Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    He was 78 when he died, and never once wanted to become the prime minister or president of India...
    why not?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    why not?
    Towards the end of his life he saw himself more as a saint/messiah than a politician; he wanted to liberate India, but not necessarily govern it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    Towards the end of his life he saw himself more as a saint/messiah than a politician; he wanted to liberate India, but not necessarily govern it.
    Dang, he went further than Madiba
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Because I was giving you the change to get yourself out of yet another hole you had dug yourself

    If you believe he is stupid based on the perspective of political strategy and that public announcements trivialising the remembrance is quite an unpopular move, then you are omitting a crucial fact. That is that he said these things two and half years ago.

    Now two and a half years ago, Jeremy Corbyn was a fringe long-term backbencher. He, nor anybody, would have considered the possibility of being leader of the Labour Party. In fact even at nomination and for sometime after, he considered himself a candidate to generate debate and didn't consider himself a credible possible winner.

    So there is little to say that he was stupid two and a half years when he said these words, since back then he was just an MP for North Islington. I mean, there was no fall out from him saying this at the time, indicating it could hardly be a stupid move (in fact they are probably the sort of words that champagne socialists in Islington love to hear).

    So again, we are seeing that you cannot provide grown up or logical political analysis, with all you being able to do is churn our simplistic rhetoric sometimes even based on lies, and in most cases based on huge distortions of the truth. It speaks volumes for the psyche of UKIP supporters that this is what makes them tick and how they form their opinions.
    This poster is subject to logical fallacies and I ask everyone to examine this egregious example.

    It is called the "straw man" fallacy. I doubt you could find a better example. If Harvard Business School did modules on spurious and fallacious debating techniques they could use it as a case study.

    The poster puts forward positions not advanced by his interlocutor, positions not held, conclusions not advanced or drawn. He himself invents the arguments of his opponent, as someone building a man of straw. Go back to the post made and see how he does this.

    Then he demolishes his own pile of rags and straw and claims victory. "Boy can I debate"

    Rat bag, I'll set you the traps. You be sure to fall into them now...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Sorry, your attempted refutation was based on a logical fallacy and a combination of either ignorance or deceit.

    Mason College was not a "redbrick" university when Chamberlain (and Baldwin) attended. IT WAS NOT EVEN A UNIVERSITY.

    As for Baldwin answer me two questions.

    1. How long did Baldwin actually spend at Mason College?

    2. Were you unaware that he attended Trinity College Cambridge, or were you lying (by omission) when you didn't refer to that and claimed him as a redbrick Prime Minister?
    And the digger doesn't stop digging his own holes.

    Are you seriously taking the position that a university college is not a university?Are you seriously saying therefore that UCL is not a university, or at least only became a university in 2008?

    I was aware of Baldwin's attendance at Cambridge. His attendance there is irrelevant when refuting your claim that no Prime Minister within a certain time frame "was redbrick", by the evidence that two Prime Ministers studied at a redbrick university.

    This is more than clutching at straws on your part. You almost have a masochistic desire to open yourself up to flagellation with your incapability of being able to debate coupled with an expertise in taking ridiculous positions and sticking by them even when they've been utterly knocked down.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    This poster is subject to logical fallacies and I ask everyone to examine this egregious example.

    It is called the "straw man" fallacy. I doubt you could find a better example. If Harvard Business School did modules on spurious and fallacious debating techniques they could use it as a case study.

    The poster puts forward positions not advanced by his interlocutor, positions not held, conclusions not advanced or drawn. He himself invents the arguments of his opponent, as someone building a man of straw. Go back to the post made and see how he does this.

    Then he demolishes his own pile of rags and straw and claims victory. "Boy can I debate"

    Rat bag, I'll set you the traps. You be sure to fall into them now...
    Darling, you were given the option to clarify the reasoning for labelling Corbyn stupid, and you threw your toys out of the pram.

    So it was only natural that I take as read what you wrote that this alleged stupidity by Corbyn was down to political ineptitude. Now you set your pram on fire and say this isn't the case at all.

    If you now want to switch your position, and say to disregard the importance of remembrance is stupid in itself, then you are in no better position. There could be many valid reasons to disregard the importance of remembrance, since after all you said yourself, it's importance is purely down to emotional feelings people hold, and where the money spend and the focus of the nation's attention could be used for more tangible things or working towards the future. I personally don't take this almost philistinic view, but it is a view I can understand some people may hold if they value the tangible highly or hold antagonist views to war, particularly that war. To denote somebody as stupid because they have different opinions to you is a reflection of immaturity at best.

