FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Should the voting age be lower?
Should the voting age be lower?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
"Do you think 16 and 17 year olds should get the vote to represent a fair result, as they can vote in scotland? Because their future hangs in the balance too and many would want to be in the eu. The representation of the people act 1969 lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, with effect from 1970 and remained in force until the scottish independence referendum Act 2013 which allowed 16 year olds to vote for the first time, but only in Scotland and only in that particular referendum "No it should be raised, people are just to immature to make informed decisions. It should be raised to 23. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch . "But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? | |||
"It's mainly the younger generation who can't be bothered to vote ! So I doubt many 16 and 17year olds would bother ! Also if we are now making the the school leaving age 18 and we don't trust anyone under that to drink I can't see how we should expect them to vote ! " Probably shouldnt be trusted to train in the army or work eiher then | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? "Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds. | |||
"It's mainly the younger generation who can't be bothered to vote ! So I doubt many 16 and 17year olds would bother ! Also if we are now making the the school leaving age 18 and we don't trust anyone under that to drink I can't see how we should expect them to vote ! Probably shouldnt be trusted to train in the army or work eiher then" Does serving in the army at 16 require the same skills as voting? | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds."Because two wrongs don't make a right? | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds.
Because two wrongs don't make a right? "Because nobody will ever take the vote away from pensioners suffering from dementia.What's good for the goose is good for the gander. | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds.
Because two wrongs don't make a right? Because nobody will ever take the vote away from pensioners suffering from dementia.What's good for the goose is good for the gander. "But you know the evidence shows most 16-17 year olds won't make a truly independent decision, they just follow their parents vote | |||
"It's mainly the younger generation who can't be bothered to vote ! So I doubt many 16 and 17year olds would bother ! Also if we are now making the the school leaving age 18 and we don't trust anyone under that to drink I can't see how we should expect them to vote ! Probably shouldnt be trusted to train in the army or work eiher then Does serving in the army at 16 require the same skills as voting? " Yes and no I guess. | |||
"It's mainly the younger generation who can't be bothered to vote ! So I doubt many 16 and 17year olds would bother ! Also if we are now making the the school leaving age 18 and we don't trust anyone under that to drink I can't see how we should expect them to vote ! Probably shouldnt be trusted to train in the army or work eiher then Does serving in the army at 16 require the same skills as voting? Yes and no I guess. " I have a tonne of respect for our armed forces, but joining at 16 you need fitness, to learn quickly and to follow orders. Obviously the more senior you get then you need vastly better decision making skills, but junior ranks follow orders. Whether or not to kill is a combination of following orders or applying a prescriptive formula. These skills are somewhat detached from the skills to make good voting decisions. However i do not pretend that there aren't other groups who have the vote but aren't any better equipped. Personally i would take it away from them though. | |||
"It's mainly the younger generation who can't be bothered to vote ! So I doubt many 16 and 17year olds would bother ! Also if we are now making the the school leaving age 18 and we don't trust anyone under that to drink I can't see how we should expect them to vote ! Probably shouldnt be trusted to train in the army or work eiher then Does serving in the army at 16 require the same skills as voting? Yes and no I guess. I have a tonne of respect for our armed forces, but joining at 16 you need fitness, to learn quickly and to follow orders. Obviously the more senior you get then you need vastly better decision making skills, but junior ranks follow orders. Whether or not to kill is a combination of following orders or applying a prescriptive formula. These skills are somewhat detached from the skills to make good voting decisions. However i do not pretend that there aren't other groups who have the vote but aren't any better equipped. Personally i would take it away from them though. " Agreed. | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds.
Because two wrongs don't make a right? Because nobody will ever take the vote away from pensioners suffering from dementia.What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But you know the evidence shows most 16-17 year olds won't make a truly independent decision, they just follow their parents vote"Same as old people taking advice from their children. Because they've lost touch with the zeitgeist and want to vote for what their children and grandchildren want. If we are willing to discriminate against 16 year olds we should also against the old.We have no problem taking their driving licensees away. | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds.
Because two wrongs don't make a right? Because nobody will ever take the vote away from pensioners suffering from dementia.What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But you know the evidence shows most 16-17 year olds won't make a truly independent decision, they just follow their parents vote Same as old people taking advice from their children. Because they've lost touch with the zeitgeist and want to vote for what their children and grandchildren want. If we are willing to discriminate against 16 year olds we should also against the old.We have no problem taking their driving licensees away. "I just take the socrates arguement that nobody should be voting unless they can demontrate a rational appreciation of the issues | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds.
Because two wrongs don't make a right? Because nobody will ever take the vote away from pensioners suffering from dementia.What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But you know the evidence shows most 16-17 year olds won't make a truly independent decision, they just follow their parents vote Same as old people taking advice from their children. Because they've lost touch with the zeitgeist and want to vote for what their children and grandchildren want. If we are willing to discriminate against 16 year olds we should also against the old.We have no problem taking their driving licensees away.
I just take the socrates arguement that nobody should be voting unless they can demontrate a rational appreciation of the issues"Most of the candidates can't do that | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds.
Because two wrongs don't make a right? Because nobody will ever take the vote away from pensioners suffering from dementia.What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But you know the evidence shows most 16-17 year olds won't make a truly independent decision, they just follow their parents vote Same as old people taking advice from their children. Because they've lost touch with the zeitgeist and want to vote for what their children and grandchildren want. If we are willing to discriminate against 16 year olds we should also against the old.We have no problem taking their driving licensees away.
I just take the socrates arguement that nobody should be voting unless they can demontrate a rational appreciation of the issues"How do you do that? We live in age were everyone has be told they are entitled to their opinion.Informed or not. | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds.
Because two wrongs don't make a right? Because nobody will ever take the vote away from pensioners suffering from dementia.What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But you know the evidence shows most 16-17 year olds won't make a truly independent decision, they just follow their parents vote Same as old people taking advice from their children. Because they've lost touch with the zeitgeist and want to vote for what their children and grandchildren want. If we are willing to discriminate against 16 year olds we should also against the old.We have no problem taking their driving licensees away.
I just take the socrates arguement that nobody should be voting unless they can demontrate a rational appreciation of the issues
Most of the candidates can't do that"Exactly, change the electorate and you change the shit that gets elected | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds.
Because two wrongs don't make a right? Because nobody will ever take the vote away from pensioners suffering from dementia.What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But you know the evidence shows most 16-17 year olds won't make a truly independent decision, they just follow their parents vote Same as old people taking advice from their children. Because they've lost touch with the zeitgeist and want to vote for what their children and grandchildren want. If we are willing to discriminate against 16 year olds we should also against the old.We have no problem taking their driving licensees away.
I just take the socrates arguement that nobody should be voting unless they can demontrate a rational appreciation of the issues How do you do that? We live in age were everyone has be told they are entitled to their opinion.Informed or not."Well we manage to decide who is qualified to perform heart surgery and who is qualified to send someone to jail so I'm sure we can come up with a way to limit the electorate to a group that wouldn't condemn socrates to death | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds.
Because two wrongs don't make a right? Because nobody will ever take the vote away from pensioners suffering from dementia.What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But you know the evidence shows most 16-17 year olds won't make a truly independent decision, they just follow their parents vote Same as old people taking advice from their children. Because they've lost touch with the zeitgeist and want to vote for what their children and grandchildren want. If we are willing to discriminate against 16 year olds we should also against the old.We have no problem taking their driving licensees away.
I just take the socrates arguement that nobody should be voting unless they can demontrate a rational appreciation of the issues How do you do that? We live in age were everyone has be told they are entitled to their opinion.Informed or not.
Well we manage to decide who is qualified to perform heart surgery and who is qualified to send someone to jail so I'm sure we can come up with a way to limit the electorate to a group that wouldn't condemn socrates to death"Instead of qualifying an individual's capacities. Why not qualify the ability of ministers or MPs. Seems to me the only requirement is a degree in law and politics and to go to the right school. | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds.
Because two wrongs don't make a right? Because nobody will ever take the vote away from pensioners suffering from dementia.What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But you know the evidence shows most 16-17 year olds won't make a truly independent decision, they just follow their parents vote Same as old people taking advice from their children. Because they've lost touch with the zeitgeist and want to vote for what their children and grandchildren want. If we are willing to discriminate against 16 year olds we should also against the old.We have no problem taking their driving licensees away.
I just take the socrates arguement that nobody should be voting unless they can demontrate a rational appreciation of the issues How do you do that? We live in age were everyone has be told they are entitled to their opinion.Informed or not.
Well we manage to decide who is qualified to perform heart surgery and who is qualified to send someone to jail so I'm sure we can come up with a way to limit the electorate to a group that wouldn't condemn socrates to death Instead of qualifying an individual's capacities. Why not qualify the ability of ministers or MPs. Seems to me the only requirement is a degree in law and politics and to go to the right school."You could do it that way but it seems the more easily corrupted of the options | |||
"Do you think 16 and 17 year olds should get the vote to represent a fair result, as they can vote in scotland? Because their future hangs in the balance too and many would want to be in the eu. The representation of the people act 1969 lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, with effect from 1970 and remained in force until the scottish independence referendum Act 2013 which allowed 16 year olds to vote for the first time, but only in Scotland and only in that particular referendum
No it should be raised, people are just to immature to make informed decisions.
It should be raised to 23."I agree raise it  | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch . "Very offensive to the older generation who have a life time of experience and are not ignorant like you. | |||
"Do you think 16 and 17 year olds should get the vote to represent a fair result, as they can vote in scotland? Because their future hangs in the balance too and many would want to be in the eu. The representation of the people act 1969 lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, with effect from 1970 and remained in force until the scottish independence referendum Act 2013 which allowed 16 year olds to vote for the first time, but only in Scotland and only in that particular referendum
No it should be raised, people are just to immature to make informed decisions.
It should be raised to 23."If they can make the decision to die for their country, then they should be allowed to vote on what happens within it. I really can't see why the voting age shouldn't be lowered, it might well engage young people more with politics. After all, stupid people of all ages can vote, so what difference would it make? | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds.
Because two wrongs don't make a right? Because nobody will ever take the vote away from pensioners suffering from dementia.What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But you know the evidence shows most 16-17 year olds won't make a truly independent decision, they just follow their parents vote Same as old people taking advice from their children. Because they've lost touch with the zeitgeist and want to vote for what their children and grandchildren want. If we are willing to discriminate against 16 year olds we should also against the old.We have no problem taking their driving licensees away.
I just take the socrates arguement that nobody should be voting unless they can demontrate a rational appreciation of the issues
Most of the candidates can't do that
Exactly, change the electorate and you change the shit that gets elected "So your against democracy and just want voters who want what you want then | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds.
Because two wrongs don't make a right? Because nobody will ever take the vote away from pensioners suffering from dementia.What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But you know the evidence shows most 16-17 year olds won't make a truly independent decision, they just follow their parents vote Same as old people taking advice from their children. Because they've lost touch with the zeitgeist and want to vote for what their children and grandchildren want. If we are willing to discriminate against 16 year olds we should also against the old.We have no problem taking their driving licensees away.
I just take the socrates arguement that nobody should be voting unless they can demontrate a rational appreciation of the issues
Most of the candidates can't do that
Exactly, change the electorate and you change the shit that gets elected So your against democracy and just want voters who want what you want then"No; its the opposite, it's "more" democracy the more voters there are. | |||
"Do you think 16 and 17 year olds should get the vote to represent a fair result, as they can vote in scotland? Because their future hangs in the balance too and many would want to be in the eu. The representation of the people act 1969 lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, with effect from 1970 and remained in force until the scottish independence referendum Act 2013 which allowed 16 year olds to vote for the first time, but only in Scotland and only in that particular referendum
No it should be raised, people are just to immature to make informed decisions.
It should be raised to 23.
If they can make the decision to die for their country, then they should be allowed to vote on what happens within it.
I really can't see why the voting age shouldn't be lowered, it might well engage young people more with politics.
After all, stupid people of all ages can vote, so what difference would it make?"Deciding to risk your life and deciding on an MP are very different | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds.
Because two wrongs don't make a right? Because nobody will ever take the vote away from pensioners suffering from dementia.What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But you know the evidence shows most 16-17 year olds won't make a truly independent decision, they just follow their parents vote Same as old people taking advice from their children. Because they've lost touch with the zeitgeist and want to vote for what their children and grandchildren want. If we are willing to discriminate against 16 year olds we should also against the old.We have no problem taking their driving licensees away.
I just take the socrates arguement that nobody should be voting unless they can demontrate a rational appreciation of the issues
Most of the candidates can't do that
Exactly, change the electorate and you change the shit that gets elected So your against democracy and just want voters who want what you want then"I'm for the original type of democracy that was advocated by all the great philosophers. Not this version that has been hijacked by lesser minds. | |||
| |||
| |||
"personally I think not... But there is a strong argument to say it should be lowered to seventeen and a half. The justification being that that is the age at which a youth becomes eligible to serve in an adult military unit and therefore to fight and die for the country. Personally I would rather see the minimum age for active duty and the voting age raised to 19, 20 or 21." Why do you find that a strong arguement? I don't see the logic at all. It seems no more logical than saying the voting age should be 13 because that's the age you can drive a tractor. | |||
"In a word....no!" How about in more than one word? | |||
"In a word....no! How about in more than one word?" Ok. No, I say, a thousand times no! (Will that do?) | |||
"In a word....no! How about in more than one word? Ok. No, I say, a thousand times no! (Will that do?)" More interested in your logic than the answer to be honest | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds.
Because two wrongs don't make a right? Because nobody will ever take the vote away from pensioners suffering from dementia.What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But you know the evidence shows most 16-17 year olds won't make a truly independent decision, they just follow their parents vote Same as old people taking advice from their children. Because they've lost touch with the zeitgeist and want to vote for what their children and grandchildren want. If we are willing to discriminate against 16 year olds we should also against the old.We have no problem taking their driving licensees away.
I just take the socrates arguement that nobody should be voting unless they can demontrate a rational appreciation of the issues
Most of the candidates can't do that
Exactly, change the electorate and you change the shit that gets elected So your against democracy and just want voters who want what you want then
I'm for the original type of democracy that was advocated by all the great philosophers. Not this version that has been hijacked by lesser minds. "So what did the great philosiphers agree on,nothing lol they all had different opinions | |||
| |||
"Why do you find that a strong arguement? I don't see the logic at all. It seems no more logical than saying the voting age should be 13 because that's the age you can drive a tractor. " Because when you a person is considered old enough for the country to demand that they fight and die defending it I would argue that they must also be considered old enough to cast a vote and help determine the shape of our government. That you would equate the age that a person can legally drive a tractor on a farm with the age at which they can be forced into the armed services and made to kill and die defending the country shows you are either a totally ignorant idiot or looking to divert attention away from a compelling argument for a change. | |||
"Why do you find that a strong arguement? I don't see the logic at all. It seems no more logical than saying the voting age should be 13 because that's the age you can drive a tractor. Because when you a person is considered old enough for the country to demand that they fight and die defending it I would argue that they must also be considered old enough to cast a vote and help determine the shape of our government. That you would equate the age that a person can legally drive a tractor on a farm with the age at which they can be forced into the armed services and made to kill and die defending the country shows you are either a totally ignorant idiot or looking to divert attention away from a compelling argument for a change." But the skills have nothing in common. | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds.
Because two wrongs don't make a right? Because nobody will ever take the vote away from pensioners suffering from dementia.What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But you know the evidence shows most 16-17 year olds won't make a truly independent decision, they just follow their parents vote Same as old people taking advice from their children. Because they've lost touch with the zeitgeist and want to vote for what their children and grandchildren want. If we are willing to discriminate against 16 year olds we should also against the old.We have no problem taking their driving licensees away.
I just take the socrates arguement that nobody should be voting unless they can demontrate a rational appreciation of the issues
Most of the candidates can't do that
Exactly, change the electorate and you change the shit that gets elected So your against democracy and just want voters who want what you want then
I'm for the original type of democracy that was advocated by all the great philosophers. Not this version that has been hijacked by lesser minds.
So what did the great philosiphers agree on,nothing lol they all had different opinions"So which great ones thought voting should be a birthright for all? | |||
"But the skills have nothing in common. " Are you really that dull witted? I think not, so why do you persist in refusing to understand that there has to be a compelling argument that says 'no compulsion to fight and die in defence of the Crown without representation'. | |||
| |||
"If someone is not considered adult enough to purchase alcohol or fags under 18, can't get married OR join the armed forces without parental consent or do other adult things like buying or renting property, then I don't believe they should be doing the EXTREMELY adult thing that is voting. Scotland's change was made by the SNP on the basis that they knew lots of under 18s had zero experience or understanding of the implications of breaking the union. They were more likely to follow the Braveheart thinking that was rife on social media. And indeed a lot of them did. What political experience do most under 18s have? It's much the same as starting work and being asked to choose a mentor from a group of different people you know nothing about to help you learn how to do a job you don't understand. " Well actually you're considered an adult at 16 you can legally have a child and your own home so your point has a flaw.. | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? Logical but not palatable.So if the senile can vote then why not 16 year olds."true, might as well include the cheating fabbers too, and what about the pc brigade, should they be allowed to vote | |||
"If someone is not considered adult enough to purchase alcohol or fags under 18, can't get married OR join the armed forces without parental consent or do other adult things like buying or renting property, then I don't believe they should be doing the EXTREMELY adult thing that is voting. Scotland's change was made by the SNP on the basis that they knew lots of under 18s had zero experience or understanding of the implications of breaking the union. They were more likely to follow the Braveheart thinking that was rife on social media. And indeed a lot of them did. What political experience do most under 18s have? It's much the same as starting work and being asked to choose a mentor from a group of different people you know nothing about to help you learn how to do a job you don't understand. " Your English children can get married in Scotland at 16 without your every so wise parental consent (Gretna)  | |||
| |||
| |||
"But the skills have nothing in common. Are you really that dull witted? I think not, so why do you persist in refusing to understand that there has to be a compelling argument that says 'no compulsion to fight and die in defence of the Crown without representation'. " Why do you refuse to acknowledge a skill to voting? | |||
"I think its a good idea.16 and 17 year olds are smarter than many pensioners in old folks homes .Many of them dont know what day of the week it is and forgot what they had for breakfast or what they ordered for lunch .
