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

    21
    ReputationRep:
    The level some people are miss informed from their comments is staggering


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wave of Wisdom)

    I would end welfare benefits for those who don't earn them, except the seriously permanently disabled (so illegaltobepoor doesn't get mad at me; that's +1 vote to me already). This most especially is targeting single mothers who are able to collect child tax credits, which supports their degenerate ways of birthing a child with a man, then depriving that man of equal partnership with raising the child. That is bad for society and must end. The State should take control of transport such as roads, internal air travel, buses and trains. Scrap the NHS, which is forever underfunded and being run into the ground, and transfer the bulk of that money in to transport, subsidising heavily the fares. This has environmental benefits as well as keeping people together.
    First off, welcome back mate!

    I'll start from here as there's little point critiquing the first part as we simply fundamentally disagree there (I'll post up my own views later which will exemplify why) .

    I think child benefit should be capped at two children or maybe three. I think severly disabled children in a vegetative state should be euthanized- I say this as a parent and as someone who has worked in care. Even in an ideal system where all their needs could be met I think would be cruel to keep them alive, let alone our current one.

    I can kind of sympathise with the single mum point- but from a secular standpoint. I do believe in most circumstances it is in the childs interests for the family to stay together. I cant think of a realistic soloution other than a potential harcore authoritarian system of breeding licenses which im sure youd love the idea of .

    Agree with transport though its not a big deal for me.

    Good luck abolishing the NHS.

    No state-support will go towards any foreigner's translator. They don't want to speak English, then the luxury of a translator should cost THEM, not us. I was forced to learn English as a baby, because I wanted to be understood. They should do the same. Tony Blair would be publicly hanged for war crimes and treason. Free speech and other libertarian ideas will be in law, greatly limiting the power of the State over the individual. Freedom of speech and right of assembly and free association mean conversations cannot be shut down. Hate speech laws will thusly be removed.
    Agree with the translation thing.

    You'd only hang Tony Blair?

    If I was a dictator i'd only hang proven nonces like Lord Janner.

    Warcrimes? Pah!

    Oh, one moooooore thing: nothing can come between the family. A child does not have the same rights as an adult, until they reach the age of eighteen. If a child is abused, the parents and family can come under shame, ostracisation from society and public scrutiny. They can't have their child taken away from them by the State.
    I hope you mean that if say a child is abused that the perpetrator should be arrested and the child taken into another family members control rather than letting the likes of Josef Fritzl do what they want. Strongly, strongly disagree.

    Each family must have it in their minds, for the sake of social capital, that they are solely responsible for the success and welfare of their children, giving them the incentive to treat them well and invest in their futures instead of this hedonism and self-indulgence we see now, whilst the children are left neglected at home.
    Strongly, strongly agree- now how to implement it.

    Don't worry, they say, the government will support my child through welfare and public schooling and cultural activities, they say, so I don't have to really talk to or teach my child a thing! Isn't socialism great, they say, it frees up so much time for me to pursue fun activities by myself. This is one of the most harmful ideas in society today, that the State has a responsibility superseding parents of their own children. .
    I agree with the diagnosis but not the cure and the cause.

    The cause is a societal failing- I think essentially a Liberal Capitalist rather than a socialist failing (Or rather, a synthesis of the worst parts of both ideology)

    Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything else. If anyone has questions, feel free to critique. I want to hear opinions Davij038 SHallowvale
    I agree also with most of the points that Shallowvale made although I dont think youre a pychopath!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Now for me! Brace yourself:

    What do I want?
    A classless, stateless, non monetary based, godless, technologically advanced, united, Imperial, non-hierarchical, civilisation to occur at around the year 3000.

    Now how to achieve this?

