist Indeed, funny how some ads stay in your head.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 13:41:03 GMT
he hasn't said that at all has he? more that unfortunately many sociologists would simply clump all together and presume they all have the same "condition" so it's easier to then "group" them together what we're dealing with is nothing more than personal opinion..not just about Brand but about individuals' personal political idealogies...for instance, you have stated how things have "Got worse" despite the same message being put across for years by Benn and Chomsky. what you have to remember is that things HAVEN'T got worse; YOU think they have got worse based on your PERSONAL political leanings...there is a massive difference between "Have" and "Personally, i believe they have". there are plenty out there who are more than happy with the way the country is and the political system it's based on as they have benefited greatly precisely because of that system and it's this that sociology just doesn't cover, because like most fields it has to group/herd people together as it's completely and logisitically impossible to take every single person's personal belief system,personal experiences and circumstances, moral compass and political ideas into account. therefore all too often people who have the same afflictions or "sociological symptoms" as it were are just clumped together regardless of the personal reasons and circumstances (that admittedly may have led to similar conclusions in their lives and the situation they now find themselves in) being completely different. you complained about him not giving you a proper and intellectual response then come back with a complete strawman argument ![(slaphead)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/x7GhxArXJzjvmIlugu2X.gif) I asked a basic question which he didn't answer. The reason I asked the question is because I needed a better understanding of his view, on my last response to you, you told me it was a good post and its because I explained myself further so that people like yourself could clearly understand the point I was trying to make and it was because you had jumped to conclusions and made assumptions about what I was saying that were inaccurate. And you're doing it again now. So I'll ask my question again to wizzardofdribble worded in a slightly different way. Of the groups mentioned by yourself do you believe that some of them (not all) are legitimately affected by mental illness or mental health problems? edited: and with regards to you saying its my point of view that society is getting worse I take your point. I've posted a link a few times now that shows that the UK is one of the most unequal countries in the world. Sure its my opinion but its an opinion backed up by statistics. Even if you disagree that things aren't worse than before things certainly haven't improved, the same problems that Benn and Chomsky were talking about 30 years ago are still prevalent in society. yes, personally i agree but the point i'm making is that what Benn and Chomsky may personally believe isn't necessarily right! the reason why these changes that you think should be made haven't been made is largely due to the fact that those in power happen to disagree with you about what changes are needed. as i said, many people don't agree with Benn, Chomsky or Brand and are more than happy with the way society is because we don't all share one universal viewpoint as to what is right and the way the world should be. those that disagree have just as much right to their opinion of how the world should be as you and i do and unfortunately there isn't any way of proving which of us are right! again, the question you have asked of Wizard isn't even what he was saying is it? he never that no-one within those groups have legitimate reasons for the circumstance they find themselves in, the problem is that sociology doesn't tend to take that into account. some people are labelled "Dolescum" by people in society simply because they claim benefits...now, some of those are shirkers who just can't be arsed whlst some have perfectly legitimate reasons for not being able to work, unfortunately though all too often people don't even take that into consideration, they simply group everyone together under one banner and this is the problem that sociology faces also as it cannot look at individual's personal circumstances so they simply have to create nice, tidy "Groups" to place people into which doesn't even close to telling the whole story of the individuals within those groups. basically, the question you've now asked him twice isn't in any way relevant at all to what he's saying
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 11, 2014 13:57:24 GMT
I asked a basic question which he didn't answer. The reason I asked the question is because I needed a better understanding of his view, on my last response to you, you told me it was a good post and its because I explained myself further so that people like yourself could clearly understand the point I was trying to make and it was because you had jumped to conclusions and made assumptions about what I was saying that were inaccurate. And you're doing it again now. So I'll ask my question again to wizzardofdribble worded in a slightly different way. Of the groups mentioned by yourself do you believe that some of them (not all) are legitimately affected by mental illness or mental health problems? edited: and with regards to you saying its my point of view that society is getting worse I take your point. I've posted a link a few times now that shows that the UK is one of the most unequal countries in the world. Sure its my opinion but its an opinion backed up by statistics. Even if you disagree that things aren't worse than before things certainly haven't improved, the same problems that Benn and Chomsky were talking about 30 years ago are still prevalent in society. yes, personally i agree but the point i'm making is that what Benn and Chomsky may personally believe isn't necessarily right! the reason why these changes that you think should be made haven't been made is largely due to the fact that those in power happen to disagree with you about what changes are needed. as i said, many people don't agree with Benn, Chomsky or Brand and are more than happy with the way society is because we don't all share one universal viewpoint as to what is right and the way the world should be. those that disagree have just as much right to their opinion of how the world should be as you and i do and unfortunately there isn't any way of proving which of us are right! again, the question you have asked of Wizard isn't even what he was saying is it? he never that no-one within those groups have legitimate reasons for the circumstance they find themselves in, the problem is that sociology doesn't tend to take that into account. some people are labelled "Dolescum" by people in society simply because they claim benefits...now, some of those are shirkers who just can't be arsed whlst some have perfectly legitimate reasons for not being able to work, unfortunately though all too often people don't even take that into consideration, they simply group everyone together under one banner and this is the problem that sociology faces also as it cannot look at individual's personal circumstances so they simply have to create nice, tidy "Groups" to place people into which doesn't even close to telling the whole story of the individuals within those groups. basically, the question you've now asked him twice isn't in any way relevant at all to what he's saying Yes its a personal opinion, and you're right the reason things haven't changed is because not everyone has the same opinion as myself or Chomsky. There has been no pressure from the majority of the public on politicians to change things, because the people who promote change like Chomsky for the most part haven't had their voices heard. I'd argue that its not because people have heard what the likes of Chomsky have to say but disagree with him, the problem is that some people haven't heard Chomsky's views at all. I don't think you should be answering his question for him because you're making a false assumption of the reason I'm asking it. I need to establish if he believes mental illness is a factor (at least in some cases) before I can legitimately debate his views.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 11, 2014 13:59:54 GMT
