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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Not really, they were lampooning particular politicians not any particular ideology.

    Should water be a bottled commodity? Evian uses babies in its advertising.
    ...did you see what they made the theresa may kid do? not only is that political, but it's objectively false what they implied
    why shouldn't it be a commodity? what kind of kid is going to grow up and think something ludicrous like that? if we don't have water as a commodity, then we'll get less of it, and it will cost more. in fact, there are actually studies that show that. private means of water provision were more efficient whereas subsidised provisions of water were more wasteful. so either we can justify it via the facts, or render it unjust via ignorance

    A: I don't know and TBH, I'm not particularly bothered. I mean, they weren't saying that we in **** Primary School advocate the green party.
    that's a very high bar that you're setting...

    B: Why? Are you against taking kids to churches? That's too militant atheist even for me, and I'm pretty militant.
    I'm against *forcing* kids to church as a matter of my personal ethics. I'm not willing to interfere with private individuals/families though becuse if you say private families aren't allowed to teach religion, then we'd have to logically conclude that parents can't teach any kind of morality to kids either in that this would also be unfair indoctrination. it's not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of deferring to liberty over perfection. but my point was that kids shouldn't, with public authority/funds, be told to go to church. religion shouldn be separated from the state (and state schools, are, as it is tautological, from the state).

    C: Although I am massively against faith schools I think nativity plays are harmless.
    it's not about harm. it's about the principle involved. if you say that nativity plays are okay, and they're a religious symbol, then we can equally justify "harmless" satanist plays. and yes, of course that's a drastic example, and I meant for it to be, because although it's drastic, it still makes sense. if you're going to tell me "nativity plays are more popular", are we just going to teach kids whatever's popular? or are we going to take a more objective and neutral approach to education? should we let kids make up their own minds about religion, for instance? I mean, one particular political party might be *very* popular, but would that mean we'd have to promote that party in a state school?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conservationofmass)
    1. Unpatriotic
    2. Ridiculous economic policies
    3. Want to make marriage between multiple people legal.
    4. Want to scrap the armed forces
    5. Weak on crime.
    7. Why would I, a young white British male have any appeal to such an abhorrent party?
    8. All their policies are moronic and they believe in unrestricted mass immigration and that everything can be solved supply side.
    9. Pro EU.
    10. Lead by a bennet, a complete moron.
    1. Wait what exactly is your idea of patriotism and how do the Greens demonstrate this unpatriotism. It is true that I hold a somewhat different view on sovereignty to the "masses" so it is possible I missed something here!
    2. I think it is quite possible you just simply do not understand their economic policies as opposed to them being ridiculous. In their simplest form the wish to invest in society, which will then prosper, boost the "economy" and overtake the deficit, whereas the Tory view is to slash the deficit (which they have not in any way succeeded at so far) leaving society decimated in their wake at which point we will probably only be saved by masses of public spending leaving us either poor or utterly destitute - or both.
    3. No they don't, this is something they have said they could consider, it does NOT mean they are writing into law now or ever. But also why the hell not, why should your view on a traditional relationship dictate what others need to conform too, it's view like that that condemned homosexual relations for so long, something even Cameron is pro!
    4. They have definitely NEVER said they wish to scram the armed forces. Yes they have said they think the armed forces should be reduced, but what on earth do you think has been happening over the last decade or so, the armed forces is significantly smaller today than it was when the Conservatives took power.
    5. How exactly are they weak on crime, this is just your perception I believe, or again your misunderstanding on the evidence of how to reduce crime rates and occurrence of re-offence.
    6. Er why don't you have a 6???
    7. Seriously getting some idea of your views in that you had to refer to yourself as a "white British male", how about you try for just one day to see yourself as just a human instead.
    8. No one is going to win a structured argument by just saying "all their policies are moronic" you clearly do not know ALL of their policies, otherwise you wouldn't have thought they want to legalise marriage between more than 2 people. You are right that migration is an extremely tricky topic and I am not saying the Greens have managed to iron everything out, but our current approach is disgraceful and also is completely unsuccessful!!
    9. Yes they are but so are Conservatives, so are Labour, so are Lib Dems, so are SNP, do I need to go on?? Also they were one of the few parties to call for a referendum way before the General Election last year, so they clearly support your right to give your view on the matter.
    10. Hmmmmmm, although I wouldn't call her a complete moron by any means, I think you do raise a point here that I think Bennets leadership could do with improvements. Having said that her leadership has seen the Green Party reach members the like it has never had before and gained more public recognition than it has ever had before and most importantly received many, many more votes than ever before.