But wouldn't it be more logical to stop both voting? " | |||
"But the skills have nothing in common. Are you really that dull witted? I think not, so why do you persist in refusing to understand that there has to be a compelling argument that says 'no compulsion to fight and die in defence of the Crown without representation'. Why do you refuse to acknowledge a skill to voting? " when you say "a skill", I sincerely hope you do not mean tactical voting, I think tactical voting is for the scum of the earth | |||
"But the skills have nothing in common. Are you really that dull witted? I think not, so why do you persist in refusing to understand that there has to be a compelling argument that says 'no compulsion to fight and die in defence of the Crown without representation'. Why do you refuse to acknowledge a skill to voting? when you say "a skill", I sincerely hope you do not mean tactical voting, I think tactical voting is for the scum of the earth" No, the example socrates gives is a choice between a candidate who is a sweet shop owner and a better candidate who is doctor. Skill is the ability to rationally distguish the arguements. The sweet shop owner criticises the doctor saying that they hold back the electorates right to enjoy life and are unnecessarily cautious. Whilst the doctor does not adjust their facts to fit popular opinion and will tell you that smoking does indeed cause cancer. Whereas the sweet shop owner would probably use a lame arguement like "we all drink wine so why not smoke as well?" | |||
| |||
| |||
"God, some people on this forum don't half have a high opinion of themselves. Voting shouldn't be allowed if you're under 21/an OAP/suffering from dementia/not aware of Greek philosophy/you don't have the same political views as me. Reading some of these posts, you'd think the only person that should be entitled to vote is the author/s. " good job the country as a whole have a high enough intelect to relegate those idotic arguments to the fucking bin where they belong innit | |||
"so-crates ... he died 2500 years ago .... he had some ok ideas for his time but they are irrelevant to modern society. dead greek people who kept women for breeding and where 80% of males in their "civilisation" were slaves ... yeah fucking great concept that hey? ... try quoting more modern philosophers and keep comming forward in time, where the thought process is revised and updated with the evidence until we get todays greatest thinker, N. Chomsky .... let's start with J Mayhew ... "no taxation without representation" " Ok how about john stuart mill then, no representation without taxation | |||
"God, some people on this forum don't half have a high opinion of themselves. Voting shouldn't be allowed if you're under 21/an OAP/suffering from dementia/not aware of Greek philosophy/you don't have the same political views as me. Reading some of these posts, you'd think the only person that should be entitled to vote is the author/s. My opinion, if you're old enough to pay NI/taxes, you should be entitled to vote. BTW, when the voting age was lowered in Scotland, there was a huge uptake by the 16-18 year olds so the argument that they're unlikely to bother voting doesn't hold up well." Just shows you haven't read and or understood what was written. | |||
"so-crates ... he died 2500 years ago .... he had some ok ideas for his time but they are irrelevant to modern society. dead greek people who kept women for breeding and where 80% of males in their "civilisation" were slaves ... yeah fucking great concept that hey? ... try quoting more modern philosophers and keep comming forward in time, where the thought process is revised and updated with the evidence until we get todays greatest thinker, N. Chomsky .... let's start with J Mayhew ... "no taxation without representation" Ok how about john stuart mill then, no representation without taxation " lame | |||
"so-crates ... he died 2500 years ago .... he had some ok ideas for his time but they are irrelevant to modern society. dead greek people who kept women for breeding and where 80% of males in their "civilisation" were slaves ... yeah fucking great concept that hey? ... try quoting more modern philosophers and keep comming forward in time, where the thought process is revised and updated with the evidence until we get todays greatest thinker, N. Chomsky .... let's start with J Mayhew ... "no taxation without representation" Ok how about john stuart mill then, no representation without taxation lame" Yes everyone with a greater mind than yours, who doesn't agree with you is lame. | |||
| |||
| |||
"no ... you lazily reversing the quote i posted is lame " No that's an accurate summary of what john stuart mill said. You asked for a more modern philosopher so i gave one, even though greek slavery is completely irrelevant to socrates point that voting as a birthright leads to demagoguery. | |||
| |||
| |||
"considering mayhew died 40 years before mills was born it's clear you're talking nonsense again" Well you've shown yourself to be poorly informed and you just dismiss anything you don't agree with. I will provide the exact quote so people can see you are wrong but i won't be replying to anything else you write since i only debate with people that i think i can learn something from. "The assembly that votes the taxes, either general or local, should be elected exclusively by those who pay something towards the taxes imposed. Those who pay no taxes, disposing of their votes of other people's money, have every motive to be lavish and none to economise". As true today as it was when it was written. | |||
"considering mayhew died 40 years before mills was born it's clear you're talking nonsense again Well you've shown yourself to be poorly informed and you just dismiss anything you don't agree with. I will provide the exact quote so people can see you are wrong but i won't be replying to anything else you write since i only debate with people that i think i can learn something from. "The assembly that votes the taxes, either general or local, should be elected exclusively by those who pay something towards the taxes imposed. Those who pay no taxes, disposing of their votes of other people's money, have every motive to be lavish and none to economise". As true today as it was when it was written. " so working 16 year olds and upwards have the right to vote ....good work | |||
| |||
| |||
"God, some people on this forum don't half have a high opinion of themselves. Voting shouldn't be allowed if you're under 21/an OAP/suffering from dementia/not aware of Greek philosophy/you don't have the same political views as me. Reading some of these posts, you'd think the only person that should be entitled to vote is the author/s. My opinion, if you're old enough to pay NI/taxes, you should be entitled to vote. BTW, when the voting age was lowered in Scotland, there was a huge uptake by the 16-18 year olds so the argument that they're unlikely to bother voting doesn't hold up well. Just shows you haven't read and or understood what was written." Oh, I think I understand perfectly. You would like to see voting restricted to unspecified groups without providing a rational explanation of why other than spouting some Greek philosophy. Why not enlighten me. Tell us all who you would restrict voting to and why and then give us an idea of how you'd make it work. | |||
 | |||
 | |||
"Personally I am very unhappy with the way our country and the world has been going since we got the vote. I believe the education system needs to be changed utterly.. with the focus on social interaction and responsibility and how to care for ones self. This should include politics. Not a system designed to feed us into a destructive society as a worker drone. A youth who have been taught the value and sanctity of human life the world over and the planet itself.. can't make worse decisions than my generation and all those who have gone before me. Call it tree hugging, whimsical utopia if you want, that it's not practical in the modern world. However, that tells me you haven't thought long enough and hard enough about the way the world actually is like, that you haven't travelled far enough or opened your mind enough. If you come back at me with 'Utopian dream' or 'Communist' comments, intended to be insulting. I'll happily point out your ignorance, lack of empathy, compassion, lack of knowledge of history, philosophy or potential futures our society is spiralling into. I'll leave you one thought.. we live in a society that allows our government to brainwash our children from the earliest ages that war is awesome. They can join up at 16 and be sent to die when they're 17. But they're not allowed to drink in a pub on their own till they're 18. Give em a rifle and tell them to kill someone.. that's fine. " i hold the same values.Utopian dreams are always over the horizon its in their very nature to be out of reach. | |||
"God, some people on this forum don't half have a high opinion of themselves. Voting shouldn't be allowed if you're under 21/an OAP/suffering from dementia/not aware of Greek philosophy/you don't have the same political views as me. Reading some of these posts, you'd think the only person that should be entitled to vote is the author/s. My opinion, if you're old enough to pay NI/taxes, you should be entitled to vote. BTW, when the voting age was lowered in Scotland, there was a huge uptake by the 16-18 year olds so the argument that they're unlikely to bother voting doesn't hold up well. Just shows you haven't read and or understood what was written. Oh, I think I understand perfectly. You would like to see voting restricted to unspecified groups without providing a rational explanation of why other than spouting some Greek philosophy. Why not enlighten me. Tell us all who you would restrict voting to and why and then give us an idea of how you'd make it work." I've already done that if you care to read the thread. | |||
"Personally I am very unhappy with the way our country and the world has been going since we got the vote. I believe the education system needs to be changed utterly.. with the focus on social interaction and responsibility and how to care for ones self. This should include politics. Not a system designed to feed us into a destructive society as a worker drone. A youth who have been taught the value and sanctity of human life the world over and the planet itself.. can't make worse decisions than my generation and all those who have gone before me. Call it tree hugging, whimsical utopia if you want, that it's not practical in the modern world. However, that tells me you haven't thought long enough and hard enough about the way the world actually is like, that you haven't travelled far enough or opened your mind enough. If you come back at me with 'Utopian dream' or 'Communist' comments, intended to be insulting. I'll happily point out your ignorance, lack of empathy, compassion, lack of knowledge of history, philosophy or potential futures our society is spiralling into. I'll leave you one thought.. we live in a society that allows our government to brainwash our children from the earliest ages that war is awesome. They can join up at 16 and be sent to die when they're 17. But they're not allowed to drink in a pub on their own till they're 18. Give em a rifle and tell them to kill someone.. that's fine. "So what point in history would you say mankind was relatively more successful? | |||
"Do you think 16 and 17 year olds should get the vote to represent a fair result, as they can vote in scotland? Because their future hangs in the balance too and many would want to be in the eu. The representation of the people act 1969 lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, with effect from 1970 and remained in force until the scottish independence referendum Act 2013 which allowed 16 year olds to vote for the first time, but only in Scotland and only in that particular referendum " Pets should get the vote too - my cats still would have voted Brexit though  Also, prisoners (especially the worst sex-offenders) should have the vote, random bits of fluff and discarded chewing gum wrappers should have a say in the future of the country as well. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Personally I am very unhappy with the way our country and the world has been going since we got the vote. I believe the education system needs to be changed utterly.. with the focus on social interaction and responsibility and how to care for ones self. This should include politics. Not a system designed to feed us into a destructive society as a worker drone. A youth who have been taught the value and sanctity of human life the world over and the planet itself.. can't make worse decisions than my generation and all those who have gone before me. Call it tree hugging, whimsical utopia if you want, that it's not practical in the modern world. However, that tells me you haven't thought long enough and hard enough about the way the world actually is like, that you haven't travelled far enough or opened your mind enough. If you come back at me with 'Utopian dream' or 'Communist' comments, intended to be insulting. I'll happily point out your ignorance, lack of empathy, compassion, lack of knowledge of history, philosophy or potential futures our society is spiralling into. I'll leave you one thought.. we live in a society that allows our government to brainwash our children from the earliest ages that war is awesome. They can join up at 16 and be sent to die when they're 17. But they're not allowed to drink in a pub on their own till they're 18. Give em a rifle and tell them to kill someone.. that's fine. " especially for your comments on education.
Exactly why we won't be sending our daughter to secondary school the way things stand. Home education for us.
16, 18, 21...whatever. It doesn't really matter what age you give people the vote. If you don't teach them to engage and think about politics from a young age most will remain ignorant well into adulthood. I'm more aware of political issues now but up until my early 30's i didn't have a bloody clue (not something I'm proud of) My parents had no interest in politics and it was never discussed in school. As a result politics was something I shied away from as I lacked the confidence to engage with, what I saw as, a very complex subject. I imagine that's the case for a lot of adults and it can cause a lot of anger and confusion, especially when having to deal with the constant stream of bullshit from the media. I don't want that for my own child.
IMO politics/citizenship absolutely should be part of a child's education.
Mr
| |||
"God, some people on this forum don't half have a high opinion of themselves. Voting shouldn't be allowed if you're under 21/an OAP/suffering from dementia/not aware of Greek philosophy/you don't have the same political views as me. Reading some of these posts, you'd think the only person that should be entitled to vote is the author/s. My opinion, if you're old enough to pay NI/taxes, you should be entitled to vote. BTW, when the voting age was lowered in Scotland, there was a huge uptake by the 16-18 year olds so the argument that they're unlikely to bother voting doesn't hold up well. Just shows you haven't read and or understood what was written. Oh, I think I understand perfectly. You would like to see voting restricted to unspecified groups without providing a rational explanation of why other than spouting some Greek philosophy. Why not enlighten me. Tell us all who you would restrict voting to and why and then give us an idea of how you'd make it work. I've already done that if you care to read the thread. " Well, I have, and aside from you suggesting that only those who understand what they are voting for should be allowed to vote, I can see no evidence of how you would decide to whom that applies or how it would be implemented. Why not tell us how it would work? Or are you just quoting philosophical claptrap without any idea of how it could or would work? | |||
"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." 63.1% of voters in the 2015 election voted against the conservative party so I'd be hesitant to refer to your electoral system as an exercise in democracy | |||
"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." No, democracy is democracy. Mob rule is mob rule. The problem is people think we have the former, where in reality it seems we have the latter. -Matt | |||
| |||
"God, some people on this forum don't half have a high opinion of themselves. Voting shouldn't be allowed if you're under 21/an OAP/suffering from dementia/not aware of Greek philosophy/you don't have the same political views as me. Reading some of these posts, you'd think the only person that should be entitled to vote is the author/s. My opinion, if you're old enough to pay NI/taxes, you should be entitled to vote. BTW, when the voting age was lowered in Scotland, there was a huge uptake by the 16-18 year olds so the argument that they're unlikely to bother voting doesn't hold up well. Just shows you haven't read and or understood what was written. Oh, I think I understand perfectly. You would like to see voting restricted to unspecified groups without providing a rational explanation of why other than spouting some Greek philosophy. Why not enlighten me. Tell us all who you would restrict voting to and why and then give us an idea of how you'd make it work. I've already done that if you care to read the thread. Well, I have, and aside from you suggesting that only those who understand what they are voting for should be allowed to vote, I can see no evidence of how you would decide to whom that applies or how it would be implemented. Why not tell us how it would work? Or are you just quoting philosophical claptrap without any idea of how it could or would work? " What exactly is the concern you wish to alleviate? We manage to decide who is qualified to perform heart surgery, who is qualified to take a life, who is qualified to condemn a life to imprisonment. What is so fundamentally complicated about qualifying those who understand the implications of their vote? | |||
"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%. No, democracy is democracy. Mob rule is mob rule. The problem is people think we have the former, where in reality it seems we have the latter. -Matt" But democracy is like capitalism in the sense there are different forms it can take. | |||
| |||
"yes get the younger generation engaged in politics . happy to sign them up to the army at that age but not allowed to vote . its laughable " It's only laughable because you consider it a right that people should have rather than a skill people should qualify for. | |||
"God, some people on this forum don't half have a high opinion of themselves. Voting shouldn't be allowed if you're under 21/an OAP/suffering from dementia/not aware of Greek philosophy/you don't have the same political views as me. Reading some of these posts, you'd think the only person that should be entitled to vote is the author/s. My opinion, if you're old enough to pay NI/taxes, you should be entitled to vote. BTW, when the voting age was lowered in Scotland, there was a huge uptake by the 16-18 year olds so the argument that they're unlikely to bother voting doesn't hold up well. Just shows you haven't read and or understood what was written. Oh, I think I understand perfectly. You would like to see voting restricted to unspecified groups without providing a rational explanation of why other than spouting some Greek philosophy. Why not enlighten me. Tell us all who you would restrict voting to and why and then give us an idea of how you'd make it work. I've already done that if you care to read the thread. Well, I have, and aside from you suggesting that only those who understand what they are voting for should be allowed to vote, I can see no evidence of how you would decide to whom that applies or how it would be implemented. Why not tell us how it would work? Or are you just quoting philosophical claptrap without any idea of how it could or would work? What exactly is the concern you wish to alleviate? We manage to decide who is qualified to perform heart surgery, who is qualified to take a life, who is qualified to condemn a life to imprisonment. What is so fundamentally complicated about qualifying those who understand the implications of their vote? " Well I would have though that was obvious! How do you decide who is 'qualified'? Do you make everyone sit an exam like Doctors and Lawyers do? Doctors and Judges are qualified by their training and experience. Are you suggesting that in order to vote, you should be similarly qualified? How do you determine that qualification? Make everyone sit a GCSE in political science? Or should we all sit a Degree course? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I would just like you to tell me how you would decide how those entitled to vote should be decided. You can't just say we know how to choose a heart surgeon over a dentist to perform a bypass operation and by the same token we should know who and who shouldn't be allowed to vote. | |||
"I am not for lowering the age limit. I get the idea that it is the 16 to 18 year olds futures that are voting on but is that not true of a 13 to 16 year old ??? In the Indy ref in Scotland many of the 16 to 18 age group were well informed and debated well. They gave many politions are run for their money on the TV debates. As with adults it was not true of the vast majority of them. Many were to easily swayed either way.So of the reasons for voting either way was laughable! !! One kid told me he was voting yes because he thought Braveheart was all true !!! My son's friend was voting no because he was worried he would not see English football on the BBC or ITV !!! Let these people mature before we give them the vote." Stupidity is not the sole preserve of youth. My mother-in-law (84yo) voted no because she was worried she wouldn't be able to see her great grandchildren who live in England. Maturity and making rational decisions don't necessarily go hand in hand. | |||
"God, some people on this forum don't half have a high opinion of themselves. Voting shouldn't be allowed if you're under 21/an OAP/suffering from dementia/not aware of Greek philosophy/you don't have the same political views as me. Reading some of these posts, you'd think the only person that should be entitled to vote is the author/s. My opinion, if you're old enough to pay NI/taxes, you should be entitled to vote. BTW, when the voting age was lowered in Scotland, there was a huge uptake by the 16-18 year olds so the argument that they're unlikely to bother voting doesn't hold up well. Just shows you haven't read and or understood what was written. Oh, I think I understand perfectly. You would like to see voting restricted to unspecified groups without providing a rational explanation of why other than spouting some Greek philosophy. Why not enlighten me. Tell us all who you would restrict voting to and why and then give us an idea of how you'd make it work. I've already done that if you care to read the thread. Well, I have, and aside from you suggesting that only those who understand what they are voting for should be allowed to vote, I can see no evidence of how you would decide to whom that applies or how it would be implemented. Why not tell us how it would work? Or are you just quoting philosophical claptrap without any idea of how it could or would work? What exactly is the concern you wish to alleviate? We manage to decide who is qualified to perform heart surgery, who is qualified to take a life, who is qualified to condemn a life to imprisonment. What is so fundamentally complicated about qualifying those who understand the implications of their vote? Well I would have though that was obvious! How do you decide who is 'qualified'? Do you make everyone sit an exam like Doctors and Lawyers do? Doctors and Judges are qualified by their training and experience. Are you suggesting that in order to vote, you should be similarly qualified? How do you determine that qualification? Make everyone sit a GCSE in political science? Or should we all sit a Degree course? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I would just like you to tell me how you would decide how those entitled to vote should be decided. You can't just say we know how to choose a heart surgeon over a dentist to perform a bypass operation and by the same token we should know who and who shouldn't be allowed to vote. " Firstly, yes everyone should be doing economics as a GCSE like maths and english. But that's a forward looking thing. In terms of implementing it then there are various pros and cons to the different methods but really we're not proposing a high standard here. Personally, i would like to give people the option of a written exam or face to face interview or group discussion. The basic principle is that people should be voting on rational arguement rather than prejudice. You wouldn't be asking people who they want to vote for, but it's about basics - how is investment funded / who is likley to be damaged by cuts / what makes an economy grow / how do we know when an economy is healthy. | |||