I asked a basic question which he didn't answer. The reason I asked the question is because I needed a better understanding of his view, on my last response to you, you told me it was a good post and its because I explained myself further so that people like yourself could clearly understand the point I was trying to make and it was because you had jumped to conclusions and made assumptions about what I was saying that were inaccurate. And you're doing it again now. So I'll ask my question again to wizzardofdribble worded in a slightly different way. Of the groups mentioned by yourself do you believe that some of them (not all) are legitimately affected by mental illness or mental health problems? edited: and with regards to you saying its my point of view that society is getting worse I take your point. I've posted a link a few times now that shows that the UK is one of the most unequal countries in the world. Sure its my opinion but its an opinion backed up by statistics. Even if you disagree that things aren't worse than before things certainly haven't improved, the same problems that Benn and Chomsky were talking about 30 years ago are still prevalent in society. yes, personally i agree but the point i'm making is that what Benn and Chomsky may personally believe isn't necessarily right! the reason why these changes that you think should be made haven't been made is largely due to the fact that those in power happen to disagree with you about what changes are needed. as i said, many people don't agree with Benn, Chomsky or Brand and are more than happy with the way society is because we don't all share one universal viewpoint as to what is right and the way the world should be. those that disagree have just as much right to their opinion of how the world should be as you and i do and unfortunately there isn't any way of proving which of us are right! again, the question you have asked of Wizard isn't even what he was saying is it? he never that no-one within those groups have legitimate reasons for the circumstance they find themselves in, the problem is that sociology doesn't tend to take that into account. some people are labelled "Dolescum" by people in society simply because they claim benefits...now, some of those are shirkers who just can't be arsed whlst some have perfectly legitimate reasons for not being able to work, unfortunately though all too often people don't even take that into consideration, they simply group everyone together under one banner and this is the problem that sociology faces also as it cannot look at individual's personal circumstances so they simply have to create nice, tidy "Groups" to place people into which doesn't even close to telling the whole story of the individuals within those groups. basically, the question you've now asked him twice isn't in any way relevant at all to what he's saying I did A/S level sociology in high school, i remember the exam being at 1100 and i just made it time after failing my driving test, i was too pissed off to write anying other than my name on the paper suffice to say i am not a scientist
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Dec 11, 2014 14:03:45 GMT
Tonight, Brand is on question time alongside Nigel Farage of all people. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif) This could be interesting, I'll be challenging myself to see how long I can stand it.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 11, 2014 14:17:12 GMT
yes, personally i agree but the point i'm making is that what Benn and Chomsky may personally believe isn't necessarily right! the reason why these changes that you think should be made haven't been made is largely due to the fact that those in power happen to disagree with you about what changes are needed. as i said, many people don't agree with Benn, Chomsky or Brand and are more than happy with the way society is because we don't all share one universal viewpoint as to what is right and the way the world should be. those that disagree have just as much right to their opinion of how the world should be as you and i do and unfortunately there isn't any way of proving which of us are right! again, the question you have asked of Wizard isn't even what he was saying is it? he never that no-one within those groups have legitimate reasons for the circumstance they find themselves in, the problem is that sociology doesn't tend to take that into account. some people are labelled "Dolescum" by people in society simply because they claim benefits...now, some of those are shirkers who just can't be arsed whlst some have perfectly legitimate reasons for not being able to work, unfortunately though all too often people don't even take that into consideration, they simply group everyone together under one banner and this is the problem that sociology faces also as it cannot look at individual's personal circumstances so they simply have to create nice, tidy "Groups" to place people into which doesn't even close to telling the whole story of the individuals within those groups. basically, the question you've now asked him twice isn't in any way relevant at all to what he's saying Yes its a personal opinion, and you're right the reason things haven't changed is because not everyone has the same opinion as myself or Chomsky. There has been no pressure from the majority of the public on politicians to change things, because the people who promote change like Chomsky for the most part haven't had their voices heard. I'd argue that its not because people have heard what the likes of Chomsky have to say but disagree with him, the problem is that some people haven't heard Chomsky's views at all. I don't think you should be answering his question for him because you're making a false assumption of the reason I'm asking it. I need to establish if he believes mental illness is a factor (at least in some cases) before I can legitimately debate his views. and now you have completely blown the argument. why does your opinion or chomsky's has to be correct, i am not saying it isnt correct but the attitude that your opinion is the only correct one is a bit narcissit (which i cannot spell ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif) )
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Dec 11, 2014 14:32:19 GMT
If you're just joining us, I can tell you you've just missed the 20th question posed by edgepotter with all of them being left well alone. The two batsmen, mickmillslovechild and wizzardofdribble, have defended stoically, but not failed to trouble the scorecard. It remains none-for-none after seven overs, and with several years left to play it remains hard to see a way out of this stalemate.