    The cause of all problems in the world is caused by the twin evils of over population and religion. Both of these reinforces the other- e.g the usual lack of contraception prevalent in dominant religions leads to a higher population- a higher population means greater scarcity of resources- this conflict creates the need for a ruling class to implement order which is enforced at a great disadvantage to the least well off and enforced by non-existent and nonsensicalspiritual laws which are deemed to contain moral wisdom in reality justifying the staus quo without the burden of proof. The truth is that there is no viable means of knowing the likes of gods and if we are to assume that they exist, why not unicorns or leprechauns? I agree with Christopher Hitchens in that religion is an abomination in which we are taught to veneratea celestial 1984 style dictatorship and is a barrier to Humanity’s evolutionfrom superstitious primates.

    There are close to eight Billion people on this planet. We can talk about the emissions and the rainforest all day long but the real environmentalissue is that there are too many people. I think the greatest possible environmentaland foreign policy we can implement is mass exportation of contraceptives andanti-theist propaganda. This is the only aid we should be sending (That is unless they accept it)

    These two wrongs need to be corrected. The best (possible)way of dealing with that is, for all its current faults, is essentially neo-liberalism- transforming religious backwaters into materialistic godless capitalists is the first step- Marx was pretty clear that there needed to be a Liberaldemocratic capitalist structure in order for Communism to work-hence why Communism has essentially failed in the Cold War.This long term, global measure is worth the shortfalls ofCapitalism (**Its Inherent Instability, its rewarding of greed, its debasement of everything for monetary value) as a viable long tem goal- its selfish, *******isation of culture and ethics is necessary to form my idealculture. In my view, Religion and Overpopulation are a cancer, which requiresdangerous radiation therapy (Capitalism) to cleanse.If Corbyn promised to abolish faith schools and Cameronpromised to implement a three child benefit limit I’d be pretty torn, would probably edge towards Cameron though (Peter Hitchens is right about the ‘Conservative’Party!)

    These would be my core policy aims. Other than that, in theshort term:


    · Integrate further into the EU (By the way- Ithink the EU is what you make it and has the potential to be anything-Traditionalist, fascist, Socialist, etc rather than its current Liberal form)·
    Stay in Nato
    · Give additional support to the Iraqi and Ukraine governments
    .· Mass public projects (No problem with Corbyns PQE other than its purpose- a simple lack of vision here- 1930’s Germanstyle-also something akin to the eco cities being built by the Gulf states and South Korea.
    · Abolish the monarchy when lizzie dies.
    · Elected house of lords
    · Outlaw Circumcision.
    · Try and rely less and less on regimes like Russia,Saudia Arabia and China-but continue trade.
    · Make Britain a Secular Republic
    .· United States of Europe- with Common army,foreign policy and space programme.


    All in all, enough for the Left and the Right to hate me in equalmeasure!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I think child benefit should be capped at two children or maybe three. I think severly disabled children in a vegetative state should be euthanized- I say this as a parent and as someone who has worked in care. Even in an ideal system where all their needs could be met I think would be cruel to keep them alive, let alone our current one.

    I can kind of sympathise with the single mum point- but from a secular standpoint. I do believe in most circumstances it is in the childs interests for the family to stay together. I cant think of a realistic soloution other than a potential harcore authoritarian system of breeding licenses which im sure youd love the idea of .

    Agree with transport though its not a big deal for me.

    Good luck abolishing the NHS.



    Agree with the translation thing.

    You'd only hang Tony Blair?

    If I was a dictator i'd only hang proven nonces like Lord Janner.

    Warcrimes? Pah!



    I hope you mean that if say a child is abused that the perpetrator should be arrested and the child taken into another family members control rather than letting the likes of Josef Fritzl do what they want. Strongly, strongly disagree.



    Strongly, strongly agree- now how to implement it.



    I agree with the diagnosis but not the cure and the cause.

    The cause is a societal failing- I think essentially a Liberal Capitalist rather than a socialist failing (Or rather, a synthesis of the worst parts of both ideology)



    I agree also with most of the points that Shallowvale made although I dont think youre a pychopath!
    Evening, Davij. Good response from you - a better reception than I received from SHallowvale, albeit with a little quotewar to kick us off

    Euthanasia should be legal, but it should always be optional. It should never be down to the State to decide who is killed. However, this is a difficult position to argue when the NHS exists. Without the NHS, the existence of heavy smoking, binge drinking and eating disorders become a societal and personal issue rather than a political one. I find this a far healthier way to live as a nation as it encourages self improvement, or at the very least, discouraging self-destruction, for the sake of those who care about you having to pick up the pieces personally. I've tied up two points in one here.

    On single mothers: this is why I suggest not legislating against any form of religious morality and practice. Marriage, divorce, etc. all fall in to the purview of the Church. Divorce laws have been incredibly lax since the 60s. Peter Hitchens once gave this analogy, which I warmed to: if you are in a ship that is heading towards a small iceberg and there are lifeboats surrounding your ship all the time, you jump at the first sign of difficulty. If those lifeboats are not there, you steer the ship around and keep it on track." The majority of the divorces you see are from women being "unhappy", usually with their sex life. I believe the statistics are along the lines of 65-70% of divorces are initiated by women for such a reason. The woman also gets 80% of the childcare. Now, when there is proven domestic abuse, the abuser should be prosecuted under the law, much less divorced by the victim.

    There isn't really much anti-NHS propaganda that I can find. There is this article from the Guardian in 2001, and that's about all. People need to be made aware of the effects is has on society and how people function because of it's existence, whilst also pointing out the economic factors and it's current crumbling state.

    I would hang Tony Blair in Trafalgar Square, and it should be televised. Politicians need to face the full force of justice when they attempt to lie and manipulate a government and abuse their position as elected leader. It was released the other day in the Daily Mail that Blair signed up to a war in Iraq before there was any conflict. This war crime, coupled with his multicultural and multiracial agenda, intentionally flooding the country with non-Whites should be considered treason to the fabric of our nation.

    OK, OK, let me explain a little clearer, since both you and SHallowvale got a little muddled up. If either parent commits a crime against their child, it is still illegal and an offence by the law. What I am stating is that parents who do not do the recommended child raising techniques as recommended by the NHS or other official bodies, should not be penalised at all. These are personal choices. Otherwise, you could end up with a situation where it could become an offence to take your child to Church before they become an adult- because they must "choose" their religion rather than being "indoctrinated". This is liberalism at its conclusion, in my opinion. Likewise, if a parent decides not to give their children certain injections or maybe decides to punish them for misbehaving, they should not be penalised for acting as the child's guardian and in their future best interest. I understand it's a touchy subject, and I'm sure I may simply come from an exceptionally strong family than a lot, but it's a principle I think the weaker families would only adopt when forced. Hence, my following paragraph.

    How do we make families care about each other? It's simple: they must rely on each other. The state should no longer coerce people in to giving morality-free cash monies to strangers they have no connection to or desire to give money to. Taxes will always exist, of course, but I'm talking about welfare (including NHS and education). Biologically, parents are predisposed to love and care for their children as we are a K-type reproductive species, which means low birth rate, high investment. However, we are living in an age of SHallowvales. An age of hedonists who care far more about their personal wellbeing and happiness before the people around them. In the past, and I'm talking Pagan times, it was recognised that we were simply advanced animals. We breed and reproduce to continue our genes and legacy, like all animals. It would bring great shame to a man or woman who allows their blood line to dry up at them after their bloodline has supposedly lasted thousands of years to this point. It's this kind of kinship society that yields the greatest social capital.

    I agree, liberal capitalist sounds about right.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Now for me! Brace yourself:

    What do I want?
    A classless, stateless, non monetary based, godless, technologically advanced, united, Imperial, non-hierarchical, civilisation to occur at around the year 3000.

    Now how to achieve this?

