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

Should the Queen be the last Monarch? Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    ...wow. I can't believe you just compared those two absolutely different cases. I'm fascinated at your point of view.



    it's not the rule though. just because wealthy people happen to be more competent it's not to say they're competent BECAUSE they're wealthy. literally what is stopping poorer people contesting elections?
    How? Both sources stem from apathy and not caring who rules over you.

    It literally is the rule throughout pretty much the entirety of the democratic world as yeah you can bloody stand, but you won't get anywhere. Who's going to pay for all your campaign advertisements, hustings and other expenses?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demaistre)
    How? Both sources stem from apathy and not caring who rules over you.
    yeah but dude that's not to say that at least the people who VOTE don't care :| just because some don't care (a minority) doesn't mean nobody does. oh my ****ing word.

    It literally is the rule throughout pretty much the entirety of the democratic world as yeah you can bloody stand, but you won't get anywhere. Who's going to pay for all your campaign advertisements, hustings and other expenses?
    "you can stand but you won't get anywhere" and why is that? tell me? if we're talking about political parties, what is stopping a poorer person being the prospective candidate of their party? what is the barrier?
    and the people who pay for the advertisements/campaigns are the PARTIES, not the candidates
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    yeah but dude that's not to say that at least the people who VOTE don't care :| just because some don't care (a minority) doesn't mean nobody does. oh my ****ing word.



    "you can stand but you won't get anywhere" and why is that? tell me? if we're talking about political parties, what is stopping a poorer person being the prospective candidate of their party? what is the barrier?
    and the people who pay for the advertisements/campaigns are the PARTIES, not the candidates
    I never claimed nobody cared, I was talking about the fact dictators need either the consent of their people or their apathy. I don't think you properly understood what I was saying.

    You need the connections in a party to get them to choose you, and you need money and resources to set up a successful party in the first place. Thus your average pleb is very very very unlikely to ever see high political office. If you don't believe me look at the long list of working class PMs...oh wait.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demaistre)
    I never claimed nobody cared, I was talking about the fact dictators need either the consent of their people or their apathy. I don't think you properly understood what I was saying.
    yeah, but the level of discontent would have to be so monumental to the point that many of them are willing to ****ing *die* for a change in government. that's not like the level of discontent in liberal democracies. that's NOTHING like simple apathy and a lack of turnout, for example. *that* is what *I* was saying. I did understand you. you're basically saying that a lack of resistance constitutes consent, and I'm telling you that this is kind of lowering the threshold to make basically a lack of consent a form of consent is really out of touch with the understanding of consent. how would a dictatorship be "consensual" when, by definition, it is a matter of dictation? that's the problem I have with this kind of view

    You need the connections in a party to get them to choose you, and you need money and resources to set up a successful party in the first place. Thus your average pleb is very very very unlikely to ever see high political office. If you don't believe me look at the long list of working class PMs...oh wait.
    you don't *need* them, and those connections don't appear like magic via money. your "average pleb" will be able to compete in just the same way if they work hard and have commitments and qualifications. if a poor person went to oxbridge and graduated with flying colours in a good course and then went on to gain great politics experience, why on earth is that not sufficient enough as a bar for them to compete with simply "wealthy people" who are clearly not as competent as they are? also, like I said earlier, wealthy people are more likely to come from backgrounds where they are disciplined enough to go through those kinds of trials.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth reigns over us by the Grace of God.

    If you don't believe me look at the coins in your pocket...