    There have been no traps set for you, only holes you dig yourself, and keep digging long after people have stopped laughing at you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    And the digger doesn't stop digging his own holes.

    Are you seriously taking the position that a university college is not a university?Are you seriously saying therefore that UCL is not a university, or at least only became a university in 2008?

    I was aware of Baldwin's attendance at Cambridge. His attendance there is irrelevant when refuting your claim that no Prime Minister within a certain time frame "was redbrick", by the evidence that two Prime Ministers studied at a redbrick university.

    This is more than clutching at straws on your part. You almost have a masochistic desire to open yourself up to flagellation with your incapability of being able to debate coupled with an expertise in taking ridiculous positions and sticking by them even when they've been utterly knocked down.
    Read my lips: MASON COLLEGE WAS NOT A UNIVERSITY.

    What it grew into, however was:

    "The University grew out of the radical vision of our first Chancellor, Joseph Chamberlain. Founded in 1900, Birmingham represented a new model for higher education. This was England’s first civic university, where students from all religions and backgrounds were accepted on an equal basis.Birmingham has continued to be a university unafraid to do things a little differently, and in response to the challenges of the day. It was a founder member of the National Union of Students and the first university in the country to:
    • be built on a campus model
    • establish a faculty of commerce
    • incorporate a medical school
    • offer degrees in dentistry
    • create a women’s hall of residence
    • have a purpose-built students’ union building
    The University of Birmingham was established by Queen Victoria by Royal Charter in 1900 and was the UK’s first civic or 'redbrick' university. The first phase of building work on the campus was completed in 1909 under the auspices of the esteemed architect Sir Aston Webb. We celebrated the centenary of those buildings in July 2009."

    Now tell me, when did Chamberlain and Baldwin attend Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY)? Before 1900, perchance?

    What did they study and how long did they spend there? Do you even know?

    I don't believe you about Baldwin, based on previous experience on this thread. Your omission was a deliberate lie.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Read my lips: MASON COLLEGE WAS NOT A UNIVERSITY.

    What it grew into, however was:

    "The University grew out of the radical vision of our first Chancellor, Joseph Chamberlain. Founded in 1900, Birmingham represented a new model for higher education. This was England’s first civic university, where students from all religions and backgrounds were accepted on an equal basis.Birmingham has continued to be a university unafraid to do things a little differently, and in response to the challenges of the day. It was a founder member of the National Union of Students and the first university in the country to:
    • be built on a campus model
    • establish a faculty of commerce
    • incorporate a medical school
    • offer degrees in dentistry
    • create a women’s hall of residence
    • have a purpose-built students’ union building
    The University of Birmingham was established by Queen Victoria by Royal Charter in 1900 and was the UK’s first civic or 'redbrick' university. The first phase of building work on the campus was completed in 1909 under the auspices of the esteemed architect Sir Aston Webb. We celebrated the centenary of those buildings in July 2009."

    Now tell me, when did Chamberlain and Baldwin attend Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY)? Before 1900, perchance?

    What did they study and how long did they spend there? Do you even know?

    I don't believe you about Baldwin, based on previous experience on this thread. Your omission was a deliberate lie.
    Do you believe UCL is not a university?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Do you believe UCL is not a university?
    False comparison.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    False comparison.
    Hahahahahahahahahaha

    That was the surrender flag going up.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Darling, you were given the option to clarify the reasoning for labelling Corbyn stupid, and you threw your toys out of the pram.

    So it was only natural that I take as read what you wrote that this alleged stupidity by Corbyn was down to political ineptitude. Now you set your pram on fire and say this isn't the case at all.

    If you now want to switch your position, and say to disregard the importance of remembrance is stupid in itself, then you are in no better position. There could be many valid reasons to disregard the importance of remembrance, since after all you said yourself, it's importance is purely down to emotional feelings people hold, and where the money spend and the focus of the nation's attention could be used for more tangible things or working towards the future. I personally don't take this almost philistinic view, but it is a view I can understand some people may hold if they value the tangible highly or hold antagonist views to war, particularly that war. To denote somebody as stupid because they have different opinions to you is a reflection of immaturity at best.

    There have been no traps set for you, only holes you dig yourself, and keep digging long after people have stopped laughing at you.
    You set up a position I didn't advance (a "straw man") and then demolished it.

    As I know you would!

    Anyway as always with you this is descending into yet another tiresome and boring (and above all time consuming) argumentum ad infinitum. So I'll sign off again, and you will no doubt declare that my failure to respond to further debate has meant you have won.

    Yet another logical fallacy!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    You set up a position I didn't advance (a "straw man") and then demolished it.
    So explain what your position is. And don't throw your toys out of the pram like last time
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Hahahahahahahahahaha

    That was the surrender flag going up.
    No yet another logical fallacy on your part!

