Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    Suppose you watched a person playing with a pistol as he fires a live round into his chin. The act itself notwithstanding, would you find this person sane if he then turned around and started berating his chin for gushing out violent torrents of blood?

    These protests are a REACTION. When will you dummies start to appreciate this?
    Everything under the sun is a reaction to something. Yes, I'm sure a relatively clever person could've predicted such things happening. That doesn't make it right, nor does it mean that we should resist doing something right because it may lead to people doing certain things wrong. Equally then, it is a reaction when the police decide to split a few heads with their truncheons.

    Either way, the leaders of these demonstrations - particularly the violent ones - are performing them for ideological reasons. They don't care about the merits of the proposals, they only care that it is a Conservative government proposing them: when of course, the Conservatives are actually implementing (slightly watered down, in fact!) an independent review which was called for by a Labour government and conducted by a Labour-leaning peer.


    Oh and so paying £48million a day to the EU is good economic management?

    Handing over £4billion to bail out Ireland is making savings?
    I think both are entirely credible. We are not in the EU solely out of self-interest, although I'd argue that British self-interests are also served by our membership and improving the economic standing of our nations within our free-trade area.

    Ireland is a prime example: the collapse of the Irish economy certainly would not be in Britain's best interests. Their problems would fast become our problems.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of the students didn't even know what they were protesting about. When TV interviewers told them they wouldn't need to pay back a penny of their tuition unless they earned over £21,000, they were shocked! So much for 'informed' protest!

    Labour said they wouldn't introduce tuition fees and then broke their promise. Then they said they wouldn't introduce top-up fees, and broke that promise too. And they hit earners much lower down the scale, on just £15,000. Labour can't claim now that they were forced to do this by dire financial circumstances. They squandered billions of a growing economy bequeathed to them by Conservative Chancellor Ken Clarke, and left the Coalition to clean up the mess.

    And it's loads better to ask better-off graduates to pay back part of their education costs in a 60:40 funding ratio (60% from graduate contribution; 40% from ordinary taxpayers), than hitting ordinary taxpayers who didn't go to university, in the current 40:60 ratio - and also far better than a 'Graduate Tax', which hits graduates on low incomes for the rest of their lives (or til they emigrate!), a crazy policy which Ed Miliband supports and his own Shadow Chancellor, Alan Johnson, opposes. So much for a coherent policy! Labour got us into this mess, and they don't even have a policy to get us out of it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F i s)
    Lmao. Nick from the Apprentice is English too. :rolleyes:
    whats your point?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    Of course it does. Well, I suppose this depends on which type of people you mean. Christian people should be aware of a statement found in the writings underpinning their tenets: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."
    Not everybody is smart, or even wants to be smart. Thats ok. I am not vastly superior in intellect to the average person, and I admit that. But I like to think, and evidence around me suggests, that I have other traits that make me valuable. Knowledge is not everything.


    (Original post by gimme more)
    In other words you believe only Tories should survive?
    ...No, did you read any of my post? Peoples political preferences in the end need to take a backseat to simply living.

    (Original post by gimme more)
    You don't have to say it.
    This particular phrase invalidates everything you have said so far. You make an assumption that I think I am superior to everybody in all aspects, incorrect. I believe I am superior to some people in some aspects and that they are superior to me in others, it is not a case of being superior overall unless society perceives you that way, which is in the end a democratic process in itself.
    Don't spout BS please.

    Every single human has a life which is precious. We all have hopes, dreams, nightmares, memories, desires and passions. We are all the son or daughter of someone and we are all part of a changing world.

    (Original post by gimme more)
    It all depends on who defines these things. A mortal Conservative Party member's definition of "superior" is quite clearly invalid. Perhaps if you used disarming words like suited, talented, capable, perhaps then readers won't assume you lack fundamental modesty.
    I am interested as to why you used the word Mortal....
    Anyway, why mince words about it? Some people do have superior traits and others don't, it is simply down to genetics. Human beings are not born a blank slate, if they were so many things in this world that can be explained through genetics would no longer exist. Humans are competitive by nature, we are animals. We form groups and take on other groups, we are not collaborative by nature.



    (Original post by gimme more)
    But we do have clods leading intellectuals. I'm sorry but your Conservative front bench is far from impressive, and their policies thus far, for want of a better word are just plain DUMB. Please tell me how you fill a budget gap of £2.9BN with revenues from deferred loans which in all likelihood won't every be fully repaid!
    So you would say that the majority of Britain are intellectual people being ruled by a stupid minority? I happen to think otherwise... And I think you are merely subscribing to the idea that all politicians are imbeciles, when in actual fact they are elected proportionally within their own constituencies.



