|
Tesseraction posted:It's a little telling here that instead of denying a lack of socialisation you try and put a "tu quoque" on it. I figured you were just projecting tbh, which is why I got curious about the connection between obsession about politics and especially weird alternative political stuff and healthy family relationships. A bunch of people so far have chimed in about how 'gently caress my family if they don't agree with all my stuff i'm obsessed with about politics.' Anyway the reason I thought you were projecting is because it was such a bizarre response to "you should love your family because you only have one family." When people display bizarre, out of left field responses to everyday stuff it makes you think. E: 85, the number worn by Chad Ochocinco, whose name meant "Chad 85" in Spanish" hakimashou fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Feb 16, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
Prince John posted:On this vague note, has anyone posted McDonnell's idea about having different immigration policies in different geographical areas yet? So racist areas could keep the immigrants out, while London and Brighton would still welcome them in. Of course the joke is that most anti-immigrant areas require immigration more than the ones that are more welcoming. Not sure if this is actually a good idea or not. I like Scotland being able to have a different immigration policy from England & Wales because the less influence cunts from the Home Counties have on my life the better, but I'm not sure if you can really devolve immigration to council areas for example. Unless there's regional devolution in England I just don't see it happening. But yeah, for Scotland & Northern Ireland, I'd definitely be in favour. Scotland needs more immigrants, both economically & culturally. Especially outwith Glasgow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I figured you were just projecting tbh, which is why I got curious about the connection between obsession about politics and especially weird alternative political stuff and healthy family relationships. lol. That's not what you said tho and my posts remain unedited so it's not hard to see what you did say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Does jeremy corbyn love his family? Didn't he divorce his wife because she wanted to send his kid to a good school?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Does jeremy corbyn love his family? Didn't he divorce his wife because she wanted to send his kid to a good school? Tell us more about how you mother is your only friend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Is that how it works in britain? The majority of brits, the tories and brexiteers and the people fine with what they do, are all about 'people not having a right to exist.' I mean, brexiters don't want me to have a stable future, and the tories don't want me to be cared for if I get sick again, and on a more visceral level every racist doesn't want my partner to be a foreign asian, and all those people can go gently caress themselves. So, yeah, if my family did strongly think that the NHS wasn't important, or that my girlfriend should be barred from the country, gently caress them. I'd drop them in a microsecond if this was their established position. Granted, I suspect I'd have more leverage off a formerly positive relationship to argue them around, but yes, this Means Stuff. This isn't a loving aesthetic preference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
I heard Jeremy Corbyn hates his family and all families and wants to destroy our way of life and take children away from their parents
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:I heard Jeremy Corbyn hates his family and all families and wants to destroy our way of life and take children away from their parents He did divorce his wife so she couldn't send their kid to a good school though didn't he? I'm almost certain I read about it on here. If someone is so debased that they can't put their own children's well-being ahead of some kind of political orthodoxy, how can they be trusted to put their nation's well-being first? We've seen plenty of examples of states obsessed with political orthodoxy. Hell on earth. Is socialism the Moloch of Jeremy Corbyn, to which he would sacrifice even his own first-born?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:He did divorce his wife so she couldn't send their kid to a good school though didn't he? I'm almost certain I read about it on here. So your problem is that he actually translates his opposition to selective education into personal action
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
"Policies are all well and good but really are they that important? Please vote for me"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:He did divorce his wife so she couldn't send their kid to a good school though didn't he? I'm almost certain I read about it on here. That's what the right-wing talking point was. As it turns out a poster in this thread went to school with Corbyn's son at that AWFUL SCHOOL that Corbyn apparently sent him to at gunpoint. Hot scoop: it wasn't about the school choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:He did divorce his wife so she couldn't send their kid to a good school though didn't he? I'm almost certain I read about it on here. If your policies aren't good enough for your family, why are they good enough for the rest of the country's? If someone can't be trusted to live by the standards they support while campaigning and would prefer to go for literal nepotism how could they be trusted to run the country? There's a lot more countries that've been run by people who put their family's well being first and you can look to most any history book to see how that shook out. spectralent fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
spectralent posted:If your policies aren't good enough for your family, why are they good enough for the rest of the country's? Actually his mother told him that no matter what he does he's the best little boy so actually you're wrong and probably homosexual.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Clearly a politician that doesn't believe in one rule for the general public and another rule for them is a worrying sign of ideological rigidity and no better than Stalin
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
spectralent posted:If your policies aren't good enough for your family, why are they good enough for the rest of the country's? It's not wrong for people to want the best for their family. For example, if several people are tied to some train tracks and you only have time to untie one of them, to choose your own brother dad or something instead of a stranger. It's not incompatible to want the best for your own friends and family and also want the best for other people too. It might be impossible to send everyone's kids to great schools, but if you can send your own kids there you should, for their sake. Its part of treating people as ends in themselves rather than as means to some other end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
I mean, at best "politician who puts their family first" describes some of the better monarchs, and basically any absolute monarchy is worse than an equivalent with an elected body. Looking to the modern era you get to your Saddams and the Kims, and woah nelly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
I don't think you understand the debate on selective education
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:It's not wrong for people to want the best for their family. For example, if several people are tied to some train tracks and you only have time to untie one of them, to choose your own brother dad or something instead of a stranger. Okay I think I need to rephrase my question. Have you ever socialised? What the gently caress is wrong with you? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:It's not wrong for people to want the best for their family. For example, if several people are tied to some train tracks and you only have time to untie one of them, to choose your own brother dad or something instead of a stranger. Which is exactly what education is like, and, while we're at it, a thing that happens all the time and politicians need to be on record for. quote:Its part of treating people as ends in themselves rather than as means to some other end. dynastic politics, of course, being well known for the compassion and valuing of life and happiness that inevitably comes with securing power for your family
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Which is exactly what education is like, and, while we're at it, a thing that happens all the time and politicians need to be on record for. Up until the sad events of 2015 I don't think anyone was worried that Jeremy Corbyn was going to start a political dynasty or ever actually amount to anything at all in politics were they? If his kid had gone to private school, do you think people would now have to worry that the labour party would never be free of this albatross? That corbyn the younger would eventually replace corbyn the elder and that labour would be out of power for a whole generation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Tell us more about how you mother is your only friend. A face only his mother could love. Posting that even she cannot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Up until the sad events of 2015 I don't think anyone was worried that Jeremy Corbyn was going to start a political dynasty or ever actually amount to anything at all in politics were they? do you just have a compulsion to get your sicknasty Hot Take in whenever you lose arguments or is this like some kind of contractual thing
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
spectralent posted:do you just have a compulsion to get your sicknasty Hot Take in whenever you lose arguments or is this like some kind of contractual thing I learned a long time ago that you don't have to win an argument to be right. Some folks you just can't reason with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I learned a long time ago that you don't have to win an argument to be right. Quite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I learned a long time ago that you don't have to win an argument to be right. You can't do either, you just invent a strawman so you can pretend to be right and then keep jerking off about how right you are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Gonna venture that prioritizing people over others because you personally like them actually probably is wrong, just impractical to prevent in cases of life-or-death snap decisions. But if people can manage to overcome it that's actually praiseworthy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I learned a long time ago that you don't have to win an argument to be right. I appreciate your mother's dedication to protecting your ego but one day you'll have to approach the world outside of an internet forum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
I mean, objectively the best person to run a country is going to be the person who's able to appraise and deliver on the needs of a diverse, broad group of people. Someone who's priority is looking after like, three specific people is going to be absolutely poo poo as head of state (or related executive). I feel like that statement was accidentally topical but I just CAN'T WORK OUT HOW. spectralent fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Gonna venture that prioritizing people over others because you personally like them actually probably is wrong, just impractical to prevent in cases of life-or-death snap decisions. Only in cases where you have some duty to be impartial. If Jeremy Corbyn was the head of some admissions committee for some school and simply didnt give his kid bonus points for being his kid, that would be a good example of what you mean. But if you know for example that christmas is coming up, and there are millions of people, any two or three of whom you could give a nice christmas gift, but you prioritize your friends and family over strangers, that isn't wrong at all. I think that "should we send our kid to the best school we can afford, or send him to a school that isn't as good, because other people can't afford to send their kids to as good a school as we can" isn't an issue where a duty to be impartial exists. Certainly not some bizarre version of impartiality along the lines of 'we should send our kid to an average school, even if we can afford to send him to a better one, because not everyone can afford to send their kids to a better school.'
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Only in cases where you have some duty to be impartial. No it is actually wrong if you do that instead of say, donating the money to someone who really needs it. Everybody has a duty to act ethically all the time to the best of their ability. Also making sure your kids have an actually correct understanding and experience of how society functions is important if you don't want them to turn into tories and they won't learn that at posh school.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
I get the feeling you have no background here so you basically just saw another chance to get some slam-dunks in on the perfidious leftists undermining society, so I''ll help you out: Taking "the good ones" out of comprehensive education stratifies society and leads to growing inequality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
And I mean, more generally, why do private schools exist if there are people with enough money to spend them on Schools But Better? Access to a good education shouldn't be dependent on your background, so if there's all this money floating around for better education why the gently caress isn't it coming into the educations budget? They're spending it on schools anyway, might as well tax them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No it is actually wrong if you do that instead of say, donating the money to someone who really needs it. I don't think that you can expect people, normal sane people, to forego their own children's welfare. And if "ought" implies "can," then it's not a valid ethical requirement. Many paragraphs could be written, even whole books, on the slippery slope between "I should donate this money to the poor and send my kid to an average school" and "I should give everything in excess of the barest minimum necessity to live away, so long as it improves the life of anyone who has it worse off at all."
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
spectralent posted:And I mean, more generally, why do private schools exist if there are people with enough money to spend them on Schools But Better? Access to a good education shouldn't be dependent on your background, so if there's all this money floating around for better education why the gently caress isn't it coming into the educations budget? They're spending it on schools anyway, might as well tax them. I'm all for taxing the poo poo out of rich people to pay for good schools for everyone. I'm just not sold that jeremy corbyn is the guy who is going to make it happen in the UK. I'm more inclined to think it is less likely to happen with him in charge. Because if the labour party is ever going to even have a chance to try it, they first have to win elections and control the country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:"I should give everything in excess of the barest minimum necessity to live away, so long as it improves the life of anyone who has it worse off at all." Congratulations you have identified the moral ideal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Congratulations you have identified the moral ideal. That kind of thinking annihilates morality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:That kind of thinking annihilates morality. I think, say, Jesus might disagree with that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Many paragraphs could be written, even whole books, on the slippery slope between "I should donate this money to the poor and send my kid to an average school" and "I should give everything in excess of the barest minimum necessity to live away, so long as it improves the life of anyone who has it worse off at all." "And therefore, we should just do nothing"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think, say, Jesus might disagree with that. If you give people impossible ideals they discount the whole idea of reasoned ethics. People can't and won't do what you say is the moral ideal, but they still want to be good people, so they find other ways to feel morally pure. Some popular real-examples of the kind of things they end up believing are "it is wrong to allow immigrants to pollute our great nation" and "gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people are abominations" and "abortion is an evil on par with the holocaust." I think you'll find another example of this if you take a cursory glance at which of the things people attribute to Jesus they actually take seriously. There are probably 10,000 'moral majority' Christians in America for every 'Christ taught poverty so I live poverty' one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
hakimashou posted:That kind of thinking annihilates morality. Being fair, your posting annihilates brain cells.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 03:23
|
|