    You can't compare modern UCL with Mason College. They are apples and oranges. One is an apple, a university. UCL. The other Mason College was (NOT A UNIVERSITY) an orange.

    What did Chamberlain and Baldwin study and for how long? Do you know?

    You have a look at that and get back to me. And I might be willing to resume the debate, or I might not.

    It is fun having you spend ages researching a writing a post only to have it contemptuously not even read!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    No yet another logical fallacy on your part!

    You can't compare modern UCL with Mason College. They are apples and oranges. One is an apple, a university. UCL. The other Mason College was (NOT A UNIVERSITY) an orange.
    Both universities colleges. Both effectively operating as independent universities. Both had the degrees awarded by another institution (Mason college until 1900, UCL until 2008)

    That is why they are compared. Sorry to have to break this to you, but just screaming things in CAPS doesn't make them truth.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    What did Chamberlain and Baldwin study and for how long? Do you know?
    No idea, doesn't matter. They both studied at a redbrick university, refuting your claim (another one to add to an already enormous list)

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    You have a look at that and get back to me. And I might be willing to resume the debate, or I might not.
    Darling, there's no debate here. For a debate to happen, both sides need to have some degree of debating skills. It's not that your debating skills are bad, it's that they are non-existent. One person getting repeatedly and embarrassingly flagellated doesn't constitute a debate

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    It is fun having you spend ages researching a writing a post only to have it contemptuously not even read!
    You keep telling that to yourself if it makes you happy
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Both universities colleges. Both effectively operating as independent universities.

    No, it was a false comparison, UCL got a Royal Charter in 1836. A more valid comparison would be with Queens College Birmingham which got a Royal Charter in the 1840's.

    Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) never got a Royal Charter.

    Unless you know better maybe? Can you demonstrate that Mason College ever got a Royal Charter?

    Be my guest. Until you do, the comparison is proved to be false.

    My contention is established. No red brick university, currently existing, can claim a British Prime Minister.

    Mason College is not just not a red brick university We know the first one was established in 1900, well after Chamberlain and Baldwin had left.

    It also was NOT EVEN A UNIVERSITY.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    No, it was a false comparison, UCL got a Royal Charter in 1836. A more valid comparison would be with Queens College Birmingham which got a Royal Charter in the 1840's.

    Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) never got a Royal Charter.

    Unless you know better maybe? Can you demonstrate that Mason College ever got a Royal Charter?

    Be my guest. Until you do, the comparison is proved to be false.

    My contention is established. No red brick university, currently existing, can claim a British Prime Minister.

    Mason College is not just not a red brick university We know the first one was established in 1900, well after Chamberlain and Baldwin had left.

    It also was NOT EVEN A UNIVERSITY.
    Keep digging mate.

    Mason College, and for much of it's history UCL, were not de jure universities. So unless you're going to deny UCL the status, then your bleating about Mason College doesn't get your anywhere
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Keep digging mate.



    Mason College, and for much of it's history UCL, were not de jure universities. So unless you're going to deny UCL the status, then your bleating about Mason College doesn't get your anywhere
    It is you who are digging "mate."

    I have already demonstrated that UCL is not a valid comparison with Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY).

    UCL got a Royal Charter in 1836. (KCL was earlier in 1829). The University of London got a Royal Charter as well on the same day as UCL in 1836. Go and check.

    And Royal Charters are important. All the red bricks got them, and date their existence as universities from that date, as does Durham.

    https://www.dur.ac.uk/about/governance/charter/

    So forget about UCL it isn't a valid comparison. It got a Royal Charter.

    Mason College never got a Royal Charter. You admit it in your weasel words that it was "not a de jure university." You hoist the white flag of surrender with that comment.

    Birmingham University got a Royal Charter in 1900 and then became a University. The first "red brick."

    So I'll say it again. Mason College, the only evidence you have found for a Prime Ministerial "university" education (in one case involving a Cambridge graduate who spent only a few months there btw!) since Robert Peel that was not at Oxbridge, Edinburgh (which you admit is not red brick) or nowhere was

    NOT A UNIVERSITY.

    NOT RED BRICK because they hadn't even been invented.

    Tomorrow, after you have responded to this, we are going to take the next step in this matter.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    It is you who are digging "mate."

    I have already demonstrated that UCL is not a valid comparison with Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY).

    UCL got a Royal Charter in 1836. (KCL was earlier in 1829). The University of London got a Royal Charter as well on the same day as UCL in 1836. Go and check.