Back to you in the studio.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 11, 2014 14:53:10 GMT
Yes its a personal opinion, and you're right the reason things haven't changed is because not everyone has the same opinion as myself or Chomsky. There has been no pressure from the majority of the public on politicians to change things, because the people who promote change like Chomsky for the most part haven't had their voices heard. I'd argue that its not because people have heard what the likes of Chomsky have to say but disagree with him, the problem is that some people haven't heard Chomsky's views at all. I don't think you should be answering his question for him because you're making a false assumption of the reason I'm asking it. I need to establish if he believes mental illness is a factor (at least in some cases) before I can legitimately debate his views. and now you have completely blown the argument. why does your opinion or chomsky's has to be correct, i am not saying it isnt correct but the attitude that your opinion is the only correct one is a bit narcissit (which i cannot spell ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif) ) You're reading what you want to see, just a bit further on I wrote; "I'd argue that its not because people have heard what the likes of Chomsky have to say but disagree with him, the problem is that some people haven't heard Chomsky's views at all."Do keep up please ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/0m0lbCuTEBzaRn6f8QaM.gif) Of course I think I'm right, why else would I have my opinion. I wouldn't go so far as to say its the only opinion that matters but the question I ask myself is, why wouldn't the vast majority of people want a world that's more equal and fair? There's a few people doing rather well out of the current system that don't want to see any changes of course, but they would be in the minority surely?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 15:06:03 GMT
If you're just joining us, I can tell you you've just missed the 20th question posed by edgepotter with all of them being left well alone. The two batsmen, mickmillslovechild and wizzardofdribble, have defended stoically, but not failed to trouble the scorecard. It remains none-for-none after seven overs, and with several years left to play it remains hard to see a way out of this stalemate. Back to you in the studio. i haven't left alone any of his questions myself because my personal opinion of the way society works is actually quite similar to Brand's however i do accept that my opinion (and Brand's....and Chomsky's and Benn's and edgepotter's) may well be wrong and i also understand why some people find it hard to take a "lecture" about the inequalities of society from someone who is worth millions. now, whilst i agree with edgepotter that his worth (due to his hard work) doesn't in any way dismiss his views or ideas, it is human nature that some will simply switch off to him thinking "What does he know about what life's really like for the common man"..it's just the way the world works and i accept that whereas edgepotter doesn't seem to. to be fair i think the simly issue is that edgepotter is a romantic and sees how the world could and perhaps should be...(nothing wrong with that whatsoever) whereas i'm a cynical, miserable old fucker who's lived a fair while and realise that no amount of rhetoric from any celenrity will actually really change the world, no matter how verbose that celebrity is...basically i'm a realist. i'd say there've been a few no balls and wides from the fielding side so far myself ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/0m0lbCuTEBzaRn6f8QaM.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 15:09:29 GMT
and now you have completely blown the argument. why does your opinion or chomsky's has to be correct, i am not saying it isnt correct but the attitude that your opinion is the only correct one is a bit narcissit (which i cannot spell ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif) ) You're reading what you want to see, just a bit further on I wrote; "I'd argue that its not because people have heard what the likes of Chomsky have to say but disagree with him, the problem is that some people haven't heard Chomsky's views at all."Do keep up please ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/0m0lbCuTEBzaRn6f8QaM.gif) Of course I think I'm right, why else would I have my opinion. I wouldn't go so far as to say its the only opinion that matters but the question I ask myself is, why wouldn't the vast majority of people want a world that's more equal and fair? There's a few people doing rather well out of the current system that don't want to see any changes of course, but they would be in the minority surely?
"Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political power gives rise to legislation that increases and accelerates the cycle." that's from Chomsky and kinda answers your question really.....we may not agree with it or think it's right in any way, shape or form but it IS the reality of life and the world out there. it's a little something called "Human nature"; those that are in power want to stay in power as it continues the growth of their wealth, power and wealth corrupts so those in charge are corrupt. simply really and although i admire the John Lennon stance of everybody being equal and all being fair in the world, as long as money exists mate then unfortunately those ideas will NEVER come to fruition. unfortunately you seem to have this idea that as long as the majority want 1 thing then that will happen and the minority will have to change to suit them. out of interest where have you got that idea from? it's rarely been like that for the course of human history!
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Dec 11, 2014 15:21:53 GMT
Have you ever worked in a psychiatric hospital? I have...of course depression isn't made up, who said it was? Save your sympathy for young people getting their legs blown off on the front line..not wearing baseball caps back to front selling drugs. If people choose to do certain things then they must expect certain consequences. But the people I feel most sorry for are their kids..brought into this world by scum. You must see the irony in that post Wizzard. {I don't think sympathy is a particularly helpful emotion, but surely it's possible to have sympathy for both victims of war, and victims of an unjust society. Not really sure why you brought soldiers in to it.} I'm surprised that having worked in a psychiatric setting that you're prepared to be so dismissive of people and label them 'scum'. There's some superficial {mis}understanding of 'Sociology' going on in some of the posts here. Seems to be a mix-up between the cliche of 'do-gooders', and what Sociology actually is/does. Drugs? Structural inequalities, lack of opportunity and education, and an overwhelming desire to escape from the shite that folk have to endure often perpetuates problem drug use. There's plenty of drug use that isn't deemed problematic. I've worked with young people in care and leaving care {amongst other stuff} . These people are massively over represented in prisons/prostitution/drug use/teenage pregnancy/mental health/unemployment etc. They're basically children who've been abandoned by their parents and by a society that largely doesn't care. They're not really scum, and rarely 'choose' their path, it often becomes cyclical: poor housing, lack of chances etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 11, 2014 15:41:14 GMT
You're reading what you want to see, just a bit further on I wrote; "I'd argue that its not because people have heard what the likes of Chomsky have to say but disagree with him, the problem is that some people haven't heard Chomsky's views at all."Do keep up please ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/0m0lbCuTEBzaRn6f8QaM.gif) Of course I think I'm right, why else would I have my opinion. I wouldn't go so far as to say its the only opinion that matters but the question I ask myself is, why wouldn't the vast majority of people want a world that's more equal and fair? There's a few people doing rather well out of the current system that don't want to see any changes of course, but they would be in the minority surely?
"Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political power gives rise to legislation that increases and accelerates the cycle." that's from Chomsky and kinda answers your question really.....we may not agree with it or think it's right in any way, shape or form but it IS the reality of life and the world out there. it's a little something called "Human nature"; those that are in power want to stay in power as it continues the growth of their wealth, power and wealth corrupts so those in charge are corrupt. simply really and although i admire the John Lennon stance of everybody being equal and all being fair in the world, as long as money exists mate then unfortunately those ideas will NEVER come to fruition. unfortunately you seem to have this idea that as long as the majority want 1 thing then that will happen and the minority will have to change to suit them. out of interest where have you got that idea from? it's rarely been like that for the course of human history! Money along with the system we currently have are man-made social constructions that can be changed if there is a desire to do so. You saying 'it's just the way it is and it can't be changed' makes me smile because people were probably saying the same thing about votes for women and the civil rights movement. There are countless examples throughout history where we the people have changed the way in which our society is structured, slavery is one just example.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 11, 2014 15:47:58 GMT
Have you ever worked in a psychiatric hospital? I have...of course depression isn't made up, who said it was? Save your sympathy for young people getting their legs blown off on the front line..not wearing baseball caps back to front selling drugs. If people choose to do certain things then they must expect certain consequences. But the people I feel most sorry for are their kids..brought into this world by scum. You must see the irony in that post Wizzard. {I don't think sympathy is a particularly helpful emotion, but surely it's possible to have sympathy for both victims of war, and victims of an unjust society. Not really sure why you brought soldiers in to it.} I'm surprised that having worked in a psychiatric setting that you're prepared to be so dismissive of people and label them 'scum'. There's some superficial {mis}understanding of 'Sociology' going on in some of the posts here. Seems to be a mix-up between the cliche of 'do-gooders', and what Sociology actually is/does. Drugs? Structural inequalities, lack of opportunity and education, and an overwhelming desire to escape from the shite that folk have to endure often perpetuates problem drug use. There's plenty of drug use that isn't deemed problematic. I've worked with young people in care and leaving care {amongst other stuff} . These people are massively over represented in prisons/prostitution/drug use/teenage pregnancy/mental health/unemployment etc. They're basically children who've been abandoned by their parents and by a society that largely doesn't care. They're not really scum, and rarely 'choose' their path, it often becomes cyclical: poor housing, lack of chances etc etc. You've summarised my thoughts quite nicely, if you've actually studied sociology and still hold the views of wizzardofdribble then that's an entirely different matter but I do think people are definitely guilty of some misunderstandings regarding sociology.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 15:55:42 GMT
"Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power. And concentration of political power gives rise to legislation that increases and accelerates the cycle." that's from Chomsky and kinda answers your question really.....we may not agree with it or think it's right in any way, shape or form but it IS the reality of life and the world out there. it's a little something called "Human nature"; those that are in power want to stay in power as it continues the growth of their wealth, power and wealth corrupts so those in charge are corrupt. simply really and although i admire the John Lennon stance of everybody being equal and all being fair in the world, as long as money exists mate then unfortunately those ideas will NEVER come to fruition. unfortunately you seem to have this idea that as long as the majority want 1 thing then that will happen and the minority will have to change to suit them. out of interest where have you got that idea from? it's rarely been like that for the course of human history! Money along with the system we currently have are man-made social constructions that can be changed if there is a desire to do so. You saying 'it's just the way it is and it can't be changed' makes me smile because people were probably saying the same thing about votes for women and the civil rights movement. There are countless examples throughout history where we the people have changed the way in which our society is structured, slavery is one just example. basic human rights and liberation is far far easier to pull off than to completely rid the world of all financial systems which is ultimately 100% necessary to gain any kind of a truly equal society. what you're doing is taking 1 situation or issue (whether that 1 situation was women's lib, slavery, racial inequality) that was resolved and therefore presuming the issues of the whole of society can therefore be solved as well despite the fact that "Society" has scores and scores of issues that many will completely disagree on. women's lib was basically a case of giving equal rights to men (obviously it wasn't quite as easy as that), what you want is not just one sex to be brought up to the existing level of others but for the whole of society to have a complete and utter makeover in the way taxes are dealt with, the distribution of wealth, a fairer system of education, a more transparent dialogue between those in power and the rest of us and ultimately (but extremely importantly!!!) for people everywhere to completely alter human nature and synchronise all of that in one fell swoop. if you think it can be done then crack on, i wish you luck but i suspect that in 20 years you'll be just as cynical as the rst of us. that isn't supposed to be patronising at all mate, genuinely it isn't (but i know it will read like that)...it is simply a case of i think you'll find that a hell of a lot of people on here had the same idealist views that you currently have...the truth is though, that whether you, me or anyone else likes it or not it just isn't how the world works, has EVER worked or ever will work unless you change the natural instinct of pretty much the entire natural world and animal kingdom i.e. to be bigger, better, stronger, more dominant, more powerful than your competitors. and that isn't a spurious or flippant comment at all (many philosophers, scientists, anthropologists and sociologists as it happens have all said exactly the same thing), it is innate in all animals (including us) to get more and be more than we currently are. as long as that exists then true equality cannot exist. we seem to think that because we have a "Conscious" element to us and the world around us that we are therefore somehow superior to other animals and immune to their innate weaknesses of will and spirit, the truth is that we are no different in those respects. as long as there are human beings then there will not be true equality in society ever. it's just isn't part of our nature, if it was then we wouldn't have survived this long as we'd have been outcompeted by the other humanoid species that we "Beat" along the evolutionary motorway we travel on. P.S. edgepotter...come on here more often!! refreshing to have a good debate and a bit of cut and thrust where people haven't just called each other wankers and offered a meet at the Stanley Matthews statue to sort it out ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/kwfoKwtHI0jglJZ4qZf6.gif)
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Dec 11, 2014 16:05:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 11, 2014 16:23:19 GMT
Russell Brand reminds me of an only fools and horses scene (can't find on YouTube)
DEL: Rodney. I'd share everything with you
RODNEY: Del if you were a millionaire would you give me half.
DEL: Of course I would Rodney.
RODNEY: Del if you had £100 would you give me half.