    (Original post by gimme more)
    Once again. Who are the weak and who are the strong?
    Those with the drive to succeed. Don't tell me it is impossible, it isn't.
    An anecdotal piece of evidence I have experienced personally for you; A good friend of mine, now 16, has two parents and two brothers. His dad, formerly a taxi driver was diagnosed with a severe brain tumor, forcing the family onto benefits and forcing the mother to work two jobs simultaneously as a dinner lady and a cleaner.
    This boy was bullied at school, had low grades and had only one method of escape open to him. He convinced his dad to let him take up diving lessons at the local club, his dad who was unable to work felt he could live through his son, as any good but voracious parent will.
    Needless to say that boy trained incredibly hard, harder than anybody else around him. He was determined to get out of that pit, he was near the bottom rung but pulled himself to the top. Because that kid now goes to my school, that kid is slated as one of the best athletes in this country and he has a ****ing brilliant future ahead of him.
    THAT is strength.
    Weakness is succumbing to things which will hinder you.

    But its easy to blame one big group for all the worlds ills isn't it? Easy to clump a load of individuals who have perhaps a small minority within them who have done nothing to earn their position, but the majority filled with good hearted, working people who have simply tried to earn more for themselves by putting more effort and producing results.



    (Original post by gimme more)
    I hope you're not being serious.
    Give me evidence to suggest otherwise?


    (Original post by gimme more)
    Perhaps you're ill-informed. The Conservative Party mantra is the law of survival of the fittest.
    I am a libertarian, but the conservative party know that a basic standard of welfare must exist, they will not abolish it entirely. Look up one nation conservatism...

    (Original post by gimme more)
    Are you suggesting that only selfish "superior" people create?
    The machine you are typing on now would not exist without a man who put extortionate amounts of effort in. He went up to the university of washington in the middle of the night, every night, without fail to tinker around with their computer. He invented the GUI and gave birth to the modern computer. The man is a huge benefactor to charity and wholly deserves some of the fruits of perhaps one of the greatest innovations in the history of mankind. 'Some chav' would NOT have accomplished this...
    [And since I know you are going to pull me up on generalizing a chav, for the purposes of this argument lets just assume that the existent of a lazy individual with no desire to succeed exists].


    (Original post by gimme more)
    ... And yet the human race prospered for thousands of years before the first brain surgeon placed a proud plaque on the wall of his surgery! You give far too much credit to the circumstance of vanity.
    HA! The human race throughout history has been almost ENTIRELY hierarchical, even more so than now. The strongest thrived in dynasties and the weakest were forced to build huge monuments in their honor for absolutely nothing. Think Ancient Egypt. Its just further evidence that human are exploitative by nature and will always care for their own over others.

    The human race would never advance without individuals who thought up solutions to problems, but not every individual can or has thought up a solution to a problem, and therefore they cannot really make any claim to the successes of someone else.


    (Original post by gimme more)
    And what are these luxuries you refer to? Basic education? Higher Education? These are luxuries now? £30 EMAs are luxuries? Can you not see how greed and selfishness debilitates even a superior mind?
    Education up to 18 should be free, the country needs intelligent individuals who have a reasonable degree of ability to think for themselves and the more intelligent individuals the more likely we will have less relative poverty. However university need only be for the creme de la creme of intelligence, this is about producing somebody who is special. People should not be bribed to better themselves, schemes such as free bus passes for students would allow them to travel to school, but not let them waste good money on things that the taxpayer shouldnt fund, ie a lifestyle.


    I'm glad you finally realize what CAUSES people to riot four times in a month.


    Austerity, people who do not understand assume packhood mentality with an unshakable belief in the fact they are right. Kind of like religion which was a desirable trait when the human race involved, the ability to think you are right with no real objectiveness as to whether you are right or wrong allows you to go and smash the other tribe with no moral consequences.



    (Original post by gimme more)
    No one is asking you to give people your ill begotten spoils. They're asking your government to refrain from implementing cuts which deprive them of the capacity to emulate you without putting themselves into intractable amounts of debt.
    They aren't cuts, they are the stemming of excessive spending. Cuts are when we are stopping the spending of what we already have, we are spending money we DON'T have. Ergo we are slowing down the expenditure, stemming the wound in our economy that is draining it dry.


    (Original post by gimme more)
    Not everyone is looking to improve their situation on your terms. A lot of people just want a natural life, but can't have one because of the existence of your "superior" society.
    IF they want to really exist outside the confines of superior society, then they can. They can forsake their laptops, their technologies and all the things that benefit them from this society and go live in an obscure part of the world where things are untouched [for now] by this 'society'. IE, the iban tribes of Borneo.