    I hope these points help.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conservationofmass)
    1. Unpatriotic
    2. Ridiculous economic policies
    3. Want to make marriage between multiple people legal.
    4. Want to scrap the armed forces
    5. Weak on crime.
    7. Why would I, a young white British male have any appeal to such an abhorrent party?
    8. All their policies are moronic and they believe in unrestricted mass immigration and that everything can be solved supply side.
    9. Pro EU.
    10. Lead by a bennet, a complete moron.
    You mean it doesn't appeal to religious, nationalist, capitalists.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    oh for ****'s sake not again - using mere *children* for political purposes...that's ****ing low. honestly. they shouldn't do that. don't politicise children or use them for political ammunition. they have no idea what they're doing or saying when they're told to read out these scripts that are obviously spun for the green party's agenda. and if it wasn't for the green party's agenda, what would be the point of the video?
    imagine if far right politicians started exploiting children for politics - we'd all be justifiably outraged. so why can they do it? this is truly inappropriate and I'm actually surprised that nobody on this thread even addressed this yet. they can only say "hahaha oh kids say the darnedest things" - I expected more
    Calm down, it's a joke. I'd rather watch this than some adults paid to lecture us on how the Tories are working for "hard working families".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Calm down, it's a joke.
    it wasn't even funny though - at least it should have been *that* if they're going to exploit kids politically for emotional appeal
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    it wasn't even funny though - at least it should have been *that* if they're going to exploit kids politically for emotional appeal
    I thought it was pretty funny (and accurate).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    I thought it was pretty funny (and accurate).
    how was the theresa may part "accurate"? in this country we don't have a policy of kicking immigrants out for "not having enough money". they are entitled to benefits just like domestic nationals are.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    how was the theresa may part "accurate"? in this country we don't have a policy of kicking immigrants out for "not having enough money". they are entitled to benefits just like domestic nationals are.
    Oh really?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nightwing_)
    So what is it exactly that you all have against the Green Party, I've seen plenty of people coming out with stuff like the Green Party just have no appeal for me, couldn't care less, not voting Green. But absolutely nothing that resembles a structured argument. I guess the thread is more specifically about the broadcast, but I just think it comes across as a bit of a jerk reaction as opposed to an actual well thought out one when no reason whatsoever is provided.....
    There's so much wrong with it, one barely even knows where to start.

    Let's start with economic policy

    - They wanted to introduce a guaranteed income, whether you want to work or not, of 71 pounds a week, which represents double the health budget.
    - They want zero or negative growth each year
    - They want to loosen immigration controls

    A neoliberal immigration model with a social democratic fiscal model is doomed to failure, which coincidentally is what the greens want. They are the only party which actually want to impoverish the country.

    Their foreign policy is typical of the regressive left's view that anything British is bad and anything foreign is good

    - They want to drastically cut the armed forces
    - They want to increase foreign aid by 50%
    - They want to legalise membership of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS. All those who went to join ISIS and partake in the killing and raping would be allowed to stroll back into the UK, no questions asked.
    - They contend that any problem in the Middle East can be traceable to our intervention there


    There are 2 reasons why anyone clued up on Green party policies would vote for them:

    1. They are complete idiots, without a shred of knowledge concerning economics, geopolitics or indeed reality
    2. They are masochists who want to drive this country into the dirt.

    Every party is open to criticism for some things, but there is no more dangerous party to the UK ideologically than the Greens.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    how was the theresa may part "accurate"? in this country we don't have a policy of kicking immigrants out for "not having enough money". they are entitled to benefits just like domestic nationals are.
    Are you serious, I mean do you read the news??? Clearly don't have many foreign firends who have been told they will have to leave the country unless they are earning £35000 a year if new laws championed by Theresa May come in. Which would incidentally mean nurses can no longer keep their jobs which was what the sketch was lampooning.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    ...did you see what they made the theresa may kid do? not only is that political, but it's objectively false what they implied
    why shouldn't it be a commodity? what kind of kid is going to grow up and think something ludicrous like that? if we don't have water as a commodity, then we'll get less of it, and it will cost more. in fact, there are actually studies that show that. private means of water provision were more efficient whereas subsidised provisions of water were more wasteful. so either we can justify it via the facts, or render it unjust via ignorance
    ...No, the Theresa May thing is relatively factual.

    As for your point on water, its only ridiculous because you know of no credible alternative narrative to that of capitalism. The idea we should move to a resource based economy is not, I think, ludicrous.

    I'm against *forcing* kids to church as a matter of my personal ethics. I'm not willing to interfere with private individuals/families though becuse if you say private families aren't allowed to teach religion, then we'd have to logically conclude that parents can't teach any kind of morality to kids either in that this would also be unfair indoctrination. it's not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of deferring to liberty over perfection. but my point was that kids shouldn't, with public authority/funds, be told to go to church. religion shouldn be separated from the state (and state schools, are, as it is tautological, from the state).
    ???

    I'm pretty sure the parents voluntarily took their kids to the school (State or otherwise) and that it was funded purely by the green party.


    it's not about harm. it's about the principle involved. if you say that nativity plays are okay, and they're a religious symbol, then we can equally justify "harmless" satanist plays. and yes, of course that's a drastic example, and I meant for it to be, because although it's drastic, it still makes sense. if you're going to tell me "nativity plays are more popular", are we just going to teach kids whatever's popular? or are we going to take a more objective and neutral approach to education? should we let kids make up their own minds about religion, for instance? I mean, one particular political party might be *very* popular, but would that mean we'd have to promote that party in a state school?
    Depends on the appropriateness of the Satanist play but in theory I don't see why not. People should make their own minds up about religion (But I think that things evolution et al should be taught universally) I support some sort of secular ethics based on evidence not on superstition.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    There's so much wrong with it, one barely even knows where to start.

    Let's start with economic policy

    - They wanted to introduce a guaranteed income, whether you want to work or not, of 71 pounds a week, which represents double the health budget.
    - They want zero or negative growth each year
    - They want to loosen immigration controls

    A neoliberal immigration model with a social democratic fiscal model is doomed to failure, which coincidentally is what the greens want. They are the only party which actually want to impoverish the country.

    Their foreign policy is typical of the regressive left's view that anything British is bad and anything foreign is good

    - They want to drastically cut the armed forces
    - They want to increase foreign aid by 50%
    - They want to legalise membership of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS. All those who went to join ISIS and partake in the killing and raping would be allowed to stroll back into the UK, no questions asked.
    - They contend that any problem in the Middle East can be traceable to our intervention there


    There are 2 reasons why anyone clued up on Green party policies would vote for them:

    1. They are complete idiots, without a shred of knowledge concerning economics, geopolitics or indeed reality
    2. They are masochists who want to drive this country into the dirt.

    Every party is open to criticism for some things, but there is no more dangerous party to the UK ideologically than the Greens.
    Unfortunately I won't be able to give a detailed response to every post as it's fairly time consuming.

    But there are several countries that are trialling a national income right now with positive results, just because something is new doesn't necessarily mean bad.
    The only way this country can ever be truly sustainable and prevent crashes like we had/are currently in is to move away from this idea of constant growth, it will never work forever, it obviously can't work forever!!!
    See above for immigration.
    There are plenty of things great about Britain and bad about foreign policies, but this is why I believe we are better working together rather than further segregation.
    See above for armed forces.
    I don't really see why people hate foreign aid spending so much, but ok, I guess if you are strongly against this I can't really argue with you about it, but in reality we are talking about 0.3% of the budget.
    The view that they believe every Middle East problem is our fault is again a skewed view on your behalf. But yes you are correct in thinking that they rightly believe that the west's interference in the Middle East has undoubtedly added to the problems there.
    Also the current methods of tackling terrorism are disastrously unsuccessful, I think they are providing some interesting insights, alongside Jeremy Corbyn on how we might be able to change our foreign policies to approach from a different angle.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Oh really?
    okay then...I wouldn't have thought the EU would have allowed this if this was planned from 2015...
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Nightwing_)
    Unfortunately I won't be able to give a detailed response to every post as it's fairly time consuming.

    But there are several countries that are trialling a national income right now with positive results, just because something is new doesn't necessarily mean bad.
    The only way this country can ever be truly sustainable and prevent crashes like we had/are currently in is to move away from this idea of constant growth, it will never work forever, it obviously can't work forever!!!
    See above for immigration.
    There are plenty of things great about Britain and bad about foreign policies, but this is why I believe we are better working together rather than further segregation.
    See above for armed forces.
    I don't really see why people hate foreign aid spending so much, but ok, I guess if you are strongly against this I can't really argue with you about it, but in reality we are talking about 0.3% of the budget.
    The view that they believe every Middle East problem is our fault is again a skewed view on your behalf. But yes you are correct in thinking that they rightly believe that the west's interference in the Middle East has undoubtedly added to the problems there.
    Also the current methods of tackling terrorism are disastrously unsuccessful, I think they are providing some interesting insights, alongside Jeremy Corbyn on how we might be able to change our foreign policies to approach from a different angle.
    Good reply
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    ...No, the Theresa May thing is relatively factual.

    As for your point on water, its only ridiculous because you know of no credible alternative narrative to that of capitalism. The idea we should move to a resource based economy is not, I think, ludicrous.
    I know of no credible alternative to capitalism because there kind of isn't one

    ???