DEL: Sod off Rodders you know I've got £100
Or somthing like that
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 11, 2014 16:34:06 GMT
Money along with the system we currently have are man-made social constructions that can be changed if there is a desire to do so. You saying 'it's just the way it is and it can't be changed' makes me smile because people were probably saying the same thing about votes for women and the civil rights movement. There are countless examples throughout history where we the people have changed the way in which our society is structured, slavery is one just example. basic human rights and liberation is far far easier to pull off than to completely rid the world of all financial systems which is ultimately 100% necessary to gain any kind of a truly equal society. what you're doing is taking 1 situation or issue (whether that 1 situation was women's lib, slavery, racial inequality) that was resolved and therefore presuming the issues of the whole of society can therefore be solved as well despite the fact that "Society" has scores and scores of issues that many will completely disagree on. women's lib was basically a case of giving equal rights to men (obviously it wasn't quite as easy as that), what you want is not just one sex to be brought up to the existing level of others but for the whole of society to have a complete and utter makeover in the way taxes are dealt with, the distribution of wealth, a fairer system of education, a more transparent dialogue between those in power and the rest of us and ultimately (but extremely importantly!!!) for people everywhere to completely alter human nature and synchronise all of that in one fell swoop. if you think it can be done then crack on, i wish you luck but i suspect that in 20 years you'll be just as cynical as the rst of us. that isn't supposed to be patronising at all mate, genuinely it isn't (but i know it will read like that)...it is simply a case of i think you'll find that a hell of a lot of people on here had the same idealist views that you currently have...the truth is though, that whether you, me or anyone else likes it or not it just isn't how the world works, has EVER worked or ever will work unless you change the natural instinct of pretty much the entire natural world and animal kingdom i.e. to be bigger, better, stronger, more dominant, more powerful than your competitors. and that isn't a spurious or flippant comment at all (many philosophers, scientists, anthropologists and sociologists as it happens have all said exactly the same thing), it is innate in all animals (including us) to get more and be more than we currently are. as long as that exists then true equality cannot exist. we seem to think that because we have a "Conscious" element to us and the world around us that we are therefore somehow superior to other animals and immune to their innate weaknesses of will and spirit, the truth is that we are no different in those respects. as long as there are human beings then there will not be true equality in society ever. it's just isn't part of our nature, if it was then we wouldn't have survived this long as we'd have been outcompeted by the other humanoid species that we "Beat" along the evolutionary motorway we travel on. You've mentioned that ideologies concerning money are very different to change compared to human rights and liberation so I'd just like to bring up slavery again. Slavery wasn't just about human rights, it was just as much about the money that was earned from having slaves as it was (incorrectly) believing black people to be an inferior race. It was a change that meant a lot of high-status wealthy people had to adapt to and accept that as a result of slavery being abolished their wallets were going to get a lot lighter. Change happened causing people to lose out financially because common sense prevailed and it was the right thing to do. I'm not naive enough to think that getting rid of the whole financial system would solve all the worlds problems, but there are tweaks that can be made here and there like closing tax loopholes, like increasing the minimum wage and many other ideas that would have a contribution towards restoring the balance. The current system is so effective because we are all complicit in it, I believe we have the power to change things. There's an interesting line of thought with regards to rich people putting a barrier up and protecting themselves and their assets with hired security. That barrier is one that could easily be removed if enough people had the desire to do so. And the more this inequality continues to grow the more people are likely to reach breaking point and demand action.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 16:50:52 GMT
basic human rights and liberation is far far easier to pull off than to completely rid the world of all financial systems which is ultimately 100% necessary to gain any kind of a truly equal society. what you're doing is taking 1 situation or issue (whether that 1 situation was women's lib, slavery, racial inequality) that was resolved and therefore presuming the issues of the whole of society can therefore be solved as well despite the fact that "Society" has scores and scores of issues that many will completely disagree on. women's lib was basically a case of giving equal rights to men (obviously it wasn't quite as easy as that), what you want is not just one sex to be brought up to the existing level of others but for the whole of society to have a complete and utter makeover in the way taxes are dealt with, the distribution of wealth, a fairer system of education, a more transparent dialogue between those in power and the rest of us and ultimately (but extremely importantly!!!) for people everywhere to completely alter human nature and synchronise all of that in one fell swoop. if you think it can be done then crack on, i wish you luck but i suspect that in 20 years you'll be just as cynical as the rst of us. that isn't supposed to be patronising at all mate, genuinely it isn't (but i know it will read like that)...it is simply a case of i think you'll find that a hell of a lot of people on here had the same idealist views that you currently have...the truth is though, that whether you, me or anyone else likes it or not it just isn't how the world works, has EVER worked or ever will work unless you change the natural instinct of pretty much the entire natural world and animal kingdom i.e. to be bigger, better, stronger, more dominant, more powerful than your competitors. and that isn't a spurious or flippant comment at all (many philosophers, scientists, anthropologists