When is the government not killing people? Watch

Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
People here and on the Left generally seem to believe that this government is literally responsible for murder: whether it’s due to the cuts in the NHS or benefit freezes or virtually any other policy. Although some believe that the government actually intend for this to happen most seem to think, contrary to most traditional notions of justice that the intent of the person doesn’t really matter at all. That being the case I’d like to give some scenarios and for people on the left to tell me if the government or governing body is responsible in effect for murdering or harming these people.

1: A local council decides to allocate money to a new community centre rather than fixing the roads. Dave dies in a traffic accident caused by going over a pothole at a bad time.

2: A new government rolls out a new higher minimum wage of £12 an hour. A small independent nursery lays off one of it’s newest employees Becky as they struggle to make the business profitable.
Becky, unable to find a new job later kills herself.

3: the government rolls out greater rights and funding for Transexuals and liberalise laws regarding child transitioning under the logic that transitioning is easier pre puberty - more people transition but the suicide rate amongst post - op individuals remains very high.

4: An evil dictator is systematically slaughtering his own people. You could intervene and save millions of lives at comparatively little expense to yourself. If you choose not to are you responsible for the civilians that could have been saved? (I don’t think it matters, but for sake of argument let’s assune this is somewhere that has never been colonised)

5: there is a huge influx of migration trying to get to Europe sailing on unsafe rafts. If they are let in more and more will come and more will also die attempting the journey. (Again I don’t think it matters but let’s assume it’s from a non colonised or interfered with country- if you think it makes a difference then state so)

6: In an attempt to deter this one small impoverished European country laces its harbour with mines that are clearly visible and with multiple warnings. This generally works but occasionally one boat will occasionally be blown to smithereens.

7: one of the countries has accepted some 10000 refugees. Of these 1% (100) become or already are affiliated with a terrorist organisations and later govon to commit a mass atrocity killing 300 civilians.

8: every year roughly 1200 people are killed by traffic collisions. This could be lowered massively if the government lowered the national speed limit to 35 mph

9: Due to a government imposed quota of some description a less qualified candidate got a job over a more qualified candidate in a large IT firm. The newly hired person goes on to make a huge blunder that bankrupts the company.

10: A new compulsory government vaccine has been contaminated with HIV by a mentally unstable doctor, up to ten thousand elderly patients were later reported as infected.


Are all/ any of these the responsibility of the government if so which and why?
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
(Original post by Davij038)
People here and on the Left generally seem to believe that this government is literally responsible for murder:
Social murder. Not just the government. Society in general.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Murder is, in reality, a concept that cannot exist independently of law. If something is not legally murder, then there is of course no other reason for using the term.

Still, in terms of stupid arguments being made online, this is far from the most logically fallacious. The current UK Government, of course, is spending more on the NHS and more on disability benefits than any government in the country's history ever has before, not to mention poverty being at a pretty low level.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Social murder. Not just the government. Society in general.
If society is committing social murder is society also committing white genocide as the birth rates are decreasing and the effects of mass immigration.

If not why not?
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by L i b)
Murder is, in reality, a concept that cannot exist independently of law. If something is not legally murder, then there is of course no other reason for using the term.

Still, in terms of stupid arguments being made online, this is far from the most logically fallacious. The current UK Government, of course, is spending more on the NHS and more on disability benefits than any government in the country's history ever has before, not to mention poverty being at a pretty low level.
To which my 16 year old Marxist self would say that is ‘the law which forbids rich as well as poor from sleeping under toll bridges etc...’

The corbynites don’t really view any government in the uk’s history, save perhaps Attlees as legitimate because above.
0
reply
username3672344
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Davij038)
People here and on the Left generally seem to believe that this government is literally responsible for murder: whether it’s due to the cuts in the NHS or benefit freezes or virtually any other policy. Although some believe that the government actually intend for this to happen most seem to think, contrary to most traditional notions of justice that the intent of the person doesn’t really matter at all. That being the case I’d like to give some scenarios and for people on the left to tell me if the government or governing body is responsible in effect for murdering or harming these people.

1: A local council decides to allocate money to a new community centre rather than fixing the roads. Dave dies in a traffic accident caused by going over a pothole at a bad time.

2: A new government rolls out a new higher minimum wage of £12 an hour. A small independent nursery lays off one of it’s newest employees Becky as they struggle to make the business profitable.
Becky, unable to find a new job later kills herself.

3: the government rolls out greater rights and funding for Transexuals and liberalise laws regarding child transitioning under the logic that transitioning is easier pre puberty - more people transition but the suicide rate amongst post - op individuals remains very high.

4: An evil dictator is systematically slaughtering his own people. You could intervene and save millions of lives at comparatively little expense to yourself. If you choose not to are you responsible for the civilians that could have been saved? (I don’t think it matters, but for sake of argument let’s assune this is somewhere that has never been colonised)

5: there is a huge influx of migration trying to get to Europe sailing on unsafe rafts. If they are let in more and more will come and more will also die attempting the journey. (Again I don’t think it matters but let’s assume it’s from a non colonised or interfered with country- if you think it makes a difference then state so)

6: In an attempt to deter this one small impoverished European country laces its harbour with mines that are clearly visible and with multiple warnings. This generally works but occasionally one boat will occasionally be blown to smithereens.

7: one of the countries has accepted some 10000 refugees. Of these 1% (100) become or already are affiliated with a terrorist organisations and later govon to commit a mass atrocity killing 300 civilians.

8: every year roughly 1200 people are killed by traffic collisions. This could be lowered massively if the government lowered the national speed limit to 35 mph

9: Due to a government imposed quota of some description a less qualified candidate got a job over a more qualified candidate in a large IT firm. The newly hired person goes on to make a huge blunder that bankrupts the company.

10: A new compulsory government vaccine has been contaminated with HIV by a mentally unstable doctor, up to ten thousand elderly patients were later reported as infected.


Are all/ any of these the responsibility of the government if so which and why?
Yawn.

Every post of yours on here seems to be a stereotypical alt right rant against the 'left', 'social Marxism' and the elites. Packed full of straw men too, arguing against points that people haven't made.
0
reply
username3672344
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by Davij038)

The corbynites don’t really view any government in the uk’s history, save perhaps Attlees as legitimate because above.
Oh do stop talking out your arse.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Davij038)
People here and on the Left generally seem to believe that this government is literally responsible for murder: whether it’s due to the cuts in the NHS or benefit freezes or virtually any other policy. Although some believe that the government actually intend for this to happen most seem to think, contrary to most traditional notions of justice that the intent of the person doesn’t really matter at all. That being the case I’d like to give some scenarios and for people on the left to tell me if the government or governing body is responsible in effect for murdering or harming these people.

1: A local council decides to allocate money to a new community centre rather than fixing the roads. Dave dies in a traffic accident caused by going over a pothole at a bad time.

2: A new government rolls out a new higher minimum wage of £12 an hour. A small independent nursery lays off one of it’s newest employees Becky as they struggle to make the business profitable.
Becky, unable to find a new job later kills herself.

3: the government rolls out greater rights and funding for Transexuals and liberalise laws regarding child transitioning under the logic that transitioning is easier pre puberty - more people transