Most of the main Green policies are terrifying

You cannot study society scientifically. That's your mistake.

You're probably one of those people who believes psychology, sociology and economics are real sciences.

The fact is the society we live in is just subjectively better than the nazi regime.
You could probably also say it's objectively better becaus else's people died/less people are suffering.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You can't see how our society is better than one that attempted to exterminate entire ethnic groups and started one of the most destructive wars in human history? I suggest your review your opinions.


Posted from TSR Mobile

You can't see how our society is better than one that attempted to exterminate entire ethnic groups and started one of the most destructive wars in human history? I suggest your review your opinions.


Posted from TSR Mobile

And that's my point. Because you can't you cant objectively say one society is better.

Well why arent they? Responses can be mesured and predicted so id say psychology at least definitely is.

Any one society will look upon another with distain. Thus no one society is superior as they all think they are.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I'd just like to point out that peer reviewed science disputes your first point thoroughly.

The fact is they aren't because they don't follow scientific principles.

Let me guess you're going to study psychology at university. Oh and you want to change the world for the better. You are so naive.

Psychology is not a science because people are not predictable, sure you may find some patterns but you cannot say that if you do something, I will invoke said response, you can only assume. Whereas with physics or chemistry or biology you make conclusions.

Psychologists make their so called laws, assuming they know so much about humans, about the brain and how it works when really that's all ****. Everybody behaves differently, yes if you study a large group of people then you may find patterns but not everybody is the same, that's a fact.

You know the half life of psychology as a subject is estimated to be 5 years, meaning the time it takes for half the knowledge the field to be proven wrong. So by the time you complete your degree, half what you've learnt in your first year is gonna be wrong.

Social sciences are precisely that.they are all not sciences. There are 3 sciences. An argument can be made for maths, but in my opinion maths is above sciences.

The hard sciences have claim on actual truth whereas the social sciences don't, they make assumptions and presumptions.
None of the social sciences meet the five basic requirements to be a science, that is, clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experiments, reproducibility and lastly predictability and testability

All this is getting off topic, there's a reason psychology is not a science, and it's only lame people who claim it to be so to gain more credibility for their otherwise pretty flimsy field.

actually im going to study maths and physics at uni but the brain is best understood as a series of chemical reactions which makes it entirely predictable.

Ok so if most people (or societies) agree then its fact? So the earth used to be flat then?



Posted from TSR Mobile

Good! Bloody greens. If we get another conservative government because of them I'm going to kick off

Look, honestly I personally prefer this society (but I prefer Scandinavia culture) but my opinions are clouded by the belifes my society has given to me thus I cannot objectively say we are better.

Posted from TSR Mobile

No, you're not, you're studying Psychology and you're hoping to go to some university in wales or something, I forget it's name, it's crap anyway. I know you, whether you know me or not is very irrelevant Christian. Imagine you studying maths and physics with the grades you got.

Thing is the brain can be manipulated by anybody, including yourself, many people study depression for so long yet they know nothing about it, the best way to deal with depression, in my opinion, is to force it out, you have to make your brain accept emotions are false, that they are entirely in your control and accept you are happy, then you are happy.

No, if most people agree on something subjective then it is, generally right, if something is objective (like the earths shape) it doesn't matter what people think more what is fact.

.

It's far more important that people like you and I, people with solid social democratic or Fabian socialist values, stay and fight the good fight; vote and participate in party politics, persuade our friends and colleagues, do everything in our power to push the country towards the kind of society we'd like to see.

Ultimately, if you are a democrat (small d) then you have to accept that electoral politics is not like the weather, it's not some force of nature. It is the direct outcome of millions of micro-decisions. We as citizens have a responsibility to try to influence as many of those micro-decisions as possible towards ones which will be positive, and also accept that we can't always have what we want because there are millions ofother citizens with an equal stake and say

This is where I find the Greens exceptionally irritating; they seem to believe that unless the Labour Party agrees with every one of their policy preferences, it must be corrupt and evil, rather than accepting that the only way a centre-left party can cobble together a broad enough coalition of interests and electoral demographics to take power is by being a broad church, rather than an extremist organisation.

If labour get in and continue selling off the NHS I am going to kick off

No, it doesn't. Stop taking the authors of the Spirit Level for their word when they say that, it simply isn't true. The vast majority of articles referenced by the Spirit Level have nothing to do with income inequality or barely talk about it.

The idea that science is 100% behind the idea that inequality always makes societies worse is just wrong, don't peddle rubbish.

I have actually read the majority of the articles that book was based on you do realise?

It's based on good data and rigorous analysis.

Should have been more critical then. It isn't good data, they cherry pick the countries involved so it suits their hypothesis (i.e. leaving out Singapore and Hong Kong). They also don't include data on things that show the opposite correlation (mental illness, divorce, crime that isn't homicide etc, racist bigotry).

The analysis is poor in my opinion. There is little reason to conclude that inequality makes societies worse from the data given as most of the time, there is no correlation bar for the outliers of Scandinavia. It's also jumping the gun a bit to look at Scandinavia and say that their successes are entirely due to inequality when they are some of the freest market economies in the world.

It's your opinion that the Spirit Level is true or good and one that you are obviously allowed to hold. But it is not true that 100% of Science and Sociology is behind the Spirit Level and it isn't right that you are trying to influence the opinions of others with this lie.

They don't really know what the real world is, do they? Rubbish utopian ideas, for ill-informed hipsters. So many votes will be wasted on them.

You do realise it's perfectly standard and correct practice to remove anomalies such as weird city states (Hong King, Singaproe, Luxembourg etc) ?

Well clearly not all of it is right but literally the same could be said of any book. Even Pickettys capitalism in the 21st century had some analysis flaws.

Go ahead, eat up the awful arguments used by free market fundamentalists to undermine the findings. I'm not the uncritical one here.

A lot of very good points that I think I failed to articulate properly earlier