A political view - should everyone have one?

[Chilly]

When I was at school (96-03), we had sets for subjects when we got to third year or above. That meant the wankers unded up in one classroom and the people who wanted to work in another. We had top, middle, bottom. I don't know if it still happens, but it seemed a reasonably decent way of doing things. Except I had to sit next to two retards from bottom set who got moved into top set to learn to be good.

 

[Sharkith]

I don't have a million pounds. Does that mean I have a million pounds?

Not the same thing at all. When it comes to politics you cannot avoid having some position even no position is still a position. Its because the proposition specifies a position and it is impossible to have no position relative to another position.

 

[Sharkith]

When I was at school (96-03), we had sets for subjects when we got to third year or above. That meant the wankers unded up in one classroom and the people who wanted to work in another. We had top, middle, bottom. I don't know if it still happens, but it seemed a reasonably decent way of doing things. Except I had to sit next to two retards from bottom set who got moved into top set to learn to be good.

It is being brought in again as far as I know - the problem with this is you basically shit on people who have not been as fortunate as you.

 

[TdC]

the problem with this is you basically shit on people who have not been as fortunate as you.

I disagree. I believe that anyone, through hard work and perseverance, can further themselves. However, I was not brought up in the UK. In the NL, any child who is bright enough can go to a good/higher level of schooling. You aren't tested for being a chav, you are tested against all the things you learned in primary school.

 

[Chilly]

yeah but if your parents never take the time to read to you at bed time or buy you fun educational things you will almost certainly drop behind. I have always been highly literate and numerate due to my parents getting hardcore with my reading and 'rithmatic from a young age. Not all kids are as fortunate - this is the main dilemma of streaming children.

If you can guarantee an equal access to education (in AND out of school) from an early enough age, you can sidestep lots of problems later on but this is virtually impossible to achieve given how society in general operates.

 

[Bugz]

Bollocks Shark - you shit on people who by and large (learning difficulties and personal problems aside) deserve more or less to be shat on.

Granted I come from a grammar school so it may be different but those in the lower sets were by and large lazy/chavs/people who instead of spending every weekend drinking/partying, spent every day drinking/partying.

 

[Tom]

Not the same thing at all. When it comes to politics you cannot avoid having some position even no position is still a position. Its because the proposition specifies a position and it is impossible to have no position relative to another position.

Nonsense. Being apathetic about politics does not mean that one holds a view on politics. It simply means that one does not care.

 

[TdC]

yeah but if your parents never take the time to read to you at bed time or buy you fun educational things you will almost certainly drop behind. I have always been highly literate and numerate due to my parents getting hardcore with my reading and 'rithmatic from a young age. Not all kids are as fortunate - this is the main dilemma of streaming children.

If you can guarantee an equal access to education (in AND out of school) from an early enough age, you can sidestep lots of problems later on but this is virtually impossible to achieve given how society in general operates.

ok, I'll allow that. Growing up where I did, I had read every book in the house by the age of 7 except this one, which I remember because I didn't read it, and this one which my mother forbade me to read. For the latter, I remember being pissed off because I was 6 and thought it would be about wolves :/

My oldies never forbade me anything which they through would be good for me. perhaps in the light of this example I should be glad they actually had books in the house. I remember reading through 30 encyclopedias and being especially fascinated by the sections on national flags, because they were so pretty

 

[TdC]

wtf is the forum doing to my links?

 

[Tom]

I blame Deebs.

 

[Chilly]

ok, I'll allow that. Growing up where I did, I had read every book in the house by the age of 7 except this one, which I remember because I didn't read it, and this one which my mother forbade me to read. For the latter, I remember being pissed off because I was 6 and thought it would be about wolves :/

My oldies never forbade me anything which they through would be good for me. perhaps in the light of this example I should be glad they actually had books in the house. I remember reading through 30 encyclopedias and being especially fascinated by the sections on national flags, because they were so pretty

exactly. you're a perfect example of a child (relatively) well brought up (cant comment on personal failings!). Some kids probably dont have books, let alone encylcopedias in the house. I had the 1902 britannia at my place, which was amusing because it's full of lies.