    The cause of all problems in the world is caused by the twin evils of over population and religion. Both of these reinforces the other- e.g the usual lack of contraception prevalent in dominant religions leads to a higher population- a higher population means greater scarcity of resources- this conflict creates the need for a ruling class to implement order which is enforced at a great disadvantage to the least well off and enforced by non-existent and nonsensicalspiritual laws which are deemed to contain moral wisdom in reality justifying the staus quo without the burden of proof. The truth is that there is no viable means of knowing the likes of gods and if we are to assume that they exist, why not unicorns or leprechauns? I agree with Christopher Hitchens in that religion is an abomination in which we are taught to veneratea celestial 1984 style dictatorship and is a barrier to Humanity’s evolutionfrom superstitious primates.

    There are close to eight Billion people on this planet. We can talk about the emissions and the rainforest all day long but the real environmentalissue is that there are too many people. I think the greatest possible environmentaland foreign policy we can implement is mass exportation of contraceptives andanti-theist propaganda. This is the only aid we should be sending (That is unless they accept it)

    These two wrongs need to be corrected. The best (possible)way of dealing with that is, for all its current faults, is essentially neo-liberalism- transforming religious backwaters into materialistic godless capitalists is the first step- Marx was pretty clear that there needed to be a Liberaldemocratic capitalist structure in order for Communism to work-hence why Communism has essentially failed in the Cold War.This long term, global measure is worth the shortfalls ofCapitalism (**Its Inherent Instability, its rewarding of greed, its debasement of everything for monetary value) as a viable long tem goal- its selfish, *******isation of culture and ethics is necessary to form my idealculture. In my view, Religion and Overpopulation are a cancer, which requiresdangerous radiation therapy (Capitalism) to cleanse.If Corbyn promised to abolish faith schools and Cameronpromised to implement a three child benefit limit I’d be pretty torn, would probably edge towards Cameron though (Peter Hitchens is right about the ‘Conservative’Party!)

    These would be my core policy aims. Other than that, in theshort term:


    · Integrate further into the EU (By the way- Ithink the EU is what you make it and has the potential to be anything-Traditionalist, fascist, Socialist, etc rather than its current Liberal form)·
    Stay in Nato
    · Give additional support to the Iraqi and Ukraine governments
    .· Mass public projects (No problem with Corbyns PQE other than its purpose- a simple lack of vision here- 1930’s Germanstyle-also something akin to the eco cities being built by the Gulf states and South Korea.
    · Abolish the monarchy when lizzie dies.
    · Elected house of lords
    · Outlaw Circumcision.
    · Try and rely less and less on regimes like Russia,Saudia Arabia and China-but continue trade.
    · Make Britain a Secular Republic
    .· United States of Europe- with Common army,foreign policy and space programme.


    All in all, enough for the Left and the Right to hate me in equalmeasure!
    On social issues we very much see eye to eye.
    You're left wing socially and right wing economically. Pretty much the model Blairite!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    end the war in the middle east.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincessZara)
    end the war in the middle east.
    Restore the Ottoman Empire.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wave of Wisdom)
    Evening, Davij. Good response from you - a better reception than I received from SHallowvale, albeit with a little quotewar to kick us off

    Euthanasia should be legal, but it should always be optional. It should never be down to the State to decide who is killed. However, this is a difficult position to argue when the NHS exists. Without the NHS, the existence of heavy smoking, binge drinking and eating disorders become a societal and personal issue rather than a political one. I find this a far healthier way to live as a nation as it encourages self improvement, or at the very least, discouraging self-destruction, for the sake of those who care about you having to pick up the pieces personally. I've tied up two points in one here.

    On single mothers: this is why I suggest not legislating against any form of religious morality and practice. Marriage, divorce, etc. all fall in to the purview of the Church. Divorce laws have been incredibly lax since the 60s. Peter Hitchens once gave this analogy, which I warmed to: if you are in a ship that is heading towards a small iceberg and there are lifeboats surrounding your ship all the time, you jump at the first sign of difficulty. If those lifeboats are not there, you steer the ship around and keep it on track." The majority of the divorces you see are from women being "unhappy", usually with their sex life. I believe the statistics are along the lines of 65-70% of divorces are initiated by women for such a reason. The woman also gets 80% of the childcare. Now, when there is proven domestic abuse, the abuser should be prosecuted under the law, much less divorced by the victim.