    (Original post by gimme more)
    Oh? And what about what other people do to one's gift of life? I hope you're not suggesting all people are equal and free to go where they will or do what they feel like.

    Truth be told your ethos is nothing more than basic greed and is both stupid and ugly for it.

    Humans, that is genuine intelligent creatures who enjoy the gift of compassion - instinctively share. If you fail to fit this criteria then please - at least have the decency to stop pretending.
    You really fall into the trap of trying to be objective, making out that everything you say is true is the epitome of obnoxious and will only isolate you further.
    Like i said, unless humans live in complete isolation from one another, we will always have an effect on one another. And there will always be someone stronger than us who has a form of power over us. But seeing as we would die out as a species in that idea, it leaves two alternatives. Segregated groups, small and large. Traditionally small groups of humans can function very similar to a socialist society, because there are so few of them, they can function perfectly well as each individual can output enough resources to satisfy each other individuals needs. However, in a larger more coherent society like ours, a system where those who have produce more of something which is in demand have a measurable form to purchase other services is required because else there is no incentive to produce anything. Society has evolved capitalism organically, this is PROOF that humans do not instinctively share.
    To say I am not human simply reinforces my point you confuse objective fact with subjective opinion.

    I truly pity you. :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Everything under the sun is a reaction to something. Yes, I'm sure a relatively clever person could've predicted such things happening. That doesn't make it right, nor does it mean that we should resist doing something right because it may lead to people doing certain things wrong. Equally then, it is a reaction when the police decide to split a few heads with their truncheons.

    Either way, the leaders of these demonstrations - particularly the violent ones - are performing them for ideological reasons. They don't care about the merits of the proposals, they only care that it is a Conservative government proposing them: when of course, the Conservatives are actually implementing (slightly watered down, in fact!) an independent review which was called for by a Labour government and conducted by a Labour-leaning peer.
    The same thing would happen under ANY government.

    You don't just decide to restrict free access to higher education for poor people and think there'll be no reaction.

    Perhaps I underestimated these Tory dolts. Maybe they intended to stir up unrest so as to implement some draconian laws later on.

    I think both are entirely credible. We are not in the EU solely out of self-interest, although I'd argue that British self-interests are also served by our membership and improving the economic standing of our nations within our free-trade area.

    Ireland is a prime example: the collapse of the Irish economy certainly would not be in Britain's best interests. Their problems would fast become our problems.
    I'm sorry but none of this is even remotely convincing.

    The Conservatives are squeezing ethnic minorities the way they have traditionally, and, in the process, hurting everyone else.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Not everybody is smart, or even wants to be smart. Thats ok. I am not vastly superior in intellect to the average person, and I admit that. But I like to think, and evidence around me suggests, that I have other traits that make me valuable. Knowledge is not everything.



    ...No, did you read any of my post? Peoples political preferences in the end need to take a backseat to simply living.


    This particular phrase invalidates everything you have said so far. You make an assumption that I think I am superior to everybody in all aspects, incorrect. I believe I am superior to some people in some aspects and that they are superior to me in others, it is not a case of being superior overall unless society perceives you that way, which is in the end a democratic process in itself.
    Don't spout BS please.

    Every single human has a life which is precious. We all have hopes, dreams, nightmares, memories, desires and passions. We are all the son or daughter of someone and we are all part of a changing world.



    I am interested as to why you used the word Mortal....
    Anyway, why mince words about it? Some people do have superior traits and others don't, it is simply down to genetics. Human beings are not born a blank slate, if they were so many things in this world that can be explained through genetics would no longer exist. Humans are competitive by nature, we are animals. We form groups and take on other groups, we are not collaborative by nature.





    So you would say that the majority of Britain are intellectual people being ruled by a stupid minority? I happen to think otherwise... And I think you are merely subscribing to the idea that all politicians are imbeciles, when in actual fact they are elected proportionally within their own constituencies.





    Those with the drive to succeed. Don't tell me it is impossible, it isn't.
    An anecdotal piece of evidence I have experienced personally for you; A good friend of mine, now 16, has two parents and two brothers. His dad, formerly a taxi driver was diagnosed with a severe brain tumor, forcing the family onto benefits and forcing the mother to work two jobs simultaneously as a dinner lady and a cleaner.
    This boy was bullied at school, had low grades and had only one method of escape open to him. He convinced his dad to let him take up diving lessons at the local club, his dad who was unable to work felt he could live through his son, as any good but voracious parent will.
    Needless to say that boy trained incredibly hard, harder than anybody else around him. He was determined to get out of that pit, he was near the bottom rung but pulled himself to the top. Because that kid now goes to my school, that kid is slated as one of the best athletes in this country and he has a ****ing brilliant future ahead of him.
    THAT is strength.
    Weakness is succumbing to things which will hinder you.