The solution here (overall, rather than short term) is to improve quality of life and the standard of living of everyone so that parents have time or inclination to bring their kids up well. In this way, the gaps narrow. There will always be a top set and bottom set, some kids are smart and not all parents are or will ever be equal. So an ideal system is one where parents are all relatively intelligent and want to educate their children properly and also one where the lowest achievers at school get help both academically and socially. Perhaps that means giving their parents book vouchers (as opposed to cash) or free computers or whatever, I dunno.

 

[Sharkith]

Bollocks Shark - you shit on people who by and large (learning difficulties and personal problems aside) deserve more or less to be shat on.

Granted I come from a grammar school so it may be different but those in the lower sets were by and large lazy/chavs/people who instead of spending every weekend drinking/partying, spent every day drinking/partying.

Yeah you and your kind are the pillars of society and if it wasn't for your hard working ideals the country would fall apart.

 

[Sharkith]

Nonsense. Being apathetic about politics does not mean that one holds a view on politics. It simply means that one does not care.

And that is still a political viewpoint. It means you are apathetic about politics. Do you think we should just get rid of politics or should we just all ignore it?

 

[Aoami]

Bollocks Shark - you shit on people who by and large (learning difficulties and personal problems aside) deserve more or less to be shat on.

Granted I come from a grammar school so it may be different but those in the lower sets were by and large lazy/chavs/people who instead of spending every weekend drinking/partying, spent every day drinking/partying.

me and my mates spent every day drinking and partying and we were all in top set for everything.

your ideals are sometimes very warped for someone so young bugz

 

[Embattle]

wtf is the forum doing to my links?

Certainly classy.

 

[pcg79]

Your reply is certainly warm & fuzzy to the heart Olgaline but many theories and views on the economy work on the idea of being selfish and self-sufficient, rather than not selfish but self-sufficient.

Self-sufficient doesn't always suggest you are competitive or clued up or aiming as high as you can. Being selfish or to put it nicer 'working with your own interests to heart' stimulates you. You want to do good, you want to aim high because you know you will reap the benefits.

You are right - you don't need to be selfish to be successful or prosperous. But those who are selfish will do better over time. Benefits to society are gained through the prosperity of individuals. Competition between individuals encourages development.

The state is there to provide those things which competition and selfishness would not provide adequately i.e health, welfare benefits etc.

Secondly, define selfish and self-sufficient in economics clearly? If I am a farmer and I sell my milk for 2 dollars profit, am I selfish or self-sufficient? If it only takes 1 dollar 50 cents to keep my farm and me intact then that extra 50 cents that I keep is me being selfish?

In fact, I'd go as far to say if you believe an economy can sustain itself globally and nationally through the motto 'self-sufficient NOT selfish' then you have a very ideological view of society.

Some areas to read up on if you are interested:

Invisible hand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homo economicus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/14/40315399.pdf

economics undergrad?

 

[Bugz]

me and my mates spent every day drinking and partying and we were all in top set for everything.

your ideals are sometimes very warped for someone so young bugz

Then you obviously have the benefit of being intelligent and not have to work for what you achieve in life.

You are getting mixed up between someone saying 'those in x were y' and assuming that to mean that 'y can't be out of x.' I never said that at all.

Is that confusion where you believe my ideals are so warped?

@pcg79 -> Yes I am but economic-trash-talk aside, I still believe that the view of a self-sufficient, non-selfish society being able to match that of a realistic society in which selfishness etc. does exist is not feasible.

 

[Aoami]

Then you obviously have the benefit of being intelligent and not have to work for what you achieve in life.

You are getting mixed up between someone saying 'those in x were y' and assuming that to mean that 'y can't be out of x.' I never said that at all.

Is that confusion where you believe my ideals are so warped?

haha no, but you've just confirmed what i said with that response.

 

[Bugz]

Great job in trying to develop/expand your point of view there Aoami...

 

[Tom]

And that is still a political viewpoint. It means you are apathetic about politics. Do you think we should just get rid of politics or should we just all ignore it?

No, it means that one doesn't care enough to formulate an opinion. That isn't a view on politics, that's a view on life.

 

[Sharkith]

No, it means that one doesn't care enough to formulate an opinion. That isn't a view on politics, that's a view on life.

Hmmm let me try state this positively. What I am trying to suggest is that there is a paradox here. The paradox is that someone doesn't have a viewpoint and wishes to have no viewpoint with respect to politics, but nonetheless that person cannot help but a) remain the subject of politics and in fact b) remains the subject of political communication. This is despite their claim that they have no viewpoint.