"yes get the younger generation engaged in politics . happy to sign them up to the army at that age but not allowed to vote . its laughable It's only laughable because you consider it a right that people should have rather than a skill people should qualify for. " What prevents the ruling classes from setting the bar higher than the education available? Better to allow only the brightest and experts in their field to run the country and its services .Then the electorate cant make a poor choice. We have etonians with law degrees in positions of power they have no background in.We decided who is competent to perform heart surgery based on experience and knowledge of the procedure. All politicans who get to become ministers fail because its not their field of expertise they require expert advice.So lets cut out the middle men,the blaggers from eton and employ the experts to do the job. | |||
"yes get the younger generation engaged in politics . happy to sign them up to the army at that age but not allowed to vote . its laughable It's only laughable because you consider it a right that people should have rather than a skill people should qualify for. What prevents the ruling classes from setting the bar higher than the education available? Better to allow only the brightest and experts in their field to run the country and its services .Then the electorate cant make a poor choice. We have etonians with law degrees in positions of power they have no background in.We decided who is competent to perform heart surgery based on experience and knowledge of the procedure. All politicans who get to become ministers fail because its not their field of expertise they require expert advice.So lets cut out the middle men,the blaggers from eton and employ the experts to do the job. " At the level I'm discussing above i don't see it as a big risk. We're talking about a level of knowledge that you could probably get by studying 2 hours worth of high quality YouTube videos. But even so that would be a massive improvement on what we have today. | |||
"God, some people on this forum don't half have a high opinion of themselves. Voting shouldn't be allowed if you're under 21/an OAP/suffering from dementia/not aware of Greek philosophy/you don't have the same political views as me. Reading some of these posts, you'd think the only person that should be entitled to vote is the author/s. My opinion, if you're old enough to pay NI/taxes, you should be entitled to vote. BTW, when the voting age was lowered in Scotland, there was a huge uptake by the 16-18 year olds so the argument that they're unlikely to bother voting doesn't hold up well. Just shows you haven't read and or understood what was written. Oh, I think I understand perfectly. You would like to see voting restricted to unspecified groups without providing a rational explanation of why other than spouting some Greek philosophy. Why not enlighten me. Tell us all who you would restrict voting to and why and then give us an idea of how you'd make it work. I've already done that if you care to read the thread. Well, I have, and aside from you suggesting that only those who understand what they are voting for should be allowed to vote, I can see no evidence of how you would decide to whom that applies or how it would be implemented. Why not tell us how it would work? Or are you just quoting philosophical claptrap without any idea of how it could or would work? What exactly is the concern you wish to alleviate? We manage to decide who is qualified to perform heart surgery, who is qualified to take a life, who is qualified to condemn a life to imprisonment. What is so fundamentally complicated about qualifying those who understand the implications of their vote? Well I would have though that was obvious! How do you decide who is 'qualified'? Do you make everyone sit an exam like Doctors and Lawyers do? Doctors and Judges are qualified by their training and experience. Are you suggesting that in order to vote, you should be similarly qualified? How do you determine that qualification? Make everyone sit a GCSE in political science? Or should we all sit a Degree course? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I would just like you to tell me how you would decide how those entitled to vote should be decided. You can't just say we know how to choose a heart surgeon over a dentist to perform a bypass operation and by the same token we should know who and who shouldn't be allowed to vote. Firstly, yes everyone should be doing economics as a GCSE like maths and english. But that's a forward looking thing. In terms of implementing it then there are various pros and cons to the different methods but really we're not proposing a high standard here. Personally, i would like to give people the option of a written exam or face to face interview or group discussion. The basic principle is that people should be voting on rational arguement rather than prejudice. You wouldn't be asking people who they want to vote for, but it's about basics - how is investment funded / who is likley to be damaged by cuts / what makes an economy grow / how do we know when an economy is healthy. " Whilst I agree entirely that Politics and/or Economics should be compulsory, I'm not convinced that getting the entire voting public of the UK (or,at least, those who could be bothered to turn up)to an interview or an exam is a practical suggestion. The cost alone would be prohibitive. How extensive would your knowledge have to be? Would you have to compare Social Anarchism with Libertarian Socialism, for example? If not, why not? Or would a simple'they stand up for the working classes' do? (Choose your own political stereotype for the last one). | |||
" Firstly, yes everyone should be doing economics as a GCSE like maths and english. But that's a forward looking thing. In terms of implementing it then there are various pros and cons to the different methods but really we're not proposing a high standard here. Personally, i would like to give people the option of a written exam or face to face interview or group discussion. The basic principle is that people should be voting on rational arguement rather than prejudice. You wouldn't be asking people who they want to vote for, but it's about basics - how is investment funded / who is likley to be damaged by cuts / what makes an economy grow / how do we know when an economy is healthy. Whilst I agree entirely that Politics and/or Economics should be compulsory, I'm not convinced that getting the entire voting public of the UK (or,at least, those who could be bothered to turn up)to an interview or an exam is a practical suggestion. The cost alone would be prohibitive. How extensive would your knowledge have to be? Would you have to compare Social Anarchism with Libertarian Socialism, for example? If not, why not? Or would a simple'they stand up for the working classes' do? (Choose your own political stereotype for the last one)." I disagree about the cost. What is the cost of the current system of demagoguery? Hundreds of billions wasted of bank bailouts that didn't need to happen, on wars that had no reconstruction plan, we spend almost as much on debt interest as we do healthcare. Let's be clear, the question isn't "who do you want to vote for and why?" So the answer would never be "them because they stand up for the working class". We are talking about fundamentals not specific to any party or policy. For example "how can a government become bankrupt?", "what impact does a declining population have on a country?", "what conditions are necessary to support a growing population?". All with a range of acceptable answers and follow up questions. | |||
" Firstly, yes everyone should be doing economics as a GCSE like maths and english. But that's a forward looking thing. In terms of implementing it then there are various pros and cons to the different methods but really we're not proposing a high standard here. Personally, i would like to give people the option of a written exam or face to face interview or group discussion. The basic principle is that people should be voting on rational arguement rather than prejudice. You wouldn't be asking people who they want to vote for, but it's about basics - how is investment funded / who is likley to be damaged by cuts / what makes an economy grow / how do we know when an economy is healthy. Whilst I agree entirely that Politics and/or Economics should be compulsory, I'm not convinced that getting the entire voting public of the UK (or,at least, those who could be bothered to turn up)to an interview or an exam is a practical suggestion. The cost alone would be prohibitive. How extensive would your knowledge have to be? Would you have to compare Social Anarchism with Libertarian Socialism, for example? If not, why not? Or would a simple'they stand up for the working classes' do? (Choose your own political stereotype for the last one). I disagree about the cost. What is the cost of the current system of demagoguery? Hundreds of billions wasted of bank bailouts that didn't need to happen, on wars that had no reconstruction plan, we spend almost as much on debt interest as we do healthcare. Let's be clear, the question isn't "who do you want to vote for and why?" So the answer would never be "them because they stand up for the working class". We are talking about fundamentals not specific to any party or policy. For example "how can a government become bankrupt?", "what impact does a declining population have on a country?", "what conditions are necessary to support a growing population?". All with a range of acceptable answers and follow up questions. " They'll still vote for those born to rule because they are sheep. | |||
" Firstly, yes everyone should be doing economics as a GCSE like maths and english. But that's a forward looking thing. In terms of implementing it then there are various pros and cons to the different methods but really we're not proposing a high standard here. Personally, i would like to give people the option of a written exam or face to face interview or group discussion. The basic principle is that people should be voting on rational arguement rather than prejudice. You wouldn't be asking people who they want to vote for, but it's about basics - how is investment funded / who is likley to be damaged by cuts / what makes an economy grow / how do we know when an economy is healthy. Whilst I agree entirely that Politics and/or Economics should be compulsory, I'm not convinced that getting the entire voting public of the UK (or,at least, those who could be bothered to turn up)to an interview or an exam is a practical suggestion. The cost alone would be prohibitive. How extensive would your knowledge have to be? Would you have to compare Social Anarchism with Libertarian Socialism, for example? If not, why not? Or would a simple'they stand up for the working classes' do? (Choose your own political stereotype for the last one). I disagree about the cost. What is the cost of the current system of demagoguery? Hundreds of billions wasted of bank bailouts that didn't need to happen, on wars that had no reconstruction plan, we spend almost as much on debt interest as we do healthcare. Let's be clear, the question isn't "who do you want to vote for and why?" So the answer would never be "them because they stand up for the working class". We are talking about fundamentals not specific to any party or policy. For example "how can a government become bankrupt?", "what impact does a declining population have on a country?", "what conditions are necessary to support a growing population?". All with a range of acceptable answers and follow up questions. They'll still vote for those born to rule because they are sheep." So how come you aren't a sheep? | |||
" I disagree about the cost. What is the cost of the current system of demagoguery? Hundreds of billions wasted of bank bailouts that didn't need to happen, on wars that had no reconstruction plan, we spend almost as much on debt interest as we do healthcare. Let's be clear, the question isn't "who do you want to vote for and why?" So the answer would never be "them because they stand up for the working class". We are talking about fundamentals not specific to any party or policy. For example "how can a government become bankrupt?", "what impact does a declining population have on a country?", "what conditions are necessary to support a growing population?". All with a range of acceptable answers and follow up questions. " I don't think the banking crisis was cause by an uninformed voting public. It was capitalism gone mad. I find it really difficult to see how something like that could have been avoided without massive levels of state control (Nationalised Bank?) which, again, I don't think anyone would vote for. The legacy issues that concern you are symptomatic of a social system gone wrong, not a government of one particular shade or another. | |||
" I disagree about the cost. What is the cost of the current system of demagoguery? Hundreds of billions wasted of bank bailouts that didn't need to happen, on wars that had no reconstruction plan, we spend almost as much on debt interest as we do healthcare. Let's be clear, the question isn't "who do you want to vote for and why?" So the answer would never be "them because they stand up for the working class". We are talking about fundamentals not specific to any party or policy. For example "how can a government become bankrupt?", "what impact does a declining population have on a country?", "what conditions are necessary to support a growing population?". All with a range of acceptable answers and follow up questions. I don't think the banking crisis was cause by an uninformed voting public. It was capitalism gone mad. I find it really difficult to see how something like that could have been avoided without massive levels of state control (Nationalised Bank?) which, again, I don't think anyone would vote for. The legacy issues that concern you are symptomatic of a social system gone wrong, not a government of one particular shade or another. " Bailing out banks is the opposite of capitalism. What's your distinction between a social system gone wrong and a democracy lead by demagogues? | |||
" I disagree about the cost. What is the cost of the current system of demagoguery? Hundreds of billions wasted of bank bailouts that didn't need to happen, on wars that had no reconstruction plan, we spend almost as much on debt interest as we do healthcare. Let's be clear, the question isn't "who do you want to vote for and why?" So the answer would never be "them because they stand up for the working class". We are talking about fundamentals not specific to any party or policy. For example "how can a government become bankrupt?", "what impact does a declining population have on a country?", "what conditions are necessary to support a growing population?". All with a range of acceptable answers and follow up questions. I don't think the banking crisis was cause by an uninformed voting public. It was capitalism gone mad. I find it really difficult to see how something like that could have been avoided without massive levels of state control (Nationalised Bank?) which, again, I don't think anyone would vote for. The legacy issues that concern you are symptomatic of a social system gone wrong, not a government of one particular shade or another. Bailing out banks is the opposite of capitalism. What's your distinction between a social system gone wrong and a democracy lead by demagogues? " Again, I disagree with you. Bailing out the banks was done because our capitalist system would have otherwise collapsed. Sometimes intervention is required. That's why trade barriers and tariffs exist. I also don't believe that all politicians are demagogues. I believe that many have the interests of both the country and constituents at heart although, admittedly, they're getting harder and harder to find. I also think that ones choice in voting can be an emotive issue and not let by an awareness or understanding of either politics or economics. I'm guessing that you probably feel that voting on an emotional level should disqualify you from voting in the first place? However, I feel it can be as valid a reason as an awareness of the difference between the Deficit and National Debt. | |||
" Firstly, yes everyone should be doing economics as a GCSE like maths and english. But that's a forward looking thing. In terms of implementing it then there are various pros and cons to the different methods but really we're not proposing a high standard here. Personally, i would like to give people the option of a written exam or face to face interview or group discussion. The basic principle is that people should be voting on rational arguement rather than prejudice. You wouldn't be asking people who they want to vote for, but it's about basics - how is investment funded / who is likley to be damaged by cuts / what makes an economy grow / how do we know when an economy is healthy. Whilst I agree entirely that Politics and/or Economics should be compulsory, I'm not convinced that getting the entire voting public of the UK (or,at least, those who could be bothered to turn up)to an interview or an exam is a practical suggestion. The cost alone would be prohibitive. How extensive would your knowledge have to be? Would you have to compare Social Anarchism with Libertarian Socialism, for example? If not, why not? Or would a simple'they stand up for the working classes' do? (Choose your own political stereotype for the last one). I disagree about the cost. What is the cost of the current system of demagoguery? Hundreds of billions wasted of bank bailouts that didn't need to happen, on wars that had no reconstruction plan, we spend almost as much on debt interest as we do healthcare. Let's be clear, the question isn't "who do you want to vote for and why?" So the answer would never be "them because they stand up for the working class". We are talking about fundamentals not specific to any party or policy. For example "how can a government become bankrupt?", "what impact does a declining population have on a country?", "what conditions are necessary to support a growing population?". All with a range of acceptable answers and follow up questions. They'll still vote for those born to rule because they are sheep. So how come you aren't a sheep? " I am a lost sheep who jumped the fence. Cynicism and skeptism and critical thinking help.Some however get great comfort from the herd .They get a warm fuzzy feeling of belonging until the wolves come. | |||
| |||
" I disagree about the cost. What is the cost of the current system of demagoguery? Hundreds of billions wasted of bank bailouts that didn't need to happen, on wars that had no reconstruction plan, we spend almost as much on debt interest as we do healthcare. Let's be clear, the question isn't "who do you want to vote for and why?" So the answer would never be "them because they stand up for the working class". We are talking about fundamentals not specific to any party or policy. For example "how can a government become bankrupt?", "what impact does a declining population have on a country?", "what conditions are necessary to support a growing population?". All with a range of acceptable answers and follow up questions. I don't think the banking crisis was cause by an uninformed voting public. It was capitalism gone mad. I find it really difficult to see how something like that could have been avoided without massive levels of state control (Nationalised Bank?) which, again, I don't think anyone would vote for. The legacy issues that concern you are symptomatic of a social system gone wrong, not a government of one particular shade or another. Bailing out banks is the opposite of capitalism. What's your distinction between a social system gone wrong and a democracy lead by demagogues? Again, I disagree with you. Bailing out the banks was done because our capitalist system would have otherwise collapsed. " Lehmen brothers died and it didn't bring down america. Not every bank was in trouble, there are no real tangible assets in banking that couldn't be easily acquired by healthy banks as a reward for their good management, as opposed to rewarding failure. At the very least they should have broken RBS up between retail and investment banking and killed the latter. " Sometimes intervention is required. That's why trade barriers and tariffs exist. " I've never heard a high ranking economist suggest capitalism should have zero government intervention. But that doesn't justify all government intervention and this one was unnecessary as well as largely created by government in the first place. " I also don't believe that all politicians are demagogues. I believe that many have the interests of both the country and constituents at heart although, admittedly, they're getting harder and harder to find. I also think that ones choice in voting can be an emotive issue and not let by an awareness or understanding of either politics or economics. I'm guessing that you probably feel that voting on an emotional level should disqualify you from voting in the first place? However, I feel it can be as valid a reason as an awareness of the difference between the Deficit and National Debt." Can you give me an example of an emotionally driven decision (in politics) that is superior to a rationally driven one? | |||
" Firstly, yes everyone should be doing economics as a GCSE like maths and english. But that's a forward looking thing. In terms of implementing it then there are various pros and cons to the different methods but really we're not proposing a high standard here. Personally, i would like to give people the option of a written exam or face to face interview or group discussion. The basic principle is that people should be voting on rational arguement rather than prejudice. You wouldn't be asking people who they want to vote for, but it's about basics - how is investment funded / who is likley to be damaged by cuts / what makes an economy grow / how do we know when an economy is healthy. Whilst I agree entirely that Politics and/or Economics should be compulsory, I'm not convinced that getting the entire voting public of the UK (or,at least, those who could be bothered to turn up)to an interview or an exam is a practical suggestion. The cost alone would be prohibitive. How extensive would your knowledge have to be? Would you have to compare Social Anarchism with Libertarian Socialism, for example? If not, why not? Or would a simple'they stand up for the working classes' do? (Choose your own political stereotype for the last one). I disagree about the cost. What is the cost of the current system of demagoguery? Hundreds of billions wasted of bank bailouts that didn't need to happen, on wars that had no reconstruction plan, we spend almost as much on debt interest as we do healthcare. Let's be clear, the question isn't "who do you want to vote for and why?" So the answer would never be "them because they stand up for the working class". We are talking about fundamentals not specific to any party or policy. For example "how can a government become bankrupt?", "what impact does a declining population have on a country?", "what conditions are necessary to support a growing population?". All with a range of acceptable answers and follow up questions. They'll still vote for those born to rule because they are sheep. So how come you aren't a sheep? I am a lost sheep who jumped the fence. Cynicism and skeptism and critical thinking help.Some however get great comfort from the herd .They get a warm fuzzy feeling of belonging until the wolves come. "But I'm talking about critical thinking being a precursor to voting so why is your scenario not replicable? | |||
" Firstly, yes everyone should be doing economics as a GCSE like maths and english. But that's a forward looking thing. In terms of implementing it then there are various pros and cons to the different methods but really we're not proposing a high standard here. Personally, i would like to give people the option of a written exam or face to face interview or group discussion. The basic principle is that people should be voting on rational arguement rather than prejudice. You wouldn't be asking people who they want to vote for, but it's about basics - how is investment funded / who is likley to be damaged by cuts / what makes an economy grow / how do we know when an economy is healthy. Whilst I agree entirely that Politics and/or Economics should be compulsory, I'm not convinced that getting the entire voting public of the UK (or,at least, those who could be bothered to turn up)to an interview or an exam is a practical suggestion. The cost alone would be prohibitive. How extensive would your knowledge have to be? Would you have to compare Social Anarchism with Libertarian Socialism, for example? If not, why not? Or would a simple'they stand up for the working classes' do? (Choose your own political stereotype for the last one). I disagree about the cost. What is the cost of the current system of demagoguery? Hundreds of billions wasted of bank bailouts that didn't need to happen, on wars that had no reconstruction plan, we spend almost as much on debt interest as we do healthcare. Let's be clear, the question isn't "who do you want to vote for and why?" So the answer would never be "them because they stand up for the working class". We are talking about fundamentals not specific to any party or policy. For example "how can a government become bankrupt?", "what impact does a declining population have on a country?", "what conditions are necessary to support a growing population?". All with a range of acceptable answers and follow up questions. They'll still vote for those born to rule because they are sheep. So how come you aren't a sheep? I am a lost sheep who jumped the fence. Cynicism and skeptism and critical thinking help.Some however get great comfort from the herd .They get a warm fuzzy feeling of belonging until the wolves come.
But I'm talking about critical thinking being a precursor to voting so why is your scenario not replicable? "Because those who have power aren't about to let them all jump the fence. They need the herd to keep them in power.They keep them happy by giving them the illusion of choice of left or right.As mark twain said "If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it" For the sheep ignorance is bliss. | |||
"everyone who reads the mail and the SUN should be denied a vote" And then sent to the gulags comrade? | |||
" I disagree about the cost. What is the cost of the current system of demagoguery? Hundreds of billions wasted of bank bailouts that didn't need to happen, on wars that had no reconstruction plan, we spend almost as much on debt interest as we do healthcare. Let's be clear, the question isn't "who do you want to vote for and why?" So the answer would never be "them because they stand up for the working class". We are talking about fundamentals not specific to any party or policy. For example "how can a government become bankrupt?", "what impact does a declining population have on a country?", "what conditions are necessary to support a growing population?". All with a range of acceptable answers and follow up questions. I don't think the banking crisis was cause by an uninformed voting public. It was capitalism gone mad. I find it really difficult to see how something like that could have been avoided without massive levels of state control (Nationalised Bank?) which, again, I don't think anyone would vote for. The legacy issues that concern you are symptomatic of a social system gone wrong, not a government of one particular shade or another. Bailing out banks is the opposite of capitalism. What's your distinction between a social system gone wrong and a democracy lead by demagogues? Again, I disagree with you. Bailing out the banks was done because our capitalist system would have otherwise collapsed. Lehmen brothers died and it didn't bring down america. Not every bank was in trouble, there are no real tangible assets in banking that couldn't be easily acquired by healthy banks as a reward for their good management, as opposed to rewarding failure. At the very least they should have broken RBS up between retail and investment banking and killed the latter. Sometimes intervention is required. That's why trade barriers and tariffs exist. I've never heard a high ranking economist suggest capitalism should have zero government intervention. But that doesn't justify all government intervention and this one was unnecessary as well as largely created by government in the first place. I also don't believe that all politicians are demagogues. I believe that many have the interests of both the country and constituents at heart although, admittedly, they're getting harder and harder to find. I also think that ones choice in voting can be an emotive issue and not let by an awareness or understanding of either politics or economics. I'm guessing that you probably feel that voting on an emotional level should disqualify you from voting in the first place? However, I feel it can be as valid a reason as an awareness of the difference between the Deficit and National Debt. Can you give me an example of an emotionally driven decision (in politics) that is superior to a rationally driven one? " The NHS? Anyway, why should and emotional decision be any better or worse than a rationally driven one? If we relied on rational decisions, we wouldn't be leaving the EU or perhaps you disagree with that? What standards do you apply to rationality/ | |||
 | |||
" I disagree about the cost. What is the cost of the current system of demagoguery? Hundreds of billions wasted of bank bailouts that didn't need to happen, on wars that had no reconstruction plan, we spend almost as much on debt interest as we do healthcare. Let's be clear, the question isn't "who do you want to vote for and why?" So the answer would never be "them because they stand up for the working class". We are talking about fundamentals not specific to any party or policy. For example "how can a government become bankrupt?", "what impact does a declining population have on a country?", "what conditions are necessary to support a growing population?". All with a range of acceptable answers and follow up questions. I don't think the banking crisis was cause by an uninformed voting public. It was capitalism gone mad. I find it really difficult to see how something like that could have been avoided without massive levels of state control (Nationalised Bank?) which, again, I don't think anyone would vote for. The legacy issues that concern you are symptomatic of a social system gone wrong, not a government of one particular shade or another. Bailing out banks is the opposite of capitalism. What's your distinction between a social system gone wrong and a democracy lead by demagogues? Again, I disagree with you. Bailing out the banks was done because our capitalist system would have otherwise collapsed. Lehmen brothers died and it didn't bring down america. Not every bank was in trouble, there are no real tangible assets in banking that couldn't be easily acquired by healthy banks as a reward for their good management, as opposed to rewarding failure. At the very least they should have broken RBS up between retail and investment banking and killed the latter. Sometimes intervention is required. That's why trade barriers and tariffs exist. I've never heard a high ranking economist suggest capitalism should have zero government intervention. But that doesn't justify all government intervention and this one was unnecessary as well as largely created by government in the first place. I also don't believe that all politicians are demagogues. I believe that many have the interests of both the country and constituents at heart although, admittedly, they're getting harder and harder to find. I also think that ones choice in voting can be an emotive issue and not let by an awareness or understanding of either politics or economics. I'm guessing that you probably feel that voting on an emotional level should disqualify you from voting in the first place? However, I feel it can be as valid a reason as an awareness of the difference between the Deficit and National Debt. Can you give me an example of an emotionally driven decision (in politics) that is superior to a rationally driven one? The NHS? Anyway, why should and emotional decision be any better or worse than a rationally driven one? If we relied on rational decisions, we wouldn't be leaving the EU or perhaps you disagree with that? What standards do you apply to rationality/" Well the NHS is usually ranked around 18th in world healthcare standards that consider outcomes so I'm not sure that's a great example of emotion trumping rationality. I could easily give you a rational arguement from brexit but again the test isn't on specific policies or parties. | |||
" I disagree about the cost. What is the cost of the current system of demagoguery? Hundreds of billions wasted of bank bailouts that didn't need to happen, on wars that had no reconstruction plan, we spend almost as much on debt interest as we do healthcare. Let's be clear, the question isn't "who do you want to vote for and why?" So the answer would never be "them because they stand up for the working class". We are talking about fundamentals not specific to any party or policy. For example "how can a government become bankrupt?", "what impact does a declining population have on a country?", "what conditions are necessary to support a growing population?". All with a range of acceptable answers and follow up questions. I don't think the banking crisis was cause by an uninformed voting public. It was capitalism gone mad. I find it really difficult to see how something like that could have been avoided without massive levels of state control (Nationalised Bank?) which, again, I don't think anyone would vote for. The legacy issues that concern you are symptomatic of a social system gone wrong, not a government of one particular shade or another. Bailing out banks is the opposite of capitalism. What's your distinction between a social system gone wrong and a democracy lead by demagogues? Again, I disagree with you. Bailing out the banks was done because our capitalist system would have otherwise collapsed. Lehmen brothers died and it didn't bring down america. Not every bank was in trouble, there are no real tangible assets in banking that couldn't be easily acquired by healthy banks as a reward for their good management, as opposed to rewarding failure. At the very least they should have broken RBS up between retail and investment banking and killed the latter. Sometimes intervention is required. That's why trade barriers and tariffs exist. I've never heard a high ranking economist suggest capitalism should have zero government intervention. But that doesn't justify all government intervention and this one was unnecessary as well as largely created by government in the first place. I also don't believe that all politicians are demagogues. I believe that many have the interests of both the country and constituents at heart although, admittedly, they're getting harder and harder to find. I also think that ones choice in voting can be an emotive issue and not let by an awareness or understanding of either politics or economics. I'm guessing that you probably feel that voting on an emotional level should disqualify you from voting in the first place? However, I feel it can be as valid a reason as an awareness of the difference between the Deficit and National Debt. Can you give me an example of an emotionally driven decision (in politics) that is superior to a rationally driven one? The NHS? Anyway, why should and emotional decision be any better or worse than a rationally driven one? If we relied on rational decisions, we wouldn't be leaving the EU or perhaps you disagree with that? What standards do you apply to rationality/ Well the NHS is usually ranked around 18th in world healthcare standards that consider outcomes so I'm not sure that's a great example of emotion trumping rationality. I could easily give you a rational arguement from brexit but again the test isn't on specific policies or parties. " Ah, but you're referring to the NHS in it's current state. I'm saying the concept of the NHS was an emotive decision. The current poor state of it is down to the rational (irrespective of how logical/illogical they are/were) decisions made between then and now. | |||
"Personally I am very unhappy with the way our country and the world has been going since we got the vote. I believe the education system needs to be changed utterly.. with the focus on social interaction and responsibility and how to care for ones self. This should include politics. Not a system designed to feed us into a destructive society as a worker drone. A youth who have been taught the value and sanctity of human life the world over and the planet itself.. can't make worse decisions than my generation and all those who have gone before me. Call it tree hugging, whimsical utopia if you want, that it's not practical in the modern world. However, that tells me you haven't thought long enough and hard enough about the way the world actually is like, that you haven't travelled far enough or opened your mind enough. If you come back at me with 'Utopian dream' or 'Communist' comments, intended to be insulting. I'll happily point out your ignorance, lack of empathy, compassion, lack of knowledge of history, philosophy or potential futures our society is spiralling into. I'll leave you one thought.. we live in a society that allows our government to brainwash our children from the earliest ages that war is awesome. They can join up at 16 and be sent to die when they're 17. But they're not allowed to drink in a pub on their own till they're 18. Give em a rifle and tell them to kill someone.. that's fine.
So what point in history would you say mankind was relatively more successful? "I don't think I said that did I? I think I said we can learn from history.. as in our mistakes. But there are a lot of non violent people in the past who've changed the world for the better. | |||
"Personally I am very unhappy with the way our country and the world has been going since we got the vote. I believe the education system needs to be changed utterly.. with the focus on social interaction and responsibility and how to care for ones self. This should include politics. Not a system designed to feed us into a destructive society as a worker drone. A youth who have been taught the value and sanctity of human life the world over and the planet itself.. can't make worse decisions than my generation and all those who have gone before me. Call it tree hugging, whimsical utopia if you want, that it's not practical in the modern world. However, that tells me you haven't thought long enough and hard enough about the way the world actually is like, that you haven't travelled far enough or opened your mind enough. If you come back at me with 'Utopian dream' or 'Communist' comments, intended to be insulting. I'll happily point out your ignorance, lack of empathy, compassion, lack of knowledge of history, philosophy or potential futures our society is spiralling into. I'll leave you one thought.. we live in a society that allows our government to brainwash our children from the earliest ages that war is awesome. They can join up at 16 and be sent to die when they're 17. But they're not allowed to drink in a pub on their own till they're 18. Give em a rifle and tell them to kill someone.. that's fine.
especially for your comments on education.
Exactly why we won't be sending our daughter to secondary school the way things stand. Home education for us.
16, 18, 21...whatever. It doesn't really matter what age you give people the vote. If you don't teach them to engage and think about politics from a young age most will remain ignorant well into adulthood. I'm more aware of political issues now but up until my early 30's i didn't have a bloody clue (not something I'm proud of) My parents had no interest in politics and it was never discussed in school. As a result politics was something I shied away from as I lacked the confidence to engage with, what I saw as, a very complex subject. I imagine that's the case for a lot of adults and it can cause a lot of anger and confusion, especially when having to deal with the constant stream of bullshit from the media. I don't want that for my own child.
IMO politics/citizenship absolutely should be part of a child's education.
Mr
"Same here.. didn't have a clue for a long time.. but I always cared deeply about the injustice and inequality I've seen around the world. I just didn't realise it was all tied up with politics, history and philosophy. Subjects I'd never have hoped to understand at school.. because of the way they're taught. History steam rolls into to nothing but dates and numbers the second you hit secondary school.. listen to a Dan Carlin podcast now.. and it holds most listeners in rapture. You're brave to home school.. I'm impressed. | |||
"thread hijacked and turned to economics yet again "Economics is our politics.. capitalism is money, money is economics.. we're ruled by the horrid stuff.. it doesn't even exist and it governs our life. It's a story we all choose to believe in. And it's destroying so many people's lives. So OFCOURSE Economics gets brought up in every political post. If we were communist, it wouldn't.. but we're not a democracy. We're a capitalist society with the illusions and delusions of a fully working democracy. | |||
| |||
| |||
"they do study politics at school, they even have very active debates too. with school councils etc etc. then you get someone believing everything they read in the newspaper or on TV" And it's usually left wing bollocks being taught | |||
"This is all null and void anyway. If you lot don't start using your brains soon and start thinking towards the Utopian visions everyone mocks as ridiculous.. AI and automation will make you a defunct member of a capitalist society. Google will be able to do your job far better than you, or anyone else. That goes for 80% of us working full time in the UK right now.. including jobs you probably think are AI/Automation proof. It's already happening.. I give it 10yrs before I'm out of a job as an HGV driver.. but what do I retrain in.. If Google can do everything else. What do we teach our next generation to do.. If Google can do that too? We either abandon capitalism and embrace Google for freeing people to not have to work much anymore and give or pay ourselves enough to survive comfortably. Or stop the automation now. Or we'll be living like the rest of the defunct people on this planet. You may not like the term.. but it's a horrid reality. We have to accept that every human on this planet has the right to basic human rights and enforce them. Or you're next when Google gets you." On the money.UBI is on the horizon.If you got kids get them to study stem subjects theyll have a job atleast til 2050.AI is just the begining of a technological revolution that'll accelerate our evolution as a species culturally ,socially and physically . | |||
| |||
" I disagree about the cost. What is the cost of the current system of demagoguery? Hundreds of billions wasted of bank bailouts that didn't need to happen, on wars that had no reconstruction plan, we spend almost as much on debt interest as we do healthcare. Let's be clear, the question isn't "who do you want to vote for and why?" So the answer would never be "them because they stand up for the working class". We are talking about fundamentals not specific to any party or policy. For example "how can a government become bankrupt?", "what impact does a declining population have on a country?", "what conditions are necessary to support a growing population?". All with a range of acceptable answers and follow up questions. I don't think the banking crisis was cause by an uninformed voting public. It was capitalism gone mad. I find it really difficult to see how something like that could have been avoided without massive levels of state control (Nationalised Bank?) which, again, I don't think anyone would vote for. The legacy issues that concern you are symptomatic of a social system gone wrong, not a government of one particular shade or another. Bailing out banks is the opposite of capitalism. What's your distinction between a social system gone wrong and a democracy lead by demagogues? Again, I disagree with you. Bailing out the banks was done because our capitalist system would have otherwise collapsed. Lehmen brothers died and it didn't bring down america. Not every bank was in trouble, there are no real tangible assets in banking that couldn't be easily acquired by healthy banks as a reward for their good management, as opposed to rewarding failure. At the very least they should have broken RBS up between retail and investment banking and killed the latter. Sometimes intervention is required. That's why trade barriers and tariffs exist. I've never heard a high ranking economist suggest capitalism should have zero government intervention. But that doesn't justify all government intervention and this one was unnecessary as well as largely created by government in the first place. I also don't believe that all politicians are demagogues. I believe that many have the interests of both the country and constituents at heart although, admittedly, they're getting harder and harder to find. I also think that ones choice in voting can be an emotive issue and not let by an awareness or understanding of either politics or economics. I'm guessing that you probably feel that voting on an emotional level should disqualify you from voting in the first place? However, I feel it can be as valid a reason as an awareness of the difference between the Deficit and National Debt. Can you give me an example of an emotionally driven decision (in politics) that is superior to a rationally driven one? The NHS? Anyway, why should and emotional decision be any better or worse than a rationally driven one? If we relied on rational decisions, we wouldn't be leaving the EU or perhaps you disagree with that? What standards do you apply to rationality/ Well the NHS is usually ranked around 18th in world healthcare standards that consider outcomes so I'm not sure that's a great example of emotion trumping rationality. I could easily give you a rational arguement from brexit but again the test isn't on specific policies or parties. Ah, but you're referring to the NHS in it's current state. I'm saying the concept of the NHS was an emotive decision. The current poor state of it is down to the rational (irrespective of how logical/illogical they are/were) decisions made between then and now." I think there's a fairly rational basis for universal healthcare linked to better productivity of a healthier workforce | |||
"they do study politics at school, they even have very active debates too. with school councils etc etc. then you get someone believing everything they read in the newspaper or on TV And it's usually left wing bollocks being taught" No they're taught about capitalism and how do be a successful MP in a capitalist society, because that's what capitalism needs. All under the guise of Greek and Roman philosophy. If they were taught lefty bollocks it's be a safe, fairer world to live in. Unfortunately theyre not.. unless it's.. look how ineffectual these tree hugging, peaceful protests are.. They tried to stop our runway being built.. They didn't even move when we got the jcbs out.. so we had to use force and violence for their safety.. see how good capitalism is kids. | |||
"Personally I am very unhappy with the way our country and the world has been going since we got the vote. I believe the education system needs to be changed utterly.. with the focus on social interaction and responsibility and how to care for ones self. This should include politics. Not a system designed to feed us into a destructive society as a worker drone. A youth who have been taught the value and sanctity of human life the world over and the planet itself.. can't make worse decisions than my generation and all those who have gone before me. Call it tree hugging, whimsical utopia if you want, that it's not practical in the modern world. However, that tells me you haven't thought long enough and hard enough about the way the world actually is like, that you haven't travelled far enough or opened your mind enough. If you come back at me with 'Utopian dream' or 'Communist' comments, intended to be insulting. I'll happily point out your ignorance, lack of empathy, compassion, lack of knowledge of history, philosophy or potential futures our society is spiralling into. I'll leave you one thought.. we live in a society that allows our government to brainwash our children from the earliest ages that war is awesome. They can join up at 16 and be sent to die when they're 17. But they're not allowed to drink in a pub on their own till they're 18. Give em a rifle and tell them to kill someone.. that's fine.
So what point in history would you say mankind was relatively more successful?
I don't think I said that did I? I think I said we can learn from history.. as in our mistakes. But there are a lot of non violent people in the past who've changed the world for the better."Well you said you were unhappy with the way things were since we got the vote which sort of implied there was a time before that when things were comparably better in a relative sense? | |||
"This is all null and void anyway. If you lot don't start using your brains soon and start thinking towards the Utopian visions everyone mocks as ridiculous.. AI and automation will make you a defunct member of a capitalist society. Google will be able to do your job far better than you, or anyone else. That goes for 80% of us working full time in the UK right now.. including jobs you probably think are AI/Automation proof. It's already happening.. I give it 10yrs before I'm out of a job as an HGV driver.. but what do I retrain in.. If Google can do everything else. What do we teach our next generation to do.. If Google can do that too? We either abandon capitalism and embrace Google for freeing people to not have to work much anymore and give or pay ourselves enough to survive comfortably. Or stop the automation now. Or we'll be living like the rest of the defunct people on this planet. You may not like the term.. but it's a horrid reality. We have to accept that every human on this planet has the right to basic human rights and enforce them. Or you're next when Google gets you." I agree with almost all of that. But if the working week was limited to 8-16 hours a week and companies pay tax on the profits robots make then it's still a capitalist model, albeit maybe with some UBI thrown in | |||
"This is all null and void anyway. If you lot don't start using your brains soon and start thinking towards the Utopian visions everyone mocks as ridiculous.. AI and automation will make you a defunct member of a capitalist society. Google will be able to do your job far better than you, or anyone else. That goes for 80% of us working full time in the UK right now.. including jobs you probably think are AI/Automation proof. It's already happening.. I give it 10yrs before I'm out of a job as an HGV driver.. but what do I retrain in.. If Google can do everything else. What do we teach our next generation to do.. If Google can do that too? We either abandon capitalism and embrace Google for freeing people to not have to work much anymore and give or pay ourselves enough to survive comfortably. Or stop the automation now. Or we'll be living like the rest of the defunct people on this planet. You may not like the term.. but it's a horrid reality. We have to accept that every human on this planet has the right to basic human rights and enforce them. Or you're next when Google gets you. On the money.UBI is on the horizon.If you got kids get them to study stem subjects theyll have a job atleast til 2050.AI is just the begining of a technological revolution that'll accelerate our evolution as a species culturally ,socially and physically ." Or destroy it. Not in a skynet sense. What happens to our decision making abilities.. when we no longer have to make decisions anymore? Once the sequencing is complete.. and the body is decoded.. What do you need people to study stems for? You're thinking incredibly short term my friend, one generation.. whats after that? Google figures out how we can all live forever.. with nothing to do.. because we ask Google the answers.. go on a date.. did she fancy me? I'll ask Google she/he was there.. monitoring heartbeats, facial patterns from algorithms it's fed.. once it can teach itself.. there's no limit to what it will learn.. and the pace will only get quicker. Personally I think.. If we do it right.. it doesn't have to be a nightmare scenario.. it could free humanity to explore itself, one another, chase our wildest dreams.. But for that to become true.. we've got to give up this fiction of money. | |||
"This is all null and void anyway. If you lot don't start using your brains soon and start thinking towards the Utopian visions everyone mocks as ridiculous.. AI and automation will make you a defunct member of a capitalist society. Google will be able to do your job far better than you, or anyone else. That goes for 80% of us working full time in the UK right now.. including jobs you probably think are AI/Automation proof. It's already happening.. I give it 10yrs before I'm out of a job as an HGV driver.. but what do I retrain in.. If Google can do everything else. What do we teach our next generation to do.. If Google can do that too? We either abandon capitalism and embrace Google for freeing people to not have to work much anymore and give or pay ourselves enough to survive comfortably. Or stop the automation now. Or we'll be living like the rest of the defunct people on this planet. You may not like the term.. but it's a horrid reality. We have to accept that every human on this planet has the right to basic human rights and enforce them. Or you're next when Google gets you. On the money.UBI is on the horizon.If you got kids get them to study stem subjects theyll have a job atleast til 2050.AI is just the begining of a technological revolution that'll accelerate our evolution as a species culturally ,socially and physically . Or destroy it. Not in a skynet sense. What happens to our decision making abilities.. when we no longer have to make decisions anymore? Once the sequencing is complete.. and the body is decoded.. What do you need people to study stems for? You're thinking incredibly short term my friend, one generation.. whats after that? Google figures out how we can all live forever.. with nothing to do.. because we ask Google the answers.. go on a date.. did she fancy me? I'll ask Google she/he was there.. monitoring heartbeats, facial patterns from algorithms it's fed.. once it can teach itself.. there's no limit to what it will learn.. and the pace will only get quicker. Personally I think.. If we do it right.. it doesn't have to be a nightmare scenario.. it could free humanity to explore itself, one another, chase our wildest dreams.. But for that to become true.. we've got to give up this fiction of money." Or google gets treated like most 'experts' today, which woman should i marry google? "The less attractive one that you are more compatible with emotionally". "Well thanks for your opinion google but i can come up with an anecdotal example of when you were wrong so I'm going to marry the gorgeous fuckwit all the same". | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? " The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. | |||
"Personally I am very unhappy with the way our country and the world has been going since we got the vote. I believe the education system needs to be changed utterly.. with the focus on social interaction and responsibility and how to care for ones self. This should include politics. Not a system designed to feed us into a destructive society as a worker drone. A youth who have been taught the value and sanctity of human life the world over and the planet itself.. can't make worse decisions than my generation and all those who have gone before me. Call it tree hugging, whimsical utopia if you want, that it's not practical in the modern world. However, that tells me you haven't thought long enough and hard enough about the way the world actually is like, that you haven't travelled far enough or opened your mind enough. If you come back at me with 'Utopian dream' or 'Communist' comments, intended to be insulting. I'll happily point out your ignorance, lack of empathy, compassion, lack of knowledge of history, philosophy or potential futures our society is spiralling into. I'll leave you one thought.. we live in a society that allows our government to brainwash our children from the earliest ages that war is awesome. They can join up at 16 and be sent to die when they're 17. But they're not allowed to drink in a pub on their own till they're 18. Give em a rifle and tell them to kill someone.. that's fine.
especially for your comments on education.
Exactly why we won't be sending our daughter to secondary school the way things stand. Home education for us.
16, 18, 21...whatever. It doesn't really matter what age you give people the vote. If you don't teach them to engage and think about politics from a young age most will remain ignorant well into adulthood. I'm more aware of political issues now but up until my early 30's i didn't have a bloody clue (not something I'm proud of) My parents had no interest in politics and it was never discussed in school. As a result politics was something I shied away from as I lacked the confidence to engage with, what I saw as, a very complex subject. I imagine that's the case for a lot of adults and it can cause a lot of anger and confusion, especially when having to deal with the constant stream of bullshit from the media. I don't want that for my own child.
IMO politics/citizenship absolutely should be part of a child's education.
Mr
Same here.. didn't have a clue for a long time.. but I always cared deeply about the injustice and inequality I've seen around the world. I just didn't realise it was all tied up with politics, history and philosophy. Subjects I'd never have hoped to understand at school.. because of the way they're taught. History steam rolls into to nothing but dates and numbers the second you hit secondary school.. listen to a Dan Carlin podcast now.. and it holds most listeners in rapture.
You're brave to home school.. I'm impressed."My wife's been heavily involved with home education for the last 18 months with my 14 yo step-daughter. We were kind of forced into it but it's really opened our eyes with regard to the many different approaches there are to education. I want my child to know how to think, how to learn, how to look after herself, and how to be a responsible citizen (some things there I have to improve on, truth be told) and, to get back on topic, i would hope a person that had a good grounding in all of those things would be someone that could and should vote. I just don't think our education system as it stands encourages those things at all which then contributes to many problems in society, not least with how to engage with politics. | |||
"This is all null and void anyway. If you lot don't start using your brains soon and start thinking towards the Utopian visions everyone mocks as ridiculous.. AI and automation will make you a defunct member of a capitalist society. Google will be able to do your job far better than you, or anyone else. That goes for 80% of us working full time in the UK right now.. including jobs you probably think are AI/Automation proof. It's already happening.. I give it 10yrs before I'm out of a job as an HGV driver.. but what do I retrain in.. If Google can do everything else. What do we teach our next generation to do.. If Google can do that too? We either abandon capitalism and embrace Google for freeing people to not have to work much anymore and give or pay ourselves enough to survive comfortably. Or stop the automation now. Or we'll be living like the rest of the defunct people on this planet. You may not like the term.. but it's a horrid reality. We have to accept that every human on this planet has the right to basic human rights and enforce them. Or you're next when Google gets you. I agree with almost all of that. But if the working week was limited to 8-16 hours a week and companies pay tax on the profits robots make then it's still a capitalist model, albeit maybe with some UBI thrown in " I think that's the way we go forward now.. capitalism will have to concede something or we're all doomed bar the sickly wealthy 1%. Reduced working weeks and welfare state that we're taxed on. Humans flip to social care roles and anything that isn't easy to automate till tech catches up. But there will come a point where capitalism will have to throw on the towel. It's done. Democracy isn't. But we've never had democracy and it infuriates the fuck out of me when people think we do. How can we when all our media is geared towards capitalism. Every outlet needs the cash flow to survive. Anyone who tries to love outside it or criticise it.. is mocked as a hippy, tree hugger, lefty, weirdo or dreamer.. when in reality.. it's everyone else en mass that's the fool. We know its true.. but do nothing about it. | |||
"This is all null and void anyway. If you lot don't start using your brains soon and start thinking towards the Utopian visions everyone mocks as ridiculous.. AI and automation will make you a defunct member of a capitalist society. Google will be able to do your job far better than you, or anyone else. That goes for 80% of us working full time in the UK right now.. including jobs you probably think are AI/Automation proof. It's already happening.. I give it 10yrs before I'm out of a job as an HGV driver.. but what do I retrain in.. If Google can do everything else. What do we teach our next generation to do.. If Google can do that too? We either abandon capitalism and embrace Google for freeing people to not have to work much anymore and give or pay ourselves enough to survive comfortably. Or stop the automation now. Or we'll be living like the rest of the defunct people on this planet. You may not like the term.. but it's a horrid reality. We have to accept that every human on this planet has the right to basic human rights and enforce them. Or you're next when Google gets you. I agree with almost all of that. But if the working week was limited to 8-16 hours a week and companies pay tax on the profits robots make then it's still a capitalist model, albeit maybe with some UBI thrown in I think that's the way we go forward now.. capitalism will have to concede something or we're all doomed bar the sickly wealthy 1%. Reduced working weeks and welfare state that we're taxed on. Humans flip to social care roles and anything that isn't easy to automate till tech catches up. But there will come a point where capitalism will have to throw on the towel. It's done. Democracy isn't. But we've never had democracy and it infuriates the fuck out of me when people think we do. How can we when all our media is geared towards capitalism. Every outlet needs the cash flow to survive. Anyone who tries to love outside it or criticise it.. is mocked as a hippy, tree hugger, lefty, weirdo or dreamer.. when in reality.. it's everyone else en mass that's the fool. We know its true.. but do nothing about it. " Capitalism is fundamentally about providing more outputs from the same or less inputs, which is why the left hate it because historically they've been the input. But that need for better productivity can continue with robots as long as the fuckers don't rise up against us and enjoy their servitude. | |||
"This is all null and void anyway. If you lot don't start using your brains soon and start thinking towards the Utopian visions everyone mocks as ridiculous.. AI and automation will make you a defunct member of a capitalist society. Google will be able to do your job far better than you, or anyone else. That goes for 80% of us working full time in the UK right now.. including jobs you probably think are AI/Automation proof. It's already happening.. I give it 10yrs before I'm out of a job as an HGV driver.. but what do I retrain in.. If Google can do everything else. What do we teach our next generation to do.. If Google can do that too? We either abandon capitalism and embrace Google for freeing people to not have to work much anymore and give or pay ourselves enough to survive comfortably. Or stop the automation now. Or we'll be living like the rest of the defunct people on this planet. You may not like the term.. but it's a horrid reality. We have to accept that every human on this planet has the right to basic human rights and enforce them. Or you're next when Google gets you. On the money.UBI is on the horizon.If you got kids get them to study stem subjects theyll have a job atleast til 2050.AI is just the begining of a technological revolution that'll accelerate our evolution as a species culturally ,socially and physically . Or destroy it. Not in a skynet sense. What happens to our decision making abilities.. when we no longer have to make decisions anymore? Once the sequencing is complete.. and the body is decoded.. What do you need people to study stems for? You're thinking incredibly short term my friend, one generation.. whats after that? Google figures out how we can all live forever.. with nothing to do.. because we ask Google the answers.. go on a date.. did she fancy me? I'll ask Google she/he was there.. monitoring heartbeats, facial patterns from algorithms it's fed.. once it can teach itself.. there's no limit to what it will learn.. and the pace will only get quicker. Personally I think.. If we do it right.. it doesn't have to be a nightmare scenario.. it could free humanity to explore itself, one another, chase our wildest dreams.. But for that to become true.. we've got to give up this fiction of money." Its been said AI will be our last invention because we will begin to be inferior from that day.We should embrace the revolution .Its true that technology can be weaponised or used to benefit mankind just like the splitting of the atom. | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. " We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging | |||
"This is all null and void anyway. If you lot don't start using your brains soon and start thinking towards the Utopian visions everyone mocks as ridiculous.. AI and automation will make you a defunct member of a capitalist society. Google will be able to do your job far better than you, or anyone else. That goes for 80% of us working full time in the UK right now.. including jobs you probably think are AI/Automation proof. It's already happening.. I give it 10yrs before I'm out of a job as an HGV driver.. but what do I retrain in.. If Google can do everything else. What do we teach our next generation to do.. If Google can do that too? We either abandon capitalism and embrace Google for freeing people to not have to work much anymore and give or pay ourselves enough to survive comfortably. Or stop the automation now. Or we'll be living like the rest of the defunct people on this planet. You may not like the term.. but it's a horrid reality. We have to accept that every human on this planet has the right to basic human rights and enforce them. Or you're next when Google gets you. On the money.UBI is on the horizon.If you got kids get them to study stem subjects theyll have a job atleast til 2050.AI is just the begining of a technological revolution that'll accelerate our evolution as a species culturally ,socially and physically . Or destroy it. Not in a skynet sense. What happens to our decision making abilities.. when we no longer have to make decisions anymore? Once the sequencing is complete.. and the body is decoded.. What do you need people to study stems for? You're thinking incredibly short term my friend, one generation.. whats after that? Google figures out how we can all live forever.. with nothing to do.. because we ask Google the answers.. go on a date.. did she fancy me? I'll ask Google she/he was there.. monitoring heartbeats, facial patterns from algorithms it's fed.. once it can teach itself.. there's no limit to what it will learn.. and the pace will only get quicker. Personally I think.. If we do it right.. it doesn't have to be a nightmare scenario.. it could free humanity to explore itself, one another, chase our wildest dreams.. But for that to become true.. we've got to give up this fiction of money. Its been said AI will be our last invention because we will begin to be inferior from that day.We should embrace the revolution .Its true that technology can be weaponised or used to benefit mankind just like the splitting of the atom. " Long term, once we have a fully functioning AI, it will make people defunct in a working capacity. We no longer have to work. So capitalism HAS to die - end of. If we cant work, we cant earn. If we cant earn, we cant spend. If we cant spend - capitalism is dead. What replaces it is up to our generation. | |||
"This is all null and void anyway. If you lot don't start using your brains soon and start thinking towards the Utopian visions everyone mocks as ridiculous.. AI and automation will make you a defunct member of a capitalist society. Google will be able to do your job far better than you, or anyone else. That goes for 80% of us working full time in the UK right now.. including jobs you probably think are AI/Automation proof. It's already happening.. I give it 10yrs before I'm out of a job as an HGV driver.. but what do I retrain in.. If Google can do everything else. What do we teach our next generation to do.. If Google can do that too? We either abandon capitalism and embrace Google for freeing people to not have to work much anymore and give or pay ourselves enough to survive comfortably. Or stop the automation now. Or we'll be living like the rest of the defunct people on this planet. You may not like the term.. but it's a horrid reality. We have to accept that every human on this planet has the right to basic human rights and enforce them. Or you're next when Google gets you. On the money.UBI is on the horizon.If you got kids get them to study stem subjects theyll have a job atleast til 2050.AI is just the begining of a technological revolution that'll accelerate our evolution as a species culturally ,socially and physically . Or destroy it. Not in a skynet sense. What happens to our decision making abilities.. when we no longer have to make decisions anymore? Once the sequencing is complete.. and the body is decoded.. What do you need people to study stems for? You're thinking incredibly short term my friend, one generation.. whats after that? Google figures out how we can all live forever.. with nothing to do.. because we ask Google the answers.. go on a date.. did she fancy me? I'll ask Google she/he was there.. monitoring heartbeats, facial patterns from algorithms it's fed.. once it can teach itself.. there's no limit to what it will learn.. and the pace will only get quicker. Personally I think.. If we do it right.. it doesn't have to be a nightmare scenario.. it could free humanity to explore itself, one another, chase our wildest dreams.. But for that to become true.. we've got to give up this fiction of money. Its been said AI will be our last invention because we will begin to be inferior from that day.We should embrace the revolution .Its true that technology can be weaponised or used to benefit mankind just like the splitting of the atom. Long term, once we have a fully functioning AI, it will make people defunct in a working capacity. We no longer have to work. So capitalism HAS to die - end of. If we cant work, we cant earn. If we cant earn, we cant spend. If we cant spend - capitalism is dead. What replaces it is up to our generation." the capitaliats will fuck everything up then zoom aboard the next planet to fuck up. be a different type of reality though. the earth is stunningly beautiful, dont think youll getvthat in mars | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging " 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. | |||
"This is all null and void anyway. If you lot don't start using your brains soon and start thinking towards the Utopian visions everyone mocks as ridiculous.. AI and automation will make you a defunct member of a capitalist society. Google will be able to do your job far better than you, or anyone else. That goes for 80% of us working full time in the UK right now.. including jobs you probably think are AI/Automation proof. It's already happening.. I give it 10yrs before I'm out of a job as an HGV driver.. but what do I retrain in.. If Google can do everything else. What do we teach our next generation to do.. If Google can do that too? We either abandon capitalism and embrace Google for freeing people to not have to work much anymore and give or pay ourselves enough to survive comfortably. Or stop the automation now. Or we'll be living like the rest of the defunct people on this planet. You may not like the term.. but it's a horrid reality. We have to accept that every human on this planet has the right to basic human rights and enforce them. Or you're next when Google gets you. On the money.UBI is on the horizon.If you got kids get them to study stem subjects theyll have a job atleast til 2050.AI is just the begining of a technological revolution that'll accelerate our evolution as a species culturally ,socially and physically . Or destroy it. Not in a skynet sense. What happens to our decision making abilities.. when we no longer have to make decisions anymore? Once the sequencing is complete.. and the body is decoded.. What do you need people to study stems for? You're thinking incredibly short term my friend, one generation.. whats after that? Google figures out how we can all live forever.. with nothing to do.. because we ask Google the answers.. go on a date.. did she fancy me? I'll ask Google she/he was there.. monitoring heartbeats, facial patterns from algorithms it's fed.. once it can teach itself.. there's no limit to what it will learn.. and the pace will only get quicker. Personally I think.. If we do it right.. it doesn't have to be a nightmare scenario.. it could free humanity to explore itself, one another, chase our wildest dreams.. But for that to become true.. we've got to give up this fiction of money. Its been said AI will be our last invention because we will begin to be inferior from that day.We should embrace the revolution .Its true that technology can be weaponised or used to benefit mankind just like the splitting of the atom. Long term, once we have a fully functioning AI, it will make people defunct in a working capacity. We no longer have to work. So capitalism HAS to die - end of. If we cant work, we cant earn. If we cant earn, we cant spend. If we cant spend - capitalism is dead. What replaces it is up to our generation." Lets hope the masters of capitalism want to share the earth with the rest of humanity. | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. " Sounds like capitalist complaints to me if you can't point out what's good and what's drivel lefty propaganda. But thanks for the slap disguised as a compliment. | |||
"This is all null and void anyway. If you lot don't start using your brains soon and start thinking towards the Utopian visions everyone mocks as ridiculous.. AI and automation will make you a defunct member of a capitalist society. Google will be able to do your job far better than you, or anyone else. That goes for 80% of us working full time in the UK right now.. including jobs you probably think are AI/Automation proof. It's already happening.. I give it 10yrs before I'm out of a job as an HGV driver.. but what do I retrain in.. If Google can do everything else. What do we teach our next generation to do.. If Google can do that too? We either abandon capitalism and embrace Google for freeing people to not have to work much anymore and give or pay ourselves enough to survive comfortably. Or stop the automation now. Or we'll be living like the rest of the defunct people on this planet. You may not like the term.. but it's a horrid reality. We have to accept that every human on this planet has the right to basic human rights and enforce them. Or you're next when Google gets you. On the money.UBI is on the horizon.If you got kids get them to study stem subjects theyll have a job atleast til 2050.AI is just the begining of a technological revolution that'll accelerate our evolution as a species culturally ,socially and physically . Or destroy it. Not in a skynet sense. What happens to our decision making abilities.. when we no longer have to make decisions anymore? Once the sequencing is complete.. and the body is decoded.. What do you need people to study stems for? You're thinking incredibly short term my friend, one generation.. whats after that? Google figures out how we can all live forever.. with nothing to do.. because we ask Google the answers.. go on a date.. did she fancy me? I'll ask Google she/he was there.. monitoring heartbeats, facial patterns from algorithms it's fed.. once it can teach itself.. there's no limit to what it will learn.. and the pace will only get quicker. Personally I think.. If we do it right.. it doesn't have to be a nightmare scenario.. it could free humanity to explore itself, one another, chase our wildest dreams.. But for that to become true.. we've got to give up this fiction of money. Its been said AI will be our last invention because we will begin to be inferior from that day.We should embrace the revolution .Its true that technology can be weaponised or used to benefit mankind just like the splitting of the atom. Long term, once we have a fully functioning AI, it will make people defunct in a working capacity. We no longer have to work. So capitalism HAS to die - end of. If we cant work, we cant earn. If we cant earn, we cant spend. If we cant spend - capitalism is dead. What replaces it is up to our generation. Lets hope the masters of capitalism want to share the earth with the rest of humanity." Good point. I wonder how long they cling on for. I've used Google almost as bad word.. when in actual fact.. companies like Facebook and Google are empowering us to move onwards and upwards.. they'll be the next generation of leaders. They have the data and are making the tech and AI.. They are fighting a running battle with the political financial elite who demand access to encryption etc. Under the guise of terrorism. I'm sure it's not terrorism that's the motive. One of Theresa May first moves was to launch attacks on these companies.. capitalism is scared. | |||
"This is all null and void anyway. If you lot don't start using your brains soon and start thinking towards the Utopian visions everyone mocks as ridiculous.. AI and automation will make you a defunct member of a capitalist society. Google will be able to do your job far better than you, or anyone else. That goes for 80% of us working full time in the UK right now.. including jobs you probably think are AI/Automation proof. It's already happening.. I give it 10yrs before I'm out of a job as an HGV driver.. but what do I retrain in.. If Google can do everything else. What do we teach our next generation to do.. If Google can do that too? We either abandon capitalism and embrace Google for freeing people to not have to work much anymore and give or pay ourselves enough to survive comfortably. Or stop the automation now. Or we'll be living like the rest of the defunct people on this planet. You may not like the term.. but it's a horrid reality. We have to accept that every human on this planet has the right to basic human rights and enforce them. Or you're next when Google gets you. On the money.UBI is on the horizon.If you got kids get them to study stem subjects theyll have a job atleast til 2050.AI is just the begining of a technological revolution that'll accelerate our evolution as a species culturally ,socially and physically . Or destroy it. Not in a skynet sense. What happens to our decision making abilities.. when we no longer have to make decisions anymore? Once the sequencing is complete.. and the body is decoded.. What do you need people to study stems for? You're thinking incredibly short term my friend, one generation.. whats after that? Google figures out how we can all live forever.. with nothing to do.. because we ask Google the answers.. go on a date.. did she fancy me? I'll ask Google she/he was there.. monitoring heartbeats, facial patterns from algorithms it's fed.. once it can teach itself.. there's no limit to what it will learn.. and the pace will only get quicker. Personally I think.. If we do it right.. it doesn't have to be a nightmare scenario.. it could free humanity to explore itself, one another, chase our wildest dreams.. But for that to become true.. we've got to give up this fiction of money. Its been said AI will be our last invention because we will begin to be inferior from that day.We should embrace the revolution .Its true that technology can be weaponised or used to benefit mankind just like the splitting of the atom. Long term, once we have a fully functioning AI, it will make people defunct in a working capacity. We no longer have to work. So capitalism HAS to die - end of. If we cant work, we cant earn. If we cant earn, we cant spend. If we cant spend - capitalism is dead. What replaces it is up to our generation. Lets hope the masters of capitalism want to share the earth with the rest of humanity. Good point. I wonder how long they cling on for. I've used Google almost as bad word.. when in actual fact.. companies like Facebook and Google are empowering us to move onwards and upwards.. they'll be the next generation of leaders. They have the data and are making the tech and AI.. They are fighting a running battle with the political financial elite who demand access to encryption etc. Under the guise of terrorism. I'm sure it's not terrorism that's the motive. One of Theresa May first moves was to launch attacks on these companies.. capitalism is scared. " They know the new money and power is gravitating towards the tech giants and many of these people are very liberal in their views and altruistic.Which doesnt sit well with the masters capitalism. Elon musk is a good example of someone making a difference with his billions .The money in the past has been with oil companies and minerals and finacial centres. They wont give up power without a fight.Bring it on i say..The future of the planet is at stake. | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. Sounds like capitalist complaints to me if you can't point out what's good and what's drivel lefty propaganda. But thanks for the slap disguised as a compliment." The impact on jobs is spot on, you have a very long term view of AI and how far it can go, you appreciate the implementation side of things as the challenge without it being resigned to the category of good or bad. But then there's the "i heard a figure plucked out of someones arse that 70% of workers aren't needed", some nonsense about africa which is knee deep in capitalist relations with China right now and like most lefties you ignore the fact that capitalism is really just about productivity and money is just an exchange mechanism and we will always need one of those. | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. Sounds like capitalist complaints to me if you can't point out what's good and what's drivel lefty propaganda. But thanks for the slap disguised as a compliment. The impact on jobs is spot on, you have a very long term view of AI and how far it can go, you appreciate the implementation side of things as the challenge without it being resigned to the category of good or bad. But then there's the "i heard a figure plucked out of someones arse that 70% of workers aren't needed", some nonsense about africa which is knee deep in capitalist relations with China right now and like most lefties you ignore the fact that capitalism is really just about productivity and money is just an exchange mechanism and we will always need one of those. " I didn't pull the figure out of my arse I quoted someone who is a lecturer at Bristol university, and author of best selling books on history of violence that is all wrapped up in the colonial past you mentioned and modern Chinese power play. I didnt name him as I couldn't remember his name. If you're interested I can go look it up.. Or as I'd recommend to anyone who feels the same way you do.. regards to the comments you just made. To listen to the podcast I just listened to today. Episode one of Russell Brands "Under the skin". None of the ideas I put forward in this thread are mine. Most came from the lecturer he interviewed on the show.. that I happen to agree with. Yes you may dislike Russell Brand and now dismiss everything I've just written as fluff.. but it's not his view I was expressing. If you can't handle Brand on any level.. I'd recommend Dan Carlin.. a well known commentator on history and politics in the US. His history podcast is awesome regardless of your political views. | |||
"This is all null and void anyway. If you lot don't start using your brains soon and start thinking towards the Utopian visions everyone mocks as ridiculous.. AI and automation will make you a defunct member of a capitalist society. Google will be able to do your job far better than you, or anyone else. That goes for 80% of us working full time in the UK right now.. including jobs you probably think are AI/Automation proof. It's already happening.. I give it 10yrs before I'm out of a job as an HGV driver.. but what do I retrain in.. If Google can do everything else. What do we teach our next generation to do.. If Google can do that too? We either abandon capitalism and embrace Google for freeing people to not have to work much anymore and give or pay ourselves enough to survive comfortably. Or stop the automation now. Or we'll be living like the rest of the defunct people on this planet. You may not like the term.. but it's a horrid reality. We have to accept that every human on this planet has the right to basic human rights and enforce them. Or you're next when Google gets you. On the money.UBI is on the horizon.If you got kids get them to study stem subjects theyll have a job atleast til 2050.AI is just the begining of a technological revolution that'll accelerate our evolution as a species culturally ,socially and physically . Or destroy it. Not in a skynet sense. What happens to our decision making abilities.. when we no longer have to make decisions anymore? Once the sequencing is complete.. and the body is decoded.. What do you need people to study stems for? You're thinking incredibly short term my friend, one generation.. whats after that? Google figures out how we can all live forever.. with nothing to do.. because we ask Google the answers.. go on a date.. did she fancy me? I'll ask Google she/he was there.. monitoring heartbeats, facial patterns from algorithms it's fed.. once it can teach itself.. there's no limit to what it will learn.. and the pace will only get quicker. Personally I think.. If we do it right.. it doesn't have to be a nightmare scenario.. it could free humanity to explore itself, one another, chase our wildest dreams.. But for that to become true.. we've got to give up this fiction of money. Its been said AI will be our last invention because we will begin to be inferior from that day.We should embrace the revolution .Its true that technology can be weaponised or used to benefit mankind just like the splitting of the atom. Long term, once we have a fully functioning AI, it will make people defunct in a working capacity. We no longer have to work. So capitalism HAS to die - end of. If we cant work, we cant earn. If we cant earn, we cant spend. If we cant spend - capitalism is dead. What replaces it is up to our generation. Lets hope the masters of capitalism want to share the earth with the rest of humanity. Good point. I wonder how long they cling on for. I've used Google almost as bad word.. when in actual fact.. companies like Facebook and Google are empowering us to move onwards and upwards.. they'll be the next generation of leaders. They have the data and are making the tech and AI.. They are fighting a running battle with the political financial elite who demand access to encryption etc. Under the guise of terrorism. I'm sure it's not terrorism that's the motive. One of Theresa May first moves was to launch attacks on these companies.. capitalism is scared. They know the new money and power is gravitating towards the tech giants and many of these people are very liberal in their views and altruistic.Which doesnt sit well with the masters capitalism. Elon musk is a good example of someone making a difference with his billions .The money in the past has been with oil companies and minerals and finacial centres. They wont give up power without a fight.Bring it on i say..The future of the planet is at stake. "Couldn't agree more.. a new dawn. | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. Sounds like capitalist complaints to me if you can't point out what's good and what's drivel lefty propaganda. But thanks for the slap disguised as a compliment. The impact on jobs is spot on, you have a very long term view of AI and how far it can go, you appreciate the implementation side of things as the challenge without it being resigned to the category of good or bad. But then there's the "i heard a figure plucked out of someones arse that 70% of workers aren't needed", some nonsense about africa which is knee deep in capitalist relations with China right now and like most lefties you ignore the fact that capitalism is really just about productivity and money is just an exchange mechanism and we will always need one of those. I didn't pull the figure out of my arse I quoted someone who is a lecturer at Bristol university, and author of best selling books on history of violence that is all wrapped up in the colonial past you mentioned and modern Chinese power play. I didnt name him as I couldn't remember his name. If you're interested I can go look it up.. Or as I'd recommend to anyone who feels the same way you do.. regards to the comments you just made. To listen to the podcast I just listened to today. Episode one of Russell Brands "Under the skin". None of the ideas I put forward in this thread are mine. Most came from the lecturer he interviewed on the show.. that I happen to agree with. Yes you may dislike Russell Brand and now dismiss everything I've just written as fluff.. but it's not his view I was expressing. If you can't handle Brand on any level.. I'd recommend Dan Carlin.. a well known commentator on history and politics in the US. His history podcast is awesome regardless of your political views." prefer george carlin myself | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. Sounds like capitalist complaints to me if you can't point out what's good and what's drivel lefty propaganda. But thanks for the slap disguised as a compliment. The impact on jobs is spot on, you have a very long term view of AI and how far it can go, you appreciate the implementation side of things as the challenge without it being resigned to the category of good or bad. But then there's the "i heard a figure plucked out of someones arse that 70% of workers aren't needed", some nonsense about africa which is knee deep in capitalist relations with China right now and like most lefties you ignore the fact that capitalism is really just about productivity and money is just an exchange mechanism and we will always need one of those. I didn't pull the figure out of my arse I quoted someone who is a lecturer at Bristol university, and author of best selling books on history of violence that is all wrapped up in the colonial past you mentioned and modern Chinese power play. I didnt name him as I couldn't remember his name. If you're interested I can go look it up.. Or as I'd recommend to anyone who feels the same way you do.. regards to the comments you just made. To listen to the podcast I just listened to today. Episode one of Russell Brands "Under the skin". None of the ideas I put forward in this thread are mine. Most came from the lecturer he interviewed on the show.. that I happen to agree with. Yes you may dislike Russell Brand and now dismiss everything I've just written as fluff.. but it's not his view I was expressing. If you can't handle Brand on any level.. I'd recommend Dan Carlin.. a well known commentator on history and politics in the US. His history podcast is awesome regardless of your political views." I did actually mean it as a compliment not a slap. The stuff you get right is factual and way more complex than the stuff that is opinion. It's only my opinion that those opinions are bollucks and also only my opinion russell brand is one of the biggest pedlars of bull shit going. I think if you go back to first principles like i have tried to refer to, then you see the gaping holes in the opinions. As i predicted, you've read from a wide range of sources some are excellent and others are ideological and not factual. | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. Sounds like capitalist complaints to me if you can't point out what's good and what's drivel lefty propaganda. But thanks for the slap disguised as a compliment. The impact on jobs is spot on, you have a very long term view of AI and how far it can go, you appreciate the implementation side of things as the challenge without it being resigned to the category of good or bad. But then there's the "i heard a figure plucked out of someones arse that 70% of workers aren't needed", some nonsense about africa which is knee deep in capitalist relations with China right now and like most lefties you ignore the fact that capitalism is really just about productivity and money is just an exchange mechanism and we will always need one of those. I didn't pull the figure out of my arse I quoted someone who is a lecturer at Bristol university, and author of best selling books on history of violence that is all wrapped up in the colonial past you mentioned and modern Chinese power play. I didnt name him as I couldn't remember his name. If you're interested I can go look it up.. Or as I'd recommend to anyone who feels the same way you do.. regards to the comments you just made. To listen to the podcast I just listened to today. Episode one of Russell Brands "Under the skin". None of the ideas I put forward in this thread are mine. Most came from the lecturer he interviewed on the show.. that I happen to agree with. Yes you may dislike Russell Brand and now dismiss everything I've just written as fluff.. but it's not his view I was expressing. If you can't handle Brand on any level.. I'd recommend Dan Carlin.. a well known commentator on history and politics in the US. His history podcast is awesome regardless of your political views. I did actually mean it as a compliment not a slap. The stuff you get right is factual and way more complex than the stuff that is opinion. It's only my opinion that those opinions are bollucks and also only my opinion russell brand is one of the biggest pedlars of bull shit going. I think if you go back to first principles like i have tried to refer to, then you see the gaping holes in the opinions. As i predicted, you've read from a wide range of sources some are excellent and others are ideological and not factual." How can you just dismiss something as ideological that you've not even listened to? Come back at me about it.. once you've listened to it.. I tried to explain that it's not Brand I was listening to. It's his podcast.. but it's the people he's talking to I'm listening to. The complex stuff you've complemented.. came from the same source! Which is why I'm reccomending it to you as an individual.. you may also find it interesting.. If you can separate it from your dislike of Brand. Personally I like him.. but that's not who or why I've tuned in.. I enjoy having my horizon expanded.. sometimes you have to listen to some bullshit to get a little insight to your opposition.. or find a diamond in the rough. | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. Sounds like capitalist complaints to me if you can't point out what's good and what's drivel lefty propaganda. But thanks for the slap disguised as a compliment. The impact on jobs is spot on, you have a very long term view of AI and how far it can go, you appreciate the implementation side of things as the challenge without it being resigned to the category of good or bad. But then there's the "i heard a figure plucked out of someones arse that 70% of workers aren't needed", some nonsense about africa which is knee deep in capitalist relations with China right now and like most lefties you ignore the fact that capitalism is really just about productivity and money is just an exchange mechanism and we will always need one of those. I didn't pull the figure out of my arse I quoted someone who is a lecturer at Bristol university, and author of best selling books on history of violence that is all wrapped up in the colonial past you mentioned and modern Chinese power play. I didnt name him as I couldn't remember his name. If you're interested I can go look it up.. Or as I'd recommend to anyone who feels the same way you do.. regards to the comments you just made. To listen to the podcast I just listened to today. Episode one of Russell Brands "Under the skin". None of the ideas I put forward in this thread are mine. Most came from the lecturer he interviewed on the show.. that I happen to agree with. Yes you may dislike Russell Brand and now dismiss everything I've just written as fluff.. but it's not his view I was expressing. If you can't handle Brand on any level.. I'd recommend Dan Carlin.. a well known commentator on history and politics in the US. His history podcast is awesome regardless of your political views. I did actually mean it as a compliment not a slap. The stuff you get right is factual and way more complex than the stuff that is opinion. It's only my opinion that those opinions are bollucks and also only my opinion russell brand is one of the biggest pedlars of bull shit going. I think if you go back to first principles like i have tried to refer to, then you see the gaping holes in the opinions. As i predicted, you've read from a wide range of sources some are excellent and others are ideological and not factual. How can you just dismiss something as ideological that you've not even listened to? Come back at me about it.. once you've listened to it.. I tried to explain that it's not Brand I was listening to. It's his podcast.. but it's the people he's talking to I'm listening to. The complex stuff you've complemented.. came from the same source! Which is why I'm reccomending it to you as an individual.. you may also find it interesting.. If you can separate it from your dislike of Brand. Personally I like him.. but that's not who or why I've tuned in.. I enjoy having my horizon expanded.. sometimes you have to listen to some bullshit to get a little insight to your opposition.. or find a diamond in the rough." But I'm no hippy vegan spiritualist... far from it.. I like Brand because he makes me laugh.. and he's brave enough to have a try at political/philosophical talk.. and admit when he's got things wrong. But my views.. like you said.. come from many sources. Not Russell Brand. | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. Sounds like capitalist complaints to me if you can't point out what's good and what's drivel lefty propaganda. But thanks for the slap disguised as a compliment. The impact on jobs is spot on, you have a very long term view of AI and how far it can go, you appreciate the implementation side of things as the challenge without it being resigned to the category of good or bad. But then there's the "i heard a figure plucked out of someones arse that 70% of workers aren't needed", some nonsense about africa which is knee deep in capitalist relations with China right now and like most lefties you ignore the fact that capitalism is really just about productivity and money is just an exchange mechanism and we will always need one of those. I didn't pull the figure out of my arse I quoted someone who is a lecturer at Bristol university, and author of best selling books on history of violence that is all wrapped up in the colonial past you mentioned and modern Chinese power play. I didnt name him as I couldn't remember his name. If you're interested I can go look it up.. Or as I'd recommend to anyone who feels the same way you do.. regards to the comments you just made. To listen to the podcast I just listened to today. Episode one of Russell Brands "Under the skin". None of the ideas I put forward in this thread are mine. Most came from the lecturer he interviewed on the show.. that I happen to agree with. Yes you may dislike Russell Brand and now dismiss everything I've just written as fluff.. but it's not his view I was expressing. If you can't handle Brand on any level.. I'd recommend Dan Carlin.. a well known commentator on history and politics in the US. His history podcast is awesome regardless of your political views. I did actually mean it as a compliment not a slap. The stuff you get right is factual and way more complex than the stuff that is opinion. It's only my opinion that those opinions are bollucks and also only my opinion russell brand is one of the biggest pedlars of bull shit going. I think if you go back to first principles like i have tried to refer to, then you see the gaping holes in the opinions. As i predicted, you've read from a wide range of sources some are excellent and others are ideological and not factual. How can you just dismiss something as ideological that you've not even listened to? Come back at me about it.. once you've listened to it.. I tried to explain that it's not Brand I was listening to. It's his podcast.. but it's the people he's talking to I'm listening to. The complex stuff you've complemented.. came from the same source! Which is why I'm reccomending it to you as an individual.. you may also find it interesting.. If you can separate it from your dislike of Brand. Personally I like him.. but that's not who or why I've tuned in.. I enjoy having my horizon expanded.. sometimes you have to listen to some bullshit to get a little insight to your opposition.. or find a diamond in the rough." Because some things are just so far from the blindingly obvious facts that i can't even begin to be bothered to refute them. The idea that "capitalism doesn't need africa" is just up there with david icke and his lizard, satanist paedophiles. Africa is a global hotspot of capitalism right now because chinese money meets african natural resources. Way more than the quasi-communism cunts in europe who keep bailing out shite companies (e.g. banks). | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. Sounds like capitalist complaints to me if you can't point out what's good and what's drivel lefty propaganda. But thanks for the slap disguised as a compliment. The impact on jobs is spot on, you have a very long term view of AI and how far it can go, you appreciate the implementation side of things as the challenge without it being resigned to the category of good or bad. But then there's the "i heard a figure plucked out of someones arse that 70% of workers aren't needed", some nonsense about africa which is knee deep in capitalist relations with China right now and like most lefties you ignore the fact that capitalism is really just about productivity and money is just an exchange mechanism and we will always need one of those. I didn't pull the figure out of my arse I quoted someone who is a lecturer at Bristol university, and author of best selling books on history of violence that is all wrapped up in the colonial past you mentioned and modern Chinese power play. I didnt name him as I couldn't remember his name. If you're interested I can go look it up.. Or as I'd recommend to anyone who feels the same way you do.. regards to the comments you just made. To listen to the podcast I just listened to today. Episode one of Russell Brands "Under the skin". None of the ideas I put forward in this thread are mine. Most came from the lecturer he interviewed on the show.. that I happen to agree with. Yes you may dislike Russell Brand and now dismiss everything I've just written as fluff.. but it's not his view I was expressing. If you can't handle Brand on any level.. I'd recommend Dan Carlin.. a well known commentator on history and politics in the US. His history podcast is awesome regardless of your political views." I like Russel brand he interviews some interesting people.I like some of his politics his heart is in the right place and wants to improve the human condition.More importantly he connects with people and small things lead to big change. | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. Sounds like capitalist complaints to me if you can't point out what's good and what's drivel lefty propaganda. But thanks for the slap disguised as a compliment. The impact on jobs is spot on, you have a very long term view of AI and how far it can go, you appreciate the implementation side of things as the challenge without it being resigned to the category of good or bad. But then there's the "i heard a figure plucked out of someones arse that 70% of workers aren't needed", some nonsense about africa which is knee deep in capitalist relations with China right now and like most lefties you ignore the fact that capitalism is really just about productivity and money is just an exchange mechanism and we will always need one of those. I didn't pull the figure out of my arse I quoted someone who is a lecturer at Bristol university, and author of best selling books on history of violence that is all wrapped up in the colonial past you mentioned and modern Chinese power play. I didnt name him as I couldn't remember his name. If you're interested I can go look it up.. Or as I'd recommend to anyone who feels the same way you do.. regards to the comments you just made. To listen to the podcast I just listened to today. Episode one of Russell Brands "Under the skin". None of the ideas I put forward in this thread are mine. Most came from the lecturer he interviewed on the show.. that I happen to agree with. Yes you may dislike Russell Brand and now dismiss everything I've just written as fluff.. but it's not his view I was expressing. If you can't handle Brand on any level.. I'd recommend Dan Carlin.. a well known commentator on history and politics in the US. His history podcast is awesome regardless of your political views. I did actually mean it as a compliment not a slap. The stuff you get right is factual and way more complex than the stuff that is opinion. It's only my opinion that those opinions are bollucks and also only my opinion russell brand is one of the biggest pedlars of bull shit going. I think if you go back to first principles like i have tried to refer to, then you see the gaping holes in the opinions. As i predicted, you've read from a wide range of sources some are excellent and others are ideological and not factual. How can you just dismiss something as ideological that you've not even listened to? Come back at me about it.. once you've listened to it.. I tried to explain that it's not Brand I was listening to. It's his podcast.. but it's the people he's talking to I'm listening to. The complex stuff you've complemented.. came from the same source! Which is why I'm reccomending it to you as an individual.. you may also find it interesting.. If you can separate it from your dislike of Brand. Personally I like him.. but that's not who or why I've tuned in.. I enjoy having my horizon expanded.. sometimes you have to listen to some bullshit to get a little insight to your opposition.. or find a diamond in the rough. Because some things are just so far from the blindingly obvious facts that i can't even begin to be bothered to refute them. The idea that "capitalism doesn't need africa" is just up there with david icke and his lizard, satanist paedophiles. Africa is a global hotspot of capitalism right now because chinese money meets african natural resources. Way more than the quasi-communism cunts in europe who keep bailing out shite companies (e.g. banks). " We'll I ranted off topic enough and for far too long.. So I'll concede we have differing opinions on the subjects of needing money to function and whether people are needed or not. What long term futures are. I just thought you may be open minded enough to accept some material to listen to.. If some of what I said made sense.. like you said.. as most of today's rant came from the same source.. I think that person is in a better position to explain my rantings better than I can.. and I'm getting sleepy and this thread is running out of space to move into chino-african capitalism.. and your adamance money/trade is a necessity. Cleverer people than I, with letters behind their names can explain the reasoning why that's a load of... Not true. | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. Sounds like capitalist complaints to me if you can't point out what's good and what's drivel lefty propaganda. But thanks for the slap disguised as a compliment. The impact on jobs is spot on, you have a very long term view of AI and how far it can go, you appreciate the implementation side of things as the challenge without it being resigned to the category of good or bad. But then there's the "i heard a figure plucked out of someones arse that 70% of workers aren't needed", some nonsense about africa which is knee deep in capitalist relations with China right now and like most lefties you ignore the fact that capitalism is really just about productivity and money is just an exchange mechanism and we will always need one of those. I didn't pull the figure out of my arse I quoted someone who is a lecturer at Bristol university, and author of best selling books on history of violence that is all wrapped up in the colonial past you mentioned and modern Chinese power play. I didnt name him as I couldn't remember his name. If you're interested I can go look it up.. Or as I'd recommend to anyone who feels the same way you do.. regards to the comments you just made. To listen to the podcast I just listened to today. Episode one of Russell Brands "Under the skin". None of the ideas I put forward in this thread are mine. Most came from the lecturer he interviewed on the show.. that I happen to agree with. Yes you may dislike Russell Brand and now dismiss everything I've just written as fluff.. but it's not his view I was expressing. If you can't handle Brand on any level.. I'd recommend Dan Carlin.. a well known commentator on history and politics in the US. His history podcast is awesome regardless of your political views. I did actually mean it as a compliment not a slap. The stuff you get right is factual and way more complex than the stuff that is opinion. It's only my opinion that those opinions are bollucks and also only my opinion russell brand is one of the biggest pedlars of bull shit going. I think if you go back to first principles like i have tried to refer to, then you see the gaping holes in the opinions. As i predicted, you've read