    But its easy to blame one big group for all the worlds ills isn't it? Easy to clump a load of individuals who have perhaps a small minority within them who have done nothing to earn their position, but the majority filled with good hearted, working people who have simply tried to earn more for themselves by putting more effort and producing results.




    Give me evidence to suggest otherwise?




    I am a libertarian, but the conservative party know that a basic standard of welfare must exist, they will not abolish it entirely. Look up one nation conservatism...


    The machine you are typing on now would not exist without a man who put extortionate amounts of effort in. He went up to the university of washington in the middle of the night, every night, without fail to tinker around with their computer. He invented the GUI and gave birth to the modern computer. The man is a huge benefactor to charity and wholly deserves some of the fruits of perhaps one of the greatest innovations in the history of mankind. 'Some chav' would NOT have accomplished this...
    [And since I know you are going to pull me up on generalizing a chav, for the purposes of this argument lets just assume that the existent of a lazy individual with no desire to succeed exists].




    HA! The human race throughout history has been almost ENTIRELY hierarchical, even more so than now. The strongest thrived in dynasties and the weakest were forced to build huge monuments in their honor for absolutely nothing. Think Ancient Egypt. Its just further evidence that human are exploitative by nature and will always care for their own over others.

    The human race would never advance without individuals who thought up solutions to problems, but not every individual can or has thought up a solution to a problem, and therefore they cannot really make any claim to the successes of someone else.




    Education up to 18 should be free, the country needs intelligent individuals who have a reasonable degree of ability to think for themselves and the more intelligent individuals the more likely we will have less relative poverty. However university need only be for the creme de la creme of intelligence, this is about producing somebody who is special. People should not be bribed to better themselves, schemes such as free bus passes for students would allow them to travel to school, but not let them waste good money on things that the taxpayer shouldnt fund, ie a lifestyle.


    I'm glad you finally realize what CAUSES people to riot four times in a month.


    Austerity, people who do not understand assume packhood mentality with an unshakable belief in the fact they are right. Kind of like religion which was a desirable trait when the human race involved, the ability to think you are right with no real objectiveness as to whether you are right or wrong allows you to go and smash the other tribe with no moral consequences.





    They aren't cuts, they are the stemming of excessive spending. Cuts are when we are stopping the spending of what we already have, we are spending money we DON'T have. Ergo we are slowing down the expenditure, stemming the wound in our economy that is draining it dry.




    IF they want to really exist outside the confines of superior society, then they can. They can forsake their laptops, their technologies and all the things that benefit them from this society and go live in an obscure part of the world where things are untouched [for now] by this 'society'. IE, the iban tribes of Borneo.





    You really fall into the trap of trying to be objective, making out that everything you say is true is the epitome of obnoxious and will only isolate you further.
    Like i said, unless humans live in complete isolation from one another, we will always have an effect on one another. And there will always be someone stronger than us who has a form of power over us. But seeing as we would die out as a species in that idea, it leaves two alternatives. Segregated groups, small and large. Traditionally small groups of humans can function very similar to a socialist society, because there are so few of them, they can function perfectly well as each individual can output enough resources to satisfy each other individuals needs. However, in a larger more coherent society like ours, a system where those who have produce more of something which is in demand have a measurable form to purchase other services is required because else there is no incentive to produce anything. Society has evolved capitalism organically, this is PROOF that humans do not instinctively share.
    To say I am not human simply reinforces my point you confuse objective fact with subjective opinion.

    I truly pity you. :rolleyes:
    You'll find that humans appreciate pity.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hello dave)
    Almost a million people protested against the Iraq war, that's a bit more than this level of animosity.

    It was nowhere near as violent though, which speaks volumes when you consider that about 200x more people marched, all on a single day...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    It was nowhere near as violent though, which speaks volumes when you consider that about 200x more people marched, all on a single day...
    I don't think the guy understands the meaning of animosity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hello dave)
    Almost a million people protested against the Iraq war, that's a bit more than this level of animosity.

    A few thousand students rioting and you think they suddenly don't represent the population? The population isn't just made up of students, and many people agree with the the reforms.
    No, no humans agree with your stripping of all funding. Only fellow toffs, a strange hybrid breed of man and horse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rant)
    No, no humans agree with your stripping of all funding. Only fellow toffs, a strange hybrid breed of man and horse.
    It isn't a stripping of all funding, though. 60% of the tuition funding will come from graduates earning over £21,000 a year (and you won't pay a penny if you earn any less than this), and the remaining 40% will be paid by ordinary taxpayers, many of whom have not been to university. The current formula is 40%/60%, and the new one is 60%/40%. Also, the poorest students will get grants that are non-repayable.

    New Labour broke so many promises to students on tuition fees, and then forced them to pay upfront for their tution fees through loans (YEARS before graduating) - and graduates had to start repaying when they earned just £15,000 a year.

    If, by "toffs", you mean rich graduates, then "toffs" will have to pay back their tuition fees in full. By contrast, students from the poorest families will get non-repayable grants, and also won't have to pay back a penny of the tuition fees after graduating, if they earn under £21,000...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gary2010)
    It isn't a stripping of all funding, though. 60% of the tuition funding will come from graduates earning over £21,000 a year (and you won't pay a penny if you earn any less thn this), and the remaining 40% will be paid by ordinary taxpayers, many of whom have not been to university. The current formula is 40%/60%, and the new one is 60%/40%. The poorest students will get grants that are non-repayable.

    New Labour broke so many promises to students on tuition fees, and forced them to pay upfront for their tution fees through loans (YEARS before graduating) - and you had to start repaying when you earned £15,000 a year.

    If, by "toffs", you mean rich graduates, then "toffs" will have to pay back their tuition fees in full. By contrast, students from the poorest families will get non-repayable grants, and also won't have to pay back a penny of the tuition fees after graduating, if they earn under £21,000...
    In other words whatever happens poor students remain poor.

    Great plan, if you're a Tory.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    In other words whatever happens poor students remain poor.

    Great plan, if you're a Tory.
    No - the poorest students get more support than under New Labour, and don't pay a penny later unless they earn over £21,000. And richer ones pay back much more than they did under New Labour. Ordinary taxpayers will pay less, and richer graduates will pay more - which is as it should be. Labour was always wrong to saddle poorer graduates and ordinary taxpayers with most of the student debts. That's why it's right that richer graduates pay 60% and ordinary taxpayers pay 40%. 60/40 is a lot fairer than 40/60!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Male_Melons)
    That is pretty damning of Labour's time.

    Yet you accept that there was a need to bail out Ireland
    If I was defending Labour, why on earth would I have said the second part of my statement?

    Exports have always been our weak spot due to the strenght of the pound. We don't have many natural resources to export from this tiny island anyways.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    It was nowhere near as violent though, which speaks volumes when you consider that about 200x more people marched, all on a single day...
    You do know it was a PEACE protest.

    Of course a student protest is more likely to attract anarchists - or people that think they are at least.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rant)
    No, no humans agree with your stripping of all funding. Only fellow toffs, a strange hybrid breed of man and horse.
    This just highlights how broken the class system is in this country.
    Let me guess, all Tories are "toffs" and are rich and/or went to Oxbridge. So if you happen to agree that making cuts is actually in this countries interest, then you must be a toff too?

    You do realise that 1 in 5 Labour MP's went to Oxbridge, including Ed Milliband - and rightly so why should we have the brightest people running our country, and Labour is funded almost entirely by Unions and a few extremely wealthy individuals? And millions support the cuts.. just because no one at your Uni does, doesn't mean nobody does.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    At least they understand the meaning of basic words like "perhaps..."

    Plus they comprehend basic sentence structure and correct syntax!!!!
    Fail.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gimme More)
    Do you have any idea of just how many people wish to destroy Conservatism, with extreme violence if necessary? Don't believe media commentators. They're sugar coating things.

    You're actually in the minority, and it's partially those "future selves" you speak of who are most willing to do the damage.
    You can't "destroy" Conservatism any more than you can "destory" Communism or even religion. Violence isn't going to change that. In fact using violence just makes you look like a tw*t. I was going to maybe support the protests until I saw the violence. It's off putting.

    What damage? In the 1990s when they introduced the higher education tuition fees statistics show that more students went to university. Also, if you argue those coming from a background that are not poor enough to recieve any grants, but not wealthy enough for your parents to help you, that they are going to be "damaged" please look again. You don't pay anything until you are earning £21,000 (or whatever the sum was) so there is no difference between a graduate on £21,000 paying back fees whose parents earn £150,000 to a graduate on the same income but whose parents earn £40,000 or whatever the sum is just above the eligibility level.

    Minority? The Conservative party are the plural majority party..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    kill all tories
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    also kill richard littlejohn and everyone who reads the daily mail
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm beginning to suspect troll.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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