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...99_634x485.jpg

    The Monarchy are the agents of God's will; to remove the Monarchy is to insult God.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    yeah, but the level of discontent would have to be so monumental to the point that many of them are willing to ****ing *die* for a change in government. that's not like the level of discontent in liberal democracies. that's NOTHING like simple apathy and a lack of turnout, for example. *that* is what *I* was saying. I did understand you. you're basically saying that a lack of resistance constitutes consent, and I'm telling you that this is kind of lowering the threshold to make basically a lack of consent a form of consent is really out of touch with the understanding of consent. how would a dictatorship be "consensual" when, by definition, it is a matter of dictation? that's the problem I have with this kind of view



    you don't *need* them, and those connections don't appear like magic via money. your "average pleb" will be able to compete in just the same way if they work hard and have commitments and qualifications. if a poor person went to oxbridge and graduated with flying colours in a good course and then went on to gain great politics experience, why on earth is that not sufficient enough as a bar for them to compete with simply "wealthy people" who are clearly not as competent as they are? also, like I said earlier, wealthy people are more likely to come from backgrounds where they are disciplined enough to go through those kinds of trials.
    If the dictator is that **** then he has the majority of the population against him, he will be overthrown in short order. I'd say a lack of resistance does qualify as consent, if the people gave that much of a **** they would resist. I don't think it devalues consent, I'm just being realistic about what public consent is. There is nothing like that in Liberal democracies as the plebs have the illusion of choice.

    It can happen, but so can a person getting hit by lighting twice. The majority of democracies prove what I'm saying in regard to needing wealth and connections and only the wealthy having them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demaistre)
    If the dictator is that **** then he has the majority of the population against him, he will be overthrown in short order. I'd say a lack of resistance does qualify as consent, if the people gave that much of a **** they would resist. I don't think it devalues consent, I'm just being realistic about what public consent is. There is nothing like that in Liberal democracies as the plebs have the illusion of choice.
    so a dictatorship only until the bitter end is a consensual regime.
    ****ing wow...
    but...what if the people despise their government but are too scared to get killed for voicing their opinion?
    also, does this mean that if I put a gun to a person's head to give me their money, just because they didn't fight back they "consented" to giving them their money? how is the principle any different here<?

    It can happen, but so can a person getting hit by lighting twice. The majority of democracies prove what I'm saying in regard to needing wealth and connections and only the wealthy having them.
    wtf how do they *need* wealth and connections? explain? I never said it didn't help them but how do they "need" them?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=sleepysnooze;69721146]
    (Original post by demaistre)
    If the dictator is that **** then he has the majority of the population against him, he will be overthrown in short order. I'd say a lack of resistance does qualify as consent, if the people gave that much of a **** they would resist. I don't think it devalues consent, I'm just being realistic about what public consent is. There is nothing like that in Liberal democracies as the plebs have the illusion of choice.

    so a dictatorship only until the bitter end is a consensual regime.
    ****ing wow...
    but...what if the people despise their government but are too scared to get killed for voicing their opinion?
    also, does this mean that if I put a gun to a person's head to give me their money, just because they didn't fight back they "consented" to giving them their money? how is the principle any different here<?



    wtf how do they *need* wealth and connections? explain? I never said it didn't help them but how do they "need" them?
    You also seem to assume every single dictatorship is ****, not all of them are. Someone robbing you at gunpoint...a nation state and its population one of these things is not like the other.

    Are you seriously asking why you need connections and wealth to go into politics? You need connections to be able to get wealth and backing. You need wealth to put your message out there to be elected, whether that wealth is your own or you're piggy backing off someone else's doesn't matter. You need both of those things if you want to get anywhere in the political sphere denying this is delusional.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demaistre)

    You also seem to assume every single dictatorship is ****, not all of them are. Someone robbing you at gunpoint...a nation state and its population one of these things is not like the other.
    ...what? how is it any different? how is changing the parties involved changing the principle of the ACT involved (coercion)? dude, I'm sorry but you are severely confused. this is the problem here. your idea of consent is so vague and boundless that it can involve even coerced consent. that's what you don't understand. consent and coercion are the opposite of each other. what is forced is by definition NOT consented. do you get that? it's like saying that a woman makes love to her rapist because she refuses to resist. it's like a man is charitable to his thieve. it makes no ****ing sense. you're defining concepts to be nonsensical. resistance is not an option when your resistance brings on worse penalties than acquiescence. that's why the resistance to dictatorships doesn't happen - because it's coerced! through sanctions and punishments! so creating an environment where refusal is worse than compliance is what coercion is all about :| that's the point of coercion - incentives.

    Are you seriously asking why you need connections and wealth to go into politics? You need connections to be able to get wealth and backing. You need wealth to put your message out there to be elected, whether that wealth is your own or you're piggy backing off someone else's doesn't matter. You need both of those things if you want to get anywhere in the political sphere denying this is delusional.
    wealth and backing would come from a political party though, wouldn't it. not the individual themselves. why can't a poor person run within a wealthy political party? even labour are a wealthy political party.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    ...what? how is it any different? how is changing the parties involved changing the principle of the ACT involved (coercion)? dude, I'm sorry but you are severely confused. this is the problem here. your idea of consent is so vague and boundless that it can involve even coerced consent. that's what you don't understand. consent and coercion are the opposite of each other. what is forced is by definition NOT consented. do you get that? it's like saying that a woman makes love to her rapist because she refuses to resist. it's like a man is charitable to his thieve. it makes no ****ing sense. you're defining concepts to be nonsensical. resistance is not an option when your resistance brings on worse penalties than acquiescence. that's why the resistance to dictatorships doesn't happen - because it's coerced! through sanctions and punishments! so creating an environment where refusal is worse than compliance is what coercion is all about :| that's the point of coercion - incentives.



    wealth and backing would come from a political party though, wouldn't it. not the individual themselves. why can't a poor person run within a wealthy political party? even labour are a wealthy political party.
    My definition of consent is not confused. Resistance to dictatorships happen all the time what are you on about? It just fails if it doesn't have popular support. You are equating states and population with rape? Again these are not the same things. If the majority simply don't give a **** who holds power it isn't forced, anymore than it would be if you left your door unlocked and couldn't give a rat's arse that people were stealing your possessions.
    We are not going to agree on this.


    So you agree you need wealth and connections glad to hear it. The people who hold the wealth and connections usually pick one of their own.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demaistre)
    My definition of consent is not confused. Resistance to dictatorships happen all the time what are you on about? It just fails if it doesn't have popular support. You are equating states and population with rape? Again these are not the same things. If the majority simply don't give a **** who holds power it isn't forced, anymore than it would be if you left your door unlocked and couldn't give a rat's arse that people were stealing your possessions.
    We are not going to agree on this.
    1) just because it happens it doesn't mean it is a good metric of consent :| total red herring
    2) I am talking about the EXACT SAME PRINCIPLES - rape, theft and force all revolves around the SAME PRINCIPLE - COERCION. coercion negates consent! how does the principle not transfer between all these cases!? "uhhh this case is different because it's different" - why is it different? how is it a different form of logic being used to justify it or not? we're talking about the exact same conceptions between both these examples
    3) but the majority do care. they just don't care enough to die for it. people are allowed to care about things or consent (or not) to things without dying, dude. ****ing hell. so if I'm not willing to die for, say, the ownership of my house, that means I don't care about my house? that's literally what you're saying - I must have a desire to die for my consent in order for that consent to be real...
    how about no. how about my consent exists whether my desire to die for it comes into play.
    4) ...what? what does you "giving a rat's ass about my possessions" have anything to do with what I said? how is that a comeback or argument to my comparison? are you actually even responding to me or are you trying to shuffle out of the conversation by looking like a daft mong? how sad. I didn't think you'd drive this conversation into this kind of embarrassing self-deprecative territory.

    So you agree you need wealth and connections glad to hear it. The people who hold the wealth and connections usually pick one of their own.
    what? no. when did I say that? I said "it helps". I explicitly CHALLENGED the word "need" you gimp. what would have satisfied an impression of me challenging the criterion "need" other than the sentence "wtf how do they *need* wealth and connections? explain? I never said it didn't help them but how do they "need" them?" political parties, which are not individuals, need wealth. poor people who join parties don't need wealth. they need qualifications, but not wealth.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Jess Phillips, though unbearable, is a living rebuke to the idea that you can only get into politics with money and connections. She's just some woman from Brum. Not wealthy, not a career politician. Just some person.

    Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    1) just because it happens it doesn't mean it is a good metric of consent :| total red herring
    2) I am talking about the EXACT SAME PRINCIPLES - rape, theft and force all revolves around the SAME PRINCIPLE - COERCION. coercion negates consent! how does the principle not transfer between all these cases!? "uhhh this case is different because it's different" - why is it different? how is it a different form of logic being used to justify it or not? we're talking about the exact same conceptions between both these examples
    3) but the majority do care. they just don't care enough to die for it. people are allowed to care about things or consent (or not) to things without dying, dude. ****ing hell. so if I'm not willing to die for, say, the ownership of my house, that means I don't care about my house? that's literally what you're saying - I must have a desire to die for my consent in order for that consent to be real...
    how about no. how about my consent exists whether my desire to die for it comes into play.
    4) ...what? what does you "giving a rat's ass about my possessions" have anything to do with what I said? how is that a comeback or argument to my comparison? are you actually even responding to me or are you trying to shuffle out of the conversation by looking like a daft mong? how sad. I didn't think you'd drive this conversation into this kind of embarrassing self-deprecative territory.



    what? no. when did I say that? I said "it helps". I explicitly CHALLENGED the word "need" you gimp. what would have satisfied an impression of me challenging the criterion "need" other than the sentence "wtf how do they *need* wealth and connections? explain? I never said it didn't help them but how do they "need" them?" political parties, which are not individuals, need wealth. poor people who join parties don't need wealth. they need qualifications, but not wealth.
    They give their conset because the vast majority of people don't give enough of a **** that they need to be coercioned into anything. What you think dictators can just assume power by forcing everyone to bow down at gunpoint and the vast oppresed masses are just too scared to oppose them? That's stupid as dictatorships run like that fall very very quickly. How are you not getting my example there? The majority of the population doesn't give a monkeys about the 'house', yes some people will care but the majority won't. Long run dictatorships can't last withoit the support of the citizens who the hell do you think makes up the army, the police force, the civil service of said dictatorship? I'm shuffling out of nothing you just don't seem to understand how a bloody government fuctions. It is pretty much a requirement as shown by literally every democracy and who gets into positions of power. If you're going to insult me by calling me a 'mong' then you can **** off.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demaistre)
    They give their conset because the vast majority of people don't give enough of a **** that they need to be coercioned into anything.
    ...but they *are* being coerced. that's what a dictatorship is about.

    What you think dictators can just assume power by forcing everyone to bow down at gunpoint and the vast oppresed masses are just too scared to oppose them? That's stupid as dictatorships run like that fall very very quickly.
    ...people don't like guns. guns kill people. people don't like being killed. people don't like being killed more than they don't like being dictated to. but does this mean that they *like* being dictated to just because they dislike being killed more? you're subjectivising this issue to this degree and it's really nonsensical. you can't say people consent to something purely because other things are less desirable. it's like saying "you must choose between these or I'll torture you to death: would you rather jump into a fire or into a pool of acid? the fire? oh, so that means you consent to being burnt!" - do you realise that this is all IN RELATION to another option? that's independent of the reality that is "I don't consent to either of them - I'm only having to choose between to two because I have no other choice, because I'll be killed otherwise". if I didn't have a gun to my head, I'd STILL, equally, not consent to either of them. in reality, I am simply choosing the one I give the LEAST AMOUNT OF RESISTANCE TO. it's a matter of weighing up the pros and cons. but pros vs cons doesn't = consent. it's DESPITE the lack of consent. it's to avoid the worst possible scenario that somebody is FORCING UPON YOU.

    How are you not getting my example there? The majority of the population doesn't give a monkeys about the 'house', yes some people will care but the majority won't.
    wut
    who said they cared specifically about my house?
    why are you interpreting my comparison in such a personal way?!
    are you going to say people don't care if I'm raped next simply because I used rape as a comparison to the coercion of dictation?!

    Long run dictatorships can't last withoit the support of the citizens who the hell do you think makes up the army, the police force, the civil service of said dictatorship? I'm shuffling out of nothing you just don't seem to understand how a bloody government fuctions. It is pretty much a requirement as shown by literally every democracy and who gets into positions of power. If you're going to insult me by calling me a 'mong' then you can **** off.
    no. it's not support. it's endorsing the option of "living" over "dying". which requires the appearance of support. if you don't support a dictator, you ****ing die, or are imprisoned/beaten. hence, you give your support because you "support" living over being a political prisoner, or political murder victim
    and wow, you're insulted by such a tame insult like "mong"? I was trying to be light on you. but whatever, if you think offence is an argument I couldn't give a **** that you're too stupid to carry this further. this is all stemming from the fact that you accidentally said something stupid and now you're having to do this strange mental gymnastics to make yourself appear to make sense. and it's not working. you're saying that people in dictatorships consent to their own dictation. well define dictation to me in a manner that is consistent with consent. you can't, can you. exactly. so don't tell me off for describing you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    ...but they *are* being coerced. that's what a dictatorship is about.



    ...people don't like guns. guns kill people. people don't like being killed. people don't like being killed more than they don't like being dictated to. but does this mean that they *like* being dictated to just because they dislike being killed more? you're subjectivising this issue to this degree and it's really nonsensical. you can't say people consent to something purely because other things are less desirable. it's like saying "you must choose between these or I'll torture you to death: would you rather jump into a fire or into a pool of acid? the fire? oh, so that means you consent to being burnt!" - do you realise that this is all IN RELATION to another option? that's independent of the reality that is "I don't consent to either of them - I'm only having to choose between to two because I have no other choice, because I'll be killed otherwise". if I didn't have a gun to my head, I'd STILL, equally, not consent to either of them. in reality, I am simply choosing the one I give the LEAST AMOUNT OF RESISTANCE TO. it's a matter of weighing up the pros and cons. but pros vs cons doesn't = consent. it's DESPITE the lack of consent. it's to avoid the worst possible scenario that somebody is FORCING UPON YOU.



    wut
    who said they cared specifically about my house?
    why are you interpreting my comparison in such a personal way?!
    are you going to say people don't care if I'm raped next simply because I used rape as a comparison to the coercion of dictation?!



    no. it's not support. it's endorsing the option of "living" over "dying". which requires the appearance of support. if you don't support a dictator, you ****ing die, or are imprisoned/beaten. hence, you give your support because you "support" living over being a political prisoner, or political murder victim
    and wow, you're insulted by such a tame insult like "mong"? I was trying to be light on you. but whatever, if you think offence is an argument I couldn't give a **** that you're too stupid to carry this further. this is all stemming from the fact that you accidentally said something stupid and now you're having to do this strange mental gymnastics to make yourself appear to make sense. and it's not working. you're saying that people in dictatorships consent to their own dictation. well define dictation to me in a manner that is consistent with consent. you can't, can you. exactly. so don't tell me off for describing you.
    You're speaking from a bias viewpoint as you're automatically assuming the dictators will be terrible thus the people are only choosing something because it's the least **** and are being forced to. Any political ruler can only rule with the consent or apathy of the MAJORITY of their citizens, when they lose that support they are overthrow. There are people who opppose it and need coercion but they are the minority, the majority whether actively or passivly consents, that might be in the form of supporting the regime or just not caring who rules over them. It doesn't matter whose bloody house it is, it was just an example. I'm too stupid? You're the pleb who doesn't understand how dictatorships rise to power, work and function. 'wow you're insulted by my insult who would have thought?' You're the one who started the ad hominems.

    You keep replying so you obviously do give a ****, also please don't project the fact you think you said something stupid onto me thanks.
 
 
 
  • 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.