from a wide range of sources some are excellent and others are ideological and not factual. How can you just dismiss something as ideological that you've not even listened to? Come back at me about it.. once you've listened to it.. I tried to explain that it's not Brand I was listening to. It's his podcast.. but it's the people he's talking to I'm listening to. The complex stuff you've complemented.. came from the same source! Which is why I'm reccomending it to you as an individual.. you may also find it interesting.. If you can separate it from your dislike of Brand. Personally I like him.. but that's not who or why I've tuned in.. I enjoy having my horizon expanded.. sometimes you have to listen to some bullshit to get a little insight to your opposition.. or find a diamond in the rough. Because some things are just so far from the blindingly obvious facts that i can't even begin to be bothered to refute them. The idea that "capitalism doesn't need africa" is just up there with david icke and his lizard, satanist paedophiles. Africa is a global hotspot of capitalism right now because chinese money meets african natural resources. Way more than the quasi-communism cunts in europe who keep bailing out shite companies (e.g. banks). We'll I ranted off topic enough and for far too long.. So I'll concede we have differing opinions on the subjects of needing money to function and whether people are needed or not. What long term futures are. I just thought you may be open minded enough to accept some material to listen to.. If some of what I said made sense.. like you said.. as most of today's rant came from the same source.. I think that person is in a better position to explain my rantings better than I can.. and I'm getting sleepy and this thread is running out of space to move into chino-african capitalism.. and your adamance money/trade is a necessity. Cleverer people than I, with letters behind their names can explain the reasoning why that's a load of... Not true." Good discussion | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. Sounds like capitalist complaints to me if you can't point out what's good and what's drivel lefty propaganda. But thanks for the slap disguised as a compliment. The impact on jobs is spot on, you have a very long term view of AI and how far it can go, you appreciate the implementation side of things as the challenge without it being resigned to the category of good or bad. But then there's the "i heard a figure plucked out of someones arse that 70% of workers aren't needed", some nonsense about africa which is knee deep in capitalist relations with China right now and like most lefties you ignore the fact that capitalism is really just about productivity and money is just an exchange mechanism and we will always need one of those. I didn't pull the figure out of my arse I quoted someone who is a lecturer at Bristol university, and author of best selling books on history of violence that is all wrapped up in the colonial past you mentioned and modern Chinese power play. I didnt name him as I couldn't remember his name. If you're interested I can go look it up.. Or as I'd recommend to anyone who feels the same way you do.. regards to the comments you just made. To listen to the podcast I just listened to today. Episode one of Russell Brands "Under the skin". None of the ideas I put forward in this thread are mine. Most came from the lecturer he interviewed on the show.. that I happen to agree with. Yes you may dislike Russell Brand and now dismiss everything I've just written as fluff.. but it's not his view I was expressing. If you can't handle Brand on any level.. I'd recommend Dan Carlin.. a well known commentator on history and politics in the US. His history podcast is awesome regardless of your political views. I did actually mean it as a compliment not a slap. The stuff you get right is factual and way more complex than the stuff that is opinion. It's only my opinion that those opinions are bollucks and also only my opinion russell brand is one of the biggest pedlars of bull shit going. I think if you go back to first principles like i have tried to refer to, then you see the gaping holes in the opinions. As i predicted, you've read from a wide range of sources some are excellent and others are ideological and not factual. How can you just dismiss something as ideological that you've not even listened to? Come back at me about it.. once you've listened to it.. I tried to explain that it's not Brand I was listening to. It's his podcast.. but it's the people he's talking to I'm listening to. The complex stuff you've complemented.. came from the same source! Which is why I'm reccomending it to you as an individual.. you may also find it interesting.. If you can separate it from your dislike of Brand. Personally I like him.. but that's not who or why I've tuned in.. I enjoy having my horizon expanded.. sometimes you have to listen to some bullshit to get a little insight to your opposition.. or find a diamond in the rough. Because some things are just so far from the blindingly obvious facts that i can't even begin to be bothered to refute them. The idea that "capitalism doesn't need africa" is just up there with david icke and his lizard, satanist paedophiles. Africa is a global hotspot of capitalism right now because chinese money meets african natural resources. Way more than the quasi-communism cunts in europe who keep bailing out shite companies (e.g. banks). " Capitism needs the copper mountains and the diamonds and the rare earth minerals.The arable land that China is buying up wont feed africans .It doesnt need africans.The labour is surplus. | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. Sounds like capitalist complaints to me if you can't point out what's good and what's drivel lefty propaganda. But thanks for the slap disguised as a compliment. The impact on jobs is spot on, you have a very long term view of AI and how far it can go, you appreciate the implementation side of things as the challenge without it being resigned to the category of good or bad. But then there's the "i heard a figure plucked out of someones arse that 70% of workers aren't needed", some nonsense about africa which is knee deep in capitalist relations with China right now and like most lefties you ignore the fact that capitalism is really just about productivity and money is just an exchange mechanism and we will always need one of those. I didn't pull the figure out of my arse I quoted someone who is a lecturer at Bristol university, and author of best selling books on history of violence that is all wrapped up in the colonial past you mentioned and modern Chinese power play. I didnt name him as I couldn't remember his name. If you're interested I can go look it up.. Or as I'd recommend to anyone who feels the same way you do.. regards to the comments you just made. To listen to the podcast I just listened to today. Episode one of Russell Brands "Under the skin". None of the ideas I put forward in this thread are mine. Most came from the lecturer he interviewed on the show.. that I happen to agree with. Yes you may dislike Russell Brand and now dismiss everything I've just written as fluff.. but it's not his view I was expressing. If you can't handle Brand on any level.. I'd recommend Dan Carlin.. a well known commentator on history and politics in the US. His history podcast is awesome regardless of your political views. I like Russel brand he interviews some interesting people.I like some of his politics his heart is in the right place and wants to improve the human condition.More importantly he connects with people and small things lead to big change. "Be careful my friend.. say things like that and the capitalists will eat you for breakfast. Pulling out every fault or wrong thing he's ever done or said and use it against him. Even though you're right, his heart does seem to be in the right place. With this lot.. you can only use logic and reasoning. Brand does try to put his love soon on a lot of what the academics are saying.. but many of them are very careful how they react to it and put him in his place occasionally. Because they know.. to win the argument.. science, logic and reason has to be on your side.. or capitalists will jump right down your throat! | |||
 | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. Sounds like capitalist complaints to me if you can't point out what's good and what's drivel lefty propaganda. But thanks for the slap disguised as a compliment. The impact on jobs is spot on, you have a very long term view of AI and how far it can go, you appreciate the implementation side of things as the challenge without it being resigned to the category of good or bad. But then there's the "i heard a figure plucked out of someones arse that 70% of workers aren't needed", some nonsense about africa which is knee deep in capitalist relations with China right now and like most lefties you ignore the fact that capitalism is really just about productivity and money is just an exchange mechanism and we will always need one of those. I didn't pull the figure out of my arse I quoted someone who is a lecturer at Bristol university, and author of best selling books on history of violence that is all wrapped up in the colonial past you mentioned and modern Chinese power play. I didnt name him as I couldn't remember his name. If you're interested I can go look it up.. Or as I'd recommend to anyone who feels the same way you do.. regards to the comments you just made. To listen to the podcast I just listened to today. Episode one of Russell Brands "Under the skin". None of the ideas I put forward in this thread are mine. Most came from the lecturer he interviewed on the show.. that I happen to agree with. Yes you may dislike Russell Brand and now dismiss everything I've just written as fluff.. but it's not his view I was expressing. If you can't handle Brand on any level.. I'd recommend Dan Carlin.. a well known commentator on history and politics in the US. His history podcast is awesome regardless of your political views. I did actually mean it as a compliment not a slap. The stuff you get right is factual and way more complex than the stuff that is opinion. It's only my opinion that those opinions are bollucks and also only my opinion russell brand is one of the biggest pedlars of bull shit going. I think if you go back to first principles like i have tried to refer to, then you see the gaping holes in the opinions. As i predicted, you've read from a wide range of sources some are excellent and others are ideological and not factual. How can you just dismiss something as ideological that you've not even listened to? Come back at me about it.. once you've listened to it.. I tried to explain that it's not Brand I was listening to. It's his podcast.. but it's the people he's talking to I'm listening to. The complex stuff you've complemented.. came from the same source! Which is why I'm reccomending it to you as an individual.. you may also find it interesting.. If you can separate it from your dislike of Brand. Personally I like him.. but that's not who or why I've tuned in.. I enjoy having my horizon expanded.. sometimes you have to listen to some bullshit to get a little insight to your opposition.. or find a diamond in the rough. Because some things are just so far from the blindingly obvious facts that i can't even begin to be bothered to refute them. The idea that "capitalism doesn't need africa" is just up there with david icke and his lizard, satanist paedophiles. Africa is a global hotspot of capitalism right now because chinese money meets african natural resources. Way more than the quasi-communism cunts in europe who keep bailing out shite companies (e.g. banks). Capitism needs the copper mountains and the diamonds and the rare earth minerals.The arable land that China is buying up wont feed africans .It doesnt need africans.The labour is surplus." | |||
"It's mainly the younger generation who can't be bothered to vote ! So I doubt many 16 and 17year olds would bother ! Also if we are now making the the school leaving age 18 and we don't trust anyone under that to drink I can't see how we should expect them to vote ! " | |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. Sounds like capitalist complaints to me if you can't point out what's good and what's drivel lefty propaganda. But thanks for the slap disguised as a compliment. The impact on jobs is spot on, you have a very long term view of AI and how far it can go, you appreciate the implementation side of things as the challenge without it being resigned to the category of good or bad. But then there's the "i heard a figure plucked out of someones arse that 70% of workers aren't needed", some nonsense about africa which is knee deep in capitalist relations with China right now and like most lefties you ignore the fact that capitalism is really just about productivity and money is just an exchange mechanism and we will always need one of those. I didn't pull the figure out of my arse I quoted someone who is a lecturer at Bristol university, and author of best selling books on history of violence that is all wrapped up in the colonial past you mentioned and modern Chinese power play. I didnt name him as I couldn't remember his name. If you're interested I can go look it up.. Or as I'd recommend to anyone who feels the same way you do.. regards to the comments you just made. To listen to the podcast I just listened to today. Episode one of Russell Brands "Under the skin". None of the ideas I put forward in this thread are mine. Most came from the lecturer he interviewed on the show.. that I happen to agree with. Yes you may dislike Russell Brand and now dismiss everything I've just written as fluff.. but it's not his view I was expressing. If you can't handle Brand on any level.. I'd recommend Dan Carlin.. a well known commentator on history and politics in the US. His history podcast is awesome regardless of your political views. I like Russel brand he interviews some interesting people.I like some of his politics his heart is in the right place and wants to improve the human condition.More importantly he connects with people and small things lead to big change.
Be careful my friend.. say things like that and the capitalists will eat you for breakfast. Pulling out every fault or wrong thing he's ever done or said and use it against him. Even though you're right, his heart does seem to be in the right place. With this lot.. you can only use logic and reasoning. Brand does try to put his love soon on a lot of what the academics are saying.. but many of them are very careful how they react to it and put him in his place occasionally. Because they know.. to win the argument.. science, logic and reason has to be on your side.. or capitalists will jump right down your throat!"Science and logic is on your side.Endless capitalist growth on a planet with finite resources is unsustainable and illogical.Our yearly consumption of renewable resources is 1.7 planets.Your on the right side of history. | |||
"what the fuck has any of this got to do with should the voting age be lowered? " | |||
"what the fuck has any of this got to do with should the voting age be lowered? "Be grateful the random tangent wasn't brexit economics. I go with the flow of conversation . | |||
| |||
"UBI will be botched I imagine without big change. The political classes don't seem that interested in universal equitiability currently so how would that change in the future? The political classes have corporate masters. The big tech firms of the future will pull the strings.They need consumers but they wont need workers due to automation and AI.So theyll lean on governments to give them consumers. The alternative to UBI is very dark.Where tech corporations and politicians have a surplus population of billions.That they leave to fend for themselves. We already have that.. does capitalism need Africa? No.. which is why it's not devoured it yet. I heard a quote today that 70% of the world's people are defunct to capitalism. It doesn't need them.. They are waste people. Which is why they haven't been helped to develop in the way they deserve. It's all token gestures.. 30 different British water aid charities.. why hasn't someone put a functioning water distribution and waste network in these nations? Surely the money you and I pull out of our pockets every year and donate could have totalled up to at least one of these nations getting dragged out the dust by now.. They are not required for capitalism to function as it is doing. There are a surplus of useless people in our own nations.. that's why someone like trump or brexit happens.. They harken back to the good old days and promise to make us great again.. but memory can be deceiving.. the good old days were bad.. we just remember the best bits.. it's how the human brain works.. capitalist politicians have been playing that card for centuries. I'm hoping with the rise of social media that us stinking lefties will start to convince the rest of you.. with strong arguments and evidence.. by using our brains.. that there are alternatives. So please use your own before you follow the typical capitalist mantra that we're soft idealists that don't deserve the time of day. Be rational and faithful, be hard and soft, be tough but loving.. have sympathy and empathy. Do unto others and all that.. people want to be loved, we all want to be loved.. start the process by sharing your own about a bit more freely. Happy swinging 60% of your analysis is exceptionally good, seriously really good. But 40% is far left ideological drivel. It seems you are quite well informed so it seems some of your sources were brilliant and others nothing but propoganda. Sounds like capitalist complaints to me if you can't point out what's good and what's drivel lefty propaganda. But thanks for the slap disguised as a compliment. The impact on jobs is spot on, you have a very long term view of AI and how far it can go, you appreciate the implementation side of things as the challenge without it being resigned to the category of good or bad. But then there's the "i heard a figure plucked out of someones arse that 70% of workers aren't needed", some nonsense about africa which is knee deep in capitalist relations with China right now and like most lefties you ignore the fact that capitalism is really just about productivity and money is just an exchange mechanism and we will always need one of those. I didn't pull the figure out of my arse I quoted someone who is a lecturer at Bristol university, and author of best selling books on history of violence that is all wrapped up in the colonial past you mentioned and modern Chinese power play. I didnt name him as I couldn't remember his name. If you're interested I can go look it up.. Or as I'd recommend to anyone who feels the same way you do.. regards to the comments you just made. To listen to the podcast I just listened to today. Episode one of Russell Brands "Under the skin". None of the ideas I put forward in this thread are mine. Most came from the lecturer he interviewed on the show.. that I happen to agree with. Yes you may dislike Russell Brand and now dismiss everything I've just written as fluff.. but it's not his view I was expressing. If you can't handle Brand on any level.. I'd recommend Dan Carlin.. a well known commentator on history and politics in the US. His history podcast is awesome regardless of your political views. I like Russel brand he interviews some interesting people.I like some of his politics his heart is in the right place and wants to improve the human condition.More importantly he connects with people and small things lead to big change.
Be careful my friend.. say things like that and the capitalists will eat you for breakfast. Pulling out every fault or wrong thing he's ever done or said and use it against him. Even though you're right, his heart does seem to be in the right place. With this lot.. you can only use logic and reasoning. Brand does try to put his love soon on a lot of what the academics are saying.. but many of them are very careful how they react to it and put him in his place occasionally. Because they know.. to win the argument.. science, logic and reason has to be on your side.. or capitalists will jump right down your throat! Science and logic is on your side.Endless capitalist growth on a planet with finite resources is unsustainable and illogical.Our yearly consumption of renewable resources is 1.7 planets.Your on the right side of history. "I know.. but the second you start with saying things like.. heart is in the right place.. and having love for all people because all people want to be loved or anything remotely emotional.. Which is where Brand is coming from most of the time. Opens you up to vicious assault by capitalists. Which is why it's tough to bring those into any argument or debate. Which is a shame.. because to unite us all under one banner to change things.. we have to accept there are some universal truths to being human and then set out some universal rules. Which is basicly what Human Rights are, but they're not globally enforced. The only body that has the power to do so is the global industrial/military alliance of capitalism. But it's not in it's interests to do so. Having to fund 70% of the world's useless people with food, water, housing and protection from violence will eat it's profits. People from these countries don't even have the right to flee from the violence capitalism has created directly or indirectly. They live in a perpetual war zone. A father doesn't put his child on a boat, unless the water is safer than the land. Love may be the only common denominator all humanity share. The love for our partners, children, parents, family and friends. But it's hard to define love. It's not a physical thing. So it's mocked and used against us in any political debate. You're flimsy, a dreamer, utopian, green, red, commie, tree hugger, hippy, whimsical, spiritual, silly and childish. Even though that man loves his people as much as you love your own. Someone who's happy to talk love and emotions but not in the same sentences as culture, philosophy, science or society. But basing your whole culture and way of life on a system of trading something that is finite for something else that doesn't even exist and infinite.. on a planet that has finite space and finite resources.. is logical and rational? I mean seriously.. WTF!? They call me the fantasist! | |||
"If someone is not considered adult enough to purchase alcohol or fags under 18, can't get married OR join the armed forces without parental consent or do other adult things like buying or renting property, then I don't believe they should be doing the EXTREMELY adult thing that is voting. Scotland's change was made by the SNP on the basis that they knew lots of under 18s had zero experience or understanding of the implications of breaking the union. They were more likely to follow the Braveheart thinking that was rife on social media. And indeed a lot of them did. What political experience do most under 18s have? It's much the same as starting work and being asked to choose a mentor from a group of different people you know nothing about to help you learn how to do a job you don't understand. Well actually you're considered an adult at 16 you can legally have a child and your own home so your point has a flaw.." I was pregnant and working at 16, gave birth and rented my own home at 17 (my dad had to be guarantor though due to my age not finances). Did I want to vote? No I wasn't bothered as most 16 and 17 year olds aren't. I'm sure in this day and age the same would still be true. | |||