    There isn't really much anti-NHS propaganda that I can find. There is this article from the Guardian in 2001, and that's about all. People need to be made aware of the effects is has on society and how people function because of it's existence, whilst also pointing out the economic factors and it's current crumbling state.

    I would hang Tony Blair in Trafalgar Square, and it should be televised. Politicians need to face the full force of justice when they attempt to lie and manipulate a government and abuse their position as elected leader. It was released the other day in the Daily Mail that Blair signed up to a war in Iraq before there was any conflict. This war crime, coupled with his multicultural and multiracial agenda, intentionally flooding the country with non-Whites should be considered treason to the fabric of our nation.

    OK, OK, let me explain a little clearer, since both you and SHallowvale got a little muddled up. If either parent commits a crime against their child, it is still illegal and an offence by the law. What I am stating is that parents who do not do the recommended child raising techniques as recommended by the NHS or other official bodies, should not be penalised at all. These are personal choices. Otherwise, you could end up with a situation where it could become an offence to take your child to Church before they become an adult- because they must "choose" their religion rather than being "indoctrinated". This is liberalism at its conclusion, in my opinion. Likewise, if a parent decides not to give their children certain injections or maybe decides to punish them for misbehaving, they should not be penalised for acting as the child's guardian and in their future best interest. I understand it's a touchy subject, and I'm sure I may simply come from an exceptionally strong family than a lot, but it's a principle I think the weaker families would only adopt when forced. Hence, my following paragraph.

    How do we make families care about each other? It's simple: they must rely on each other. The state should no longer coerce people in to giving morality-free cash monies to strangers they have no connection to or desire to give money to. Taxes will always exist, of course, but I'm talking about welfare (including NHS and education). Biologically, parents are predisposed to love and care for their children as we are a K-type reproductive species, which means low birth rate, high investment. However, we are living in an age of SHallowvales. An age of hedonists who care far more about their personal wellbeing and happiness before the people around them. In the past, and I'm talking Pagan times, it was recognised that we were simply advanced animals. We breed and reproduce to continue our genes and legacy, like all animals. It would bring great shame to a man or woman who allows their blood line to dry up at them after their bloodline has supposedly lasted thousands of years to this point. It's this kind of kinship society that yields the greatest social capital.

    I agree, liberal capitalist sounds about right.
    I believe in universal truths- backed up by a huge degree of rational evidence. That's why I'm against the concept of morality as it requires none- the problem is that i think with possibly a dozen exceptions humans are universally lazy in that they do what is convenient rather than what is necessary- even if we left it down to individuals they would still fail on an individual basis- look at the U.S. For example- rampant obesity, ignorance etc because they have been given personal choice.

    I think that you place far too much blame on women- Ircc that Ashley Madison site - 98% of its users were men for example.

    I don't believe in the concept of marriage- regardless of divorce laws. Some prayers, a bit of paper and a ring doesn't mean jack in real life.

    Your points on Blair are absurd- every leader bar none should be dug up and butchered for lying and manipulating- that's politics baby.

    As for the planning of the invasion- yes, but he was pretty clear on this in the beginning- there's a speech he gave after Kosovo pretty much saying his intentions. The conflict began since before the first gulf war. As for the multi culti stuff- in sll fairness you should condemn the majority of Politicians to the same fate, probably the royal family too.

    Thank you for clarifying your point. As per my own post- yeah I'd quite like the government to ban kids going to mosques/ churches etc Like I said, I believe in universal values or as you'd call it totalitarianism!