and sociologists as it happens have all said exactly the same thing), it is innate in all animals (including us) to get more and be more than we currently are. as long as that exists then true equality cannot exist. we seem to think that because we have a "Conscious" element to us and the world around us that we are therefore somehow superior to other animals and immune to their innate weaknesses of will and spirit, the truth is that we are no different in those respects. as long as there are human beings then there will not be true equality in society ever. it's just isn't part of our nature, if it was then we wouldn't have survived this long as we'd have been outcompeted by the other humanoid species that we "Beat" along the evolutionary motorway we travel on. You've mentioned that ideologies concerning money are very different to change compared to human rights and liberation so I'd just like to bring up slavery again. Slavery wasn't just about human rights, it was just as much about the money that was earned from having slaves as it was (incorrectly) believing black people to be an inferior race. It was a change that meant a lot of high-status wealthy people had to adapt to and accept that as a result of slavery being abolished their wallets were going to get a lot lighter. Change happened causing people to lose out financially because common sense prevailed and it was the right thing to do. I'm not naive enough to think that getting rid of the whole financial system would solve all the worlds problems, but there are tweaks that can be made here and there like closing tax loopholes, like increasing the minimum wage and many other ideas that would have a contribution towards restoring the balance. The current system is so effective because we are all complicit in it, I believe we have the power to change things. There's an interesting line of thought with regards to rich people putting a barrier up and protecting themselves and their assets with hired security. That barrier is one that could easily be removed if enough people had the desire to do so. And the more this inequality continues to grow the more people are likely to reach breaking point and demand action. but this idea that financial inequality being something that people will rise up against and the powers that be won't be able to ignore it just isn't borne out by anything in terms of fact though. you're talking as if this is just a recent issue that people only now have had an issue with....it isn't! it's been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years in the UK and across the world in general. EVERY single generation that come along think it's some recent thing only their generationhave cared about and want to change but it's not...it's simply the fact that as long as there are people that love money there will always be inequality full stop and whether you like it or not, those that stand against the wealthy/greedy/selfish now will/do and have in the past changed their minds completely if and when they suddenly come into any kind of a better financial situation. the simple fact is that if you want to basically redistribute wealth (which is necessary for this equality) then it won't be just politicians, celebrities or the mega rich that won't be happy. to share it all out then normal people earning an average wage will also have to give up some of their more meagre wealth...i think you'll find that this idea of it being simply being a minority that complain about it just isn't the case at all. it would effect everyone and many simply wouldn't want to give up what they've worked hard for (let's not pretend that all the wealthy were born with silver spoons in their mouth and just gifted millions by daddy. amny have worked bloody hard and built it from scratch). it would effect employment, public services and everyone across the board regardless of whether they think they're well of or not. quite simply, you'd end up with civil war if anyone was naive enough to try to implement it under the ludicrous belief that it will ultimately make everyone happy, it won't! it will make people who share YOUR idealogy happy yes but what about the millions that differ from you? is their happiness now irrelevant? if so because you believe it's for the greater good then is it really any kind of equality because certain people have decided on our behalf what's best for us? that's no different to any society currently on the planet. utilitarianism is great in principle but just can't work in practice because it just isn't as easy as "We had a referendum and x% want this so that's what will happen". doing that would split families, wreck homes and destroy lives because EVERYONE has a different opinion on what makes life good for THEM. and i genuinely hope you're not naive enough to really believe that if we did somehow gain an "Equal" society then those that became the leaders wouldn't be corrupted and resort to the same base instincts of greed and power that most current world leaders now possess are you? the very fact we're having this discussion shows how equality isn't possible...you believe one thing, i believe another. the point of any argument is to try to prove yours to be correct and so convince the other to either concede or come over to your side. if that happens then what you've done is impse your views on someone else who previously never held that view. is that really equality???? "I've decided what's fair for the world so everyone has to now do that as well whether they agree with it or not"...it's a lovely idea but is just as totalitarian and unequal as any system it's supposedly correcting.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 11, 2014 17:41:12 GMT