    And Royal Charters are important. All the red bricks got them, and date their existence as universities from that date, as does Durham.

    https://www.dur.ac.uk/about/governance/charter/

    So forget about UCL it isn't a valid comparison. It got a Royal Charter.

    Mason College never got a Royal Charter. You admit it in your weasel words that it was "not a de jure university." You hoist the white flag of surrender with that comment.

    Birmingham University got a Royal Charter in 1900 and then became a University. The first "red brick."

    So I'll say it again. Mason College, the only evidence you have found for a Prime Ministerial "university" education (in one case involving a Cambridge graduate who spent only a few months there btw!) since Robert Peel that was not at Oxbridge, Edinburgh (which you admit is not red brick) or nowhere was

    NOT A UNIVERSITY.

    NOT RED BRICK because they hadn't even been invented.

    Tomorrow, after you have responded to this, we are going to take the next step in this matter.
    Oh dear, it seems the digging just doesn't stop

    You do realise that having a Royal Charter has nothing to do whether an institution is a university or not? You do realise that there are many universities without Royal Charter, including Newcastle University and the London School of Economics? So in your infinite wisdom, are you going to say these aren't universities either? Knowing you, you probably will dig yourself deeper and say they are not!

    Such is your silliness, am sure you're probably going to say things like Cambridge is an older university than Oxford, and that Nottingham and Southampton universities started in the 1960s.

    The reason I point out that Mason College was not a de jure university, is because neither is UCL, or indeed King's, and probably a number of other universities in London. Their lack of de jure status is merely a technicality, because they are/were all de facto universities, which only people like yourself would tie themselves in knots by selectively contesting.

    But anyway, please continue this game. It's funny watching people shouting in CAPS hoping it will make them appear right. Sad thing with you though, is that you know you are wrong, but still shout nonetheless.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    x
    Whilst you're pondering how to make yourself look like even more of a fool, maybe you can also look at what is at the crux of this thread, which you have repeatedly run away from addressing:

    So since you don't accept Edinburgh as a redbrick (fair enough) how do you now reconcile your claim that Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet is "is almost exclusively red brick, not Oxbridge"?, when in fact there are more Oxbridge graduates than redbrick graduates (10 of the former, 7 of the latter)? Claims of rhetorical exaggeration doesn't fit here sorry.

    In addition, how do you reconcile your claim that Corbyn is dumbing down the Labour Party as reflected by the Oxbridge makeup of the shadow cabinet, when in actual fact his shadow cabinet has 10 Oxbridge graduates, and his predecessor's shadow cabinet (Ed Milliband) had 11 Oxbridge graduates?

    And how also do you reconcile the title of your thread, claiming Corbyn purged the shadow Cabinet of Oxbridge graduates, when in actual fact, whilst the number of Oxbridge graduates has stayed roughly the same, the ones who were "purged" (Tristram Hunt, Liz Kendall, Yvette Cooper, Chukka Umunna, Ed Balls) all actually declined to serve in the shadow cabinet under Corbyn, or in the case of Ed, failed to retain their seat in the election?

    Could it just be the case, that you are a deceitful liar?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rat_Bag)
    Oh dear, it seems the digging just doesn't stop

    You do realise that having a Royal Charter has nothing to do whether an institution is a university or not?
    That is simply wrong, How stupid are you? As thick as Corbyn or something???

    If it has nothing to do with "whether an institution is a university or not", why does Durham claim its foundation date from the granting of its Royal Charter? Why do all the Red Bricks (including Birmingham the very "University" in question?)

    I keep saying you aren't great at logic, that you make logical fallacies, time after time after time. That comment,which I have just proven to be incorrect shows this failure of your mind, of your intellect for the whole thread to see.

    You were comparing UCL to Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY).

    I demonstrated that this was a false comparison because UCL was granted a Royal Charter which Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) never received. Unlike UCL. Are you able to grasp the difference or are you going to continue to make a fool of yourself arguing an indefensible position?

    Do you now withdraw your concession that Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) was not a de jure university? Yes or no? Well do you?

    If you don't, and it wasn't a de jure university, (let alone a red brick since they weren't even invented then) how does the presence of Chamberlain for a short while at Mason College (NOT A UNIVERSITY) thus invalidate my statement that there have been no red brick university graduates as PM's?

    I have demonstrated my statement was correct to everyone except a cretin like you. Now answer this, Einstein,. The PM is First Lord of the Treasury and Primus inter Pares. How many red brick gradates have been Second Lord of the Treasury? The second man in the government? Let's say since Gladstone basically invented the role?

    Do you know? Can you research it as badly as you did Prime Minister? Shall I tell you?

    Zero.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 4, 2016
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.