    Bloodlines die out and all our ancestors will be forgotten. I disagree with the points on children- for instance my step father is Chinese and he was essentially born to work for the family- along with numerous brothers and sisters. It was a purely economic decision- I think a better legacy would be a shared vision for a better future rather than a blinkered hankering for the good old days.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    On social issues we very much see eye to eye.
    You're left wing socially and right wing economically. Pretty much the model Blairite!
    Blairs a devout Catholic and I'm an anti-theist but essentially in many ways yes- though I think we need a new name - Kendallite maybe!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    I do not think that we should encourage class as it places unnecessary barriers on all people. I'm in favour of intergovernmental cooporation as I think it helps tackle social, economic and environmental issues which impact everyone (war, poverty, crime, climate change, etc). I think people without children should be given the right to vote as they still live here and how the government is run will impact them.



    I think that parents should get equal rights to spend time with their child (unless they are in no position to safely care for a child). I do not know how you'd decide if someone has 'earned' benefits. I think that benefits should be given to those who need it the most.

    I do not think that we should abolish the NHS, I think that would create great suffering for most of society. I'd be in favour of the government subsidising the cost of public transport (mainly bus services).



    I do not think we should erode laws about hate speech. Hate speech creates hate, which creates violence, which naturally creates more violence, which ultimately comes to the social and economic expense of everyone. I do not believe in the freedom of association as, much like class, I think it is unfair on everyone.

    I do not support the death penalty.



    I do not understand why you would reject religious education and history, I thought you were very supportive of heritage and religion?




    I do not think that hedonism or self-indulgence are always wrong, nor do I think that parents should always be expected to be solely responsible for the success of their children. If parents are struggling to help their child then the state should support them. If parents are unwilling or disinterested in their child then the state should support them.
    Firstly, do you realise how totalitarian you sound? Not least for diagnosing me with a pathology, but your love for big government to fix all the world's problems. Class is not "encouraged", it occurs naturally. To prevent people from falling and rising is far more restrictive than allowing these things. But we have fundamental disagreements on the importance of freedom, so I'll drop that.

    There is no human "right to vote". When I was growing up, I had no choice at home, but I had a say. I didn't have a vote, but those who did (parents) took my opinion on board for consideration. This is as I see our voting system. It is no human rights abuse to limit the kind of people who can vote: the kind with a stake in society. You can argue that everybody has a stake in society simply for existing, but it is a particularly rare stake. People who have something to lose or children whose lives they consider for the future (before selling them in to debt) are going to take much greater care with what they vote for and keeping things in good nick. Without universal suffrage, you're going to weed out a lot of the clueless voters, who simply go on what the Sun have to say, which could change politics for the better and less of the entertainment format we see now (it is much worse in the US).

    So you don't believe in freedom of speech or association... I think you will find that hate speech doesn't produce hate; the hatred exists already and is then expressed in speech. If you ban the speech you get almost a Streisand Effect, where the more you try to censor and sweep the issues under the rug, the greater steam they build up in the dark.

    On the topic of schools and why I don't want history and religious education being taught in the national curriculum: it is not the government's job. It's not the government's job to teach us what happened in the past, nor is it their job to "culturally enrich" us with foreign culture classes in RE. At the same time, we should not even be learning about Christianity in school, except perhaps hymns and prayers in assembly. There should not be a class for these things because the purview falls on the parents and grandparents to teach the child about the past and their heritage and culture. Simply learning about past culture from a book doesn't prepare you for continuing and propagating it. This makes History lessons meaningless. Can you honestly tell me that we as a society are more "connected" by our shared knowledge of the Tudor period from school? Or the conditions in factories in WWI?


    If the state continues to support parents who are unwilling to participate in their children's life, then it perpetuates the problem. Vicious circle: a few must suffer for the rest to learn the lesson.

    Now, thanks for the final paragraph. You sound like an evangelical Christian trying to offer me redemption from a Secular God. Are you a convert?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincessZara)
    end the war in the middle east.
    What would you propose to do while the people are slaughtered or Russia makes its alliances.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    What would you propose to do while the people are slaughtered or Russia makes its alliances.
    Nuke the Middle East, repopulate with Europeans and Russians. I'm half-joking. If we insist on intervening, that's what we should do. If we want to let them get on with their own battles then we should do just that.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    Thank you for clarifying your point. As per my own post- yeah I'd quite like the government to ban kids going to mosques/ churches etc Like I said, I believe in universal values or as you'd call it totalitarianism!