Even if you wish to have no viewpoint about politics this does not mean that you are free from politics. In fact you are not. You are always bound by political decisions and secondly you are the subject of political communication even though you don't care. In fact and rather ironically it is because you don't care that you are communicated about.

There is a lot of communication about voter apathy, about a lack of participation. A lot of this communication is genuinely political. Not participating, not having a viewpoint remains and always will remain a position relative to politics. It can be, and in fact is frequently made the subject of political communication.

Just because the individual thinks that not having a viewpoint somehow makes them free from politics does not mean they cannot be the subject of politics. So not having a political opinion can and in fact is frequently a matter for politics and therefore is frequently a political thing.

 

[Tom]

Yes, but none of that means that not holding a view on politics is impossible.

 

[MYstIC G]

Ok, here are some controversial viewpoints and I would like people to comment on them (constructively, not 'G you're a fascist dick' - they're not all my own opinions)

- Bring back the dealth penalty for rapists, murders, violent people, drug traffikers and child molesters. The electric chair looming puts the shitters up anyone.
- Instant, long jail terms for anyone carrying an offensive weapon. Clearly they're a danger to society, so lets clear them out.
- The right to defend your own land / property.
- Bring back physical punishment in schools.
- Seperate disruptive wastes of space into their own schools.
- Slash benefits, particularly for foreigners who come to Treasure Island, sorry, the UK for a free handout. Need benefits to bring up children? You can't afford to have children. We could use some population control anyway.
- Muslims have their own mortgages, how about their own airline to go with it so they can all fly together? Should save us a fortune on airport security plus the red tape at check in time.

Yes.
No. (fear can motivate people to carry weapons, you'd have to clean up the streets first).
Yes.
Yes. (building a fearless society of arrogant idiots will only lead to problems going forward).
Yes. (remove them from school, your kid = your responsibility. They fuck up, cheaper council tax bills as there are more candidates for binmen).
Yes. (time limit EVERYTHING then we'll see how long people really go without a job, etc.).
No.

 

[MYstIC G]

Not the same thing at all. When it comes to politics you cannot avoid having some position even no position is still a position. Its because the proposition specifies a position and it is impossible to have no position relative to another position.

PS: Actually it's exactly the same thing. Tom doesn't have to have any involvement in politics whatsoever. You're assigning him a label that he doesn't require in order to function in any way shape or form.

 

[Sharkith]

Yes, but none of that means that not holding a view on politics is impossible.

It means not holding a view on politics remains a political problem. So even though you try to escape politics you are still the subject of politics because you are bound by the decisions taken in politics and in the form of the apathetic voter or the non-participant in political communication.

You can do what you like but you are still subject to politics no matter how much you might like to avoid it by pretending it doesn't exist.

 

[Sharkith]

PS: Actually it's exactly the same thing. Tom doesn't have to have any involvement in politics whatsoever. You're assigning him a label that he doesn't require in order to function in any way shape or form.

I already said he doesn't have to have any involvement in politics. It is a paradox - but just because he doesn't get involved doesn't mean he has escaped politics. Ironically he is the subject of politics as much as anyone else who thinks they are participating in it. Thats why my original statement still holds.

Not having a political view is having a political view. You are trying to avoid something that nonetheless still makes you subject to it no matter wether you like it or not.

The beautiful thing about it is you can continue to live without your political view and the world will go on without you even politics can go on without you.

 

[Z^^]

I got my job, i play my games i go out to drink whenever i want to, polititans continue to spamcrap at eachother... its like who cares?

 

[Tom]

It means not holding a view on politics remains a political problem. So even though you try to escape politics you are still the subject of politics because you are bound by the decisions taken in politics and in the form of the apathetic voter or the non-participant in political communication.

You can do what you like but you are still subject to politics no matter how much you might like to avoid it by pretending it doesn't exist.

...which isn't the premise on which you based your original argument.

 

[Sharkith]

...which isn't the premise on which you based your original argument.

Actually it was - you misunderstood it and I hope it is clearer now.

 

[Tom]

I'm not sure I misunderstood anything. You suggested that it was impossible not to hold a view on politics. Then you moved your argument to say that it was impossible not to be affected by politics. Two separate arguments.