    I'm pretty sure the parents voluntarily took their kids to the school (State or otherwise) and that it was funded purely by the green party.
    what's with the massive "???" thing? I said schools shouldn't force kids (or tell them) to go to church - what's wrong with that?
    1) it's not "voluntary" if taking kids to school isn't a matter of choice but law...
    2) I never said the *advert* wasn't funded by the party. I said the fact that they were *allowed* to use a school, or school kids, was a bit inappropriate...

    Depends on the appropriateness of the Satanist play but in theory I don't see why not. People should make their own minds up about religion (But I think that things evolution et al should be taught universally) I support some sort of secular ethics based on evidence not on superstition.
    well there you go
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nightwing_)
    Are you serious, I mean do you read the news??? Clearly don't have many foreign firends who have been told they will have to leave the country unless they are earning £35000 a year if new laws championed by Theresa May come in. Which would incidentally mean nurses can no longer keep their jobs which was what the sketch was lampooning.
    I assumed that was if we left the EU - surely it's reasonable to assume that the EU's freedom of movement principle wouldn't allow for a policy like this? how not?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    There's so much wrong with it, one barely even knows where to start.

    Let's start with economic policy

    - They wanted to introduce a guaranteed income, whether you want to work or not, of 71 pounds a week, which represents double the health budget.
    - They want zero or negative growth each year
    - They want to loosen immigration controls

    A neoliberal immigration model with a social democratic fiscal model is doomed to failure, which coincidentally is what the greens want. They are the only party which actually want to impoverish the country.
    I don't think universal income is necessarily a bad idea, and I think there is some merit in there idea of reducing constant economic growth.



    Their foreign policy is typical of the regressive left's view that anything British is bad and anything foreign is good

    Whilst they no doubt posses a great deal of the regressive left, I don't think that your portrayal is particularly fair- for instance they're against faith schools, forced marriage, FGM etc and support gay rights in the Arabic world.

    - They want to drastically cut the armed forces

    Meh, so did the Tories! I think they believe they can change the world for the better without resorting to force and see western intervention as not the best means of achieving this. This could be argued as naïve but I don't think its necessarily regressive.

    - They want to increase foreign aid by 50%

    Depends on how its funded and where the money goes.

    - They want to legalise membership of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS. All those who went to join ISIS and partake in the killing and raping would be allowed to stroll back into the UK, no questions asked.

    Source? IIRC they wouldn't punish people for expressing support for terrorist groups [muh free speech] but I think the second sentence is false

    - They contend that any problem in the Middle East can be traceable to our intervention there

    This is definitely the worse part about them for me, although they are hardly alone in this. Indeed, they have very similar views to UKIP regarding intervention and Ukraine....

    There are 2 reasons why anyone clued up on Green party policies would vote for them:

    1. They are complete idiots, without a shred of knowledge concerning economics, geopolitics or indeed reality
    2. They are masochists who want to drive this country into the dirt.

    Every party is open to criticism for some things, but there is no more dangerous party to the UK ideologically than the Greens.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=AlmightyJesus;63951937]I know of no credible alternative to capitalism because there kind of isn't one
    [quote]

    I know of no credible alternative to feudalism because there isn't one. Capitalism was indeed necessary but I think it is/ should come to an end.

    what's with the massive "???" thing? I said schools shouldn't force kids (or tell them) to go to church - what's wrong with that?
    1) it's not "voluntary" if taking kids to school isn't a matter of choice but law...
    2) I never said the *advert* wasn't funded by the party. I said the fact that they were *allowed* to use a school, or school kids, was a bit inappropriate...
    1: The kids weren't forced to do the advert?

    2: I didn't see a problem with this. I think we should accept we don't see eye to eye on this!
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Alexion)
    I quit the moment that woman appeared
    Privileged misogynist. :shakecane:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I know of no credible alternative to feudalism because there isn't one. Capitalism was indeed necessary but I think it is/ should come to an end.
    was the world richer during feudal times or during capitalism? was there as much personal liberty and happiness during feudalism? I don't understand why you'd say feudalism > capitalism unless this is a weird kind of joke


    1: The kids weren't forced to do the advert?

    2: I didn't see a problem with this. I think we should accept we don't see eye to eye on this!
    1) it's not a matter of physical force. it's a matter of not exploiting kids. for instance, a paedophile might be able to technically get a kid to consent to sex (in a literal sense) - but so what? it's still exploitation, isn't it? that's the issue here. I don't care if a child consents to being in child porn, that wouldn't make it appropriate for an adult to ask them to do that. and before you ask, no, I am not saying the green party politically exploiting kids is as bad as paedophiles sexually exploiting them. before you even start going down that road.
    2) I'm putting much more heavy emphasis on the kids and not necessarily the school itself - I only said school because technically schools *are* funded by the state, but again, a lot of things in life are, such as roads, and I wouldn't be trying to argue that the green party (or any party) should be prohibited from filming on a street just because of this fact
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.