    Bloodlines die out and all our ancestors will be forgotten. I disagree with the points on children- for instance my step father is Chinese and he was essentially born to work for the family- along with numerous brothers and sisters. It was a purely economic decision- I think a better legacy would be a shared vision for a better future rather than a blinkered hankering for the good old days.
    It's interesting you think this. I reckon you have retained a lot of your NatSoc streak, rebranded demands with the same means. Anyway, of course bloodlines die out all the time. Whole species have become extinct before, but think: would it really matter if everybody died tomorrow? Not really. Life will carry on without us. However, does this fact prevent us from living and working towards and supporting the future of our children and children's children?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Thank you for clarifying your point. As per my own post- yeah I'd quite like the government to ban kids going to mosques/ churches etc Like I said, I believe in universal values or as you'd call it totalitarianism!
    2 questions:

    1) what would the government do if a minority of people didn't believe in the government's ideology?

    2) what would the government do if the majority of people didn't believe in the government's ideology?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I want a society where everyone has an equal start in life and equal opportunities, where no-one is discriminated against or made to feel bad because of something they can't help like their race, gender or sexuality, where people are free to practice religion or lack of it without hindrance or hatred, where humans and the environment live in harmony, where ordinary groups of workers have total control over their workplaces, and where government and services are wholly transparent and wholly geared towards serving the people
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    2 questions:1) what would the government do if a minority of people didn't believe in the government's ideology?2) what would the government do if the majority of people didn't believe in the government's ideology?
    Well, I believe that my future is inevitable and that society is essentially teleological. That being said- people are naturally conditioned to liking the status quo unless things are particularly bad or are young and idealistic or old and pessimistic (that's usually how it works).

    One thing that has been learned is that radical sweeping reforms aren't effective means of placating a population and that a gradual process is required to bring about a change in public attitudes- in essence cultural Marxism- the conservatives are right about this but it's far too late to do anything.It is a tricky and imperfect process which does at times go wrong, but the majority of the time works quite well and is almost perfected now.

    New World Order for life!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jeremy1988)
    Well, ideally? I wish there were a way to eradicate Islam and Islamic culture. And I don't just mean in Europe, I mean everywhere: Malaysia, India, Palestine, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. I'd like it if they all renounced Islam or converted to some other religion like Christianity. I would like to see the Palestinians give up the disputed territory and leave Israel alone. I don't want any of them to die or suffer, I want them to change their beliefs.

    When I read on Human Rights Watch about how badly Islamic countries treat their own people, I wished we could go in and stop their horrible policies and backwards lifestyle. But now I'm getting the impression that we aren't even strong enough to keep them from coming to Western countries and imposing that backwards and unfair way of life on us. It's a shame that the modern left demands tolerance of foreigners and their cultural values even when those values are harmful to society and against everything else they stand for.

    It's fairly depressing.
    PRSOM
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Well, I believe that my future is inevitable and that society is essentially teleological. That being said- people are naturally conditioned to liking the status quo unless things are particularly bad or are young and idealistic or old and pessimistic (that's usually how it works).

    One thing that has been learned is that radical sweeping reforms aren't effective means of placating a population and that a gradual process is required to bring about a change in public attitudes- in essence cultural Marxism- the conservatives are right about this but it's far too late to do anything.It is a tricky and imperfect process which does at times go wrong, but the majority of the time works quite well and is almost perfected now.

    New World Order for life!
    And what if people reject your future? I certainly would, since I would not be able to choose to do what I wanted. I'm quite sure a lot of other people would agree with me.

    PS: I shudder to think what our future will be like if everyone did not leave a space between their fullstops and their next word.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    And what if people reject your future? I certainly would, since I would not be able to choose to do what I wanted. I'm quite sure a lot of other people would agree with me.