You've mentioned that ideologies concerning money are very different to change compared to human rights and liberation so I'd just like to bring up slavery again. Slavery wasn't just about human rights, it was just as much about the money that was earned from having slaves as it was (incorrectly) believing black people to be an inferior race. It was a change that meant a lot of high-status wealthy people had to adapt to and accept that as a result of slavery being abolished their wallets were going to get a lot lighter. Change happened causing people to lose out financially because common sense prevailed and it was the right thing to do. I'm not naive enough to think that getting rid of the whole financial system would solve all the worlds problems, but there are tweaks that can be made here and there like closing tax loopholes, like increasing the minimum wage and many other ideas that would have a contribution towards restoring the balance. The current system is so effective because we are all complicit in it, I believe we have the power to change things. There's an interesting line of thought with regards to rich people putting a barrier up and protecting themselves and their assets with hired security. That barrier is one that could easily be removed if enough people had the desire to do so. And the more this inequality continues to grow the more people are likely to reach breaking point and demand action. but this idea that financial inequality being something that people will rise up against and the powers that be won't be able to ignore it just isn't borne out by anything in terms of fact though. you're talking as if this is just a recent issue that people only now have had an issue with....it isn't! it's been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years in the UK and across the world in general. EVERY single generation that come along think it's some recent thing only their generationhave cared about and want to change but it's not...it's simply the fact that as long as there are people that love money there will always be inequality full stop and whether you like it or not, those that stand against the wealthy/greedy/selfish now will/do and have in the past changed their minds completely if and when they suddenly come into any kind of a better financial situation. the simple fact is that if you want to basically redistribute wealth (which is necessary for this equality) then it won't be just politicians, celebrities or the mega rich that won't be happy. to share it all out then normal people earning an average wage will also have to give up some of their more meagre wealth...i think you'll find that this idea of it being simply being a minority that complain about it just isn't the case at all. it would effect everyone and many simply wouldn't want to give up what they've worked hard for (let's not pretend that all the wealthy were born with silver spoons in their mouth and just gifted millions by daddy. amny have worked bloody hard and built it from scratch). it would effect employment, public services and everyone across the board regardless of whether they think they're well of or not. quite simply, you'd end up with civil war if anyone was naive enough to try to implement it under the ludicrous belief that it will ultimately make everyone happy, it won't! it will make people who share YOUR idealogy happy yes but what about the millions that differ from you? is their happiness now irrelevant? if so because you believe it's for the greater good then is it really any kind of equality because certain people have decided on our behalf what's best for us? that's no different to any society currently on the planet. utilitarianism is great in principle but just can't work in practice because it just isn't as easy as "We had a referendum and x% want this so that's what will happen". doing that would split families, wreck homes and destroy lives because EVERYONE has a different opinion on what makes life good for THEM. and i genuinely hope you're not naive enough to really believe that if we did somehow gain an "Equal" society then those that became the leaders wouldn't be corrupted and resort to the same base instincts of greed and power that most current world leaders now possess are you? the very fact we're having this discussion shows how equality isn't possible...you believe one thing, i believe another. the point of any argument is to try to prove yours to be correct and so convince the other to either concede or come over to your side. if that happens then what you've done is impse your views on someone else who previously never held that view. is that really equality???? "I've decided what's fair for the world so everyone has to now do that as well whether they agree with it or not"...it's a lovely idea but is just as totalitarian and unequal as any system it's supposedly correcting. utilitarianism is great in principle but just can't work in practice because it just isn't as easy as "We had a referendum and x% want this so that's what will happenWhat you've said quoted above is exactly how democracy is supposed to work isn't it? Democracy is a system that we as a collective society have put in place to best serve the interests of the people in it. It's clearly a complex issue to discuss mate but you keep making assumptions about my views that aren't correct, I wish I had the time to properly outline my exact thoughts but it would take forever but for now I'll try and clarify a few things - I'm well aware that any change would currently have to take place by a government that has been elected to serve the interests of its people. If enough people (the majority) call for changes to be made then the government (or at least one that isn't corrupt) would hopefully carry out the will of the people its set up to serve. - Total equality is an ideal but I'm also not naive enough to think that its possible within the current system, what I do want to happen is for things not to go in the direction they are now, which is more and more unequal. But for some balance to be restored and for things to start moving in the opposite direction. This is easily possible with minor tweaks I've mentioned like closing tax loopholes, and tweaks like that aren't going to cause things like the civil wars you seem worried about. - I haven't yet heard an attractive proposition to the current system so for the moment any idea of a complete revolution or overhaul is nonsense until anyone can comes up with an idea I could agree with and get behind. - I've looked at a wide-range of problems that society faces including corruption etc. The system certainly encourages the type of bad behaviour you allude to in your posts but the system can definitely be changed. Just look back at history, the way laws and the way we govern ourselves have constantly been chaining for the best interests of human kind and will continue to change. - The social connections being made by ever increasing advancements in technology mean that people can come together and unite easier than ever before. Just look at how effective unions were before they were destroyed by Thatcher etc. Not only this but the internet (depending on where you look of course) is allowing for a transfer of knowledge and ideas that didn't exist generations ago either. We have to preserve and have ideals to aspire to, we have to try and invoke change when required. We can't and shouldn't just sit back and say ' "thats how it goes we can't change it" If we do what kind of message is this so send to those who come after us.
|
|