    PS: I shudder to think what our future will be like if everyone did not leave a space between their fullstops and their next word.
    Apologies for that, I usually write out my responses on notepad and paste them onto the comment bar (as the comment bar is prone to timing out and stuff) but occasionally screws up spacing and paragraphing.

    How would you reject it? Only a mass wide scale rebellion and a complete overthrow of existing state systems will enable a change- usually it's just individuals or nutty terrorist groups.

    Good luck trying to convince people on this. X factors on.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Apologies for that, I usually write out my responses on notepad and paste them onto the comment bar (as the comment bar is prone to timing out and stuff) but occasionally screws up spacing and paragraphing.

    How would you reject it? Only a mass wide scale rebellion and a complete overthrow of existing state systems will enable a change- usually it's just individuals or nutty terrorist groups.

    Good luck trying to convince people on this. X factors on.
    Oh I think the better question would be, how would you convince others to join you in your plans for the new world order?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wave of Wisdom)
    Firstly, do you realise how totalitarian you sound? Not least for diagnosing me with a pathology, but your love for big government to fix all the world's problems. Class is not "encouraged", it occurs naturally. To prevent people from falling and rising is far more restrictive than allowing these things. But we have fundamental disagreements on the importance of freedom, so I'll drop that.
    I'm aware of how totalitarian I might sound to you. I'm aware that your perception of totalitarianism is false.

    I do not think that big government can fix all the world's problems. I think that some problems are best solved by government(s) while others are best solved by individuals, non-governmental organisations, local councils, etc. Which is which would depend on the scenario.

    What you've described isn't class.

    (Original post by Wave of Wisdom)
    So you don't believe in freedom of speech or association... I think you will find that hate speech doesn't produce hate; the hatred exists already and is then expressed in speech. If you ban the speech you get almost a Streisand Effect, where the more you try to censor and sweep the issues under the rug, the greater steam they build up in the dark.
    Sure, but hate speech also spreads hate to others.

    If people have frustrations then they should try to sort them out in a peaceful manner. Hate, violence and aggression should not be encouraged.

    For example, if I have a problem with a colleague at work what should I do? Should I rage about them to my other colleagues and create negativity in the work place or should I arrange to meet with them and discuss these problems in person? Any sensible and mature adult would do the latter, though I suppose you're none of those things?

    (Original post by Wave of Wisdom)
    On the topic of schools and why I don't want history and religious education being taught in the national curriculum: it is not the government's job. It's not the government's job to teach us what happened in the past, nor is it their job to "culturally enrich" us with foreign culture classes in RE. At the same time, we should not even be learning about Christianity in school, except perhaps hymns and prayers in assembly. There should not be a class for these things because the purview falls on the parents and grandparents to teach the child about the past and their heritage and culture. Simply learning about past culture from a book doesn't prepare you for continuing and propagating it. This makes History lessons meaningless.

    If the state continues to support parents who are unwilling to participate in their children's life, then it perpetuates the problem. Vicious circle: a few must suffer for the rest to learn the lesson.
    I don't think it should be. Aside from the issue that some parents won't even understand these subjects themselves, can you honestly tell me that people are actually going to have the time, energy and interest in teaching their children about these things? I don't think they will.

    Regardless of whether you think they should, there will still be parents that do not adequately educate and support their children. Even in your fantasy world of perfect, happy families there will be some people that slip through and don't do what they should be doing. This is the world we currently live in, and this is why the government steps in to provide people with the education that they aren't receiving at home.

    If they didn't then they'd just causing more problems for future generations than they'd solve. It will cause, as you say, a vicious circle.

    (Original post by Wave of Wisdom)
    Now, thanks for the final paragraph. You sound like an evangelical Christian trying to offer me redemption from a Secular God. Are you a convert?
    No, I am just giving you my opinion. If you didn't want my hear opinion then you shouldn't have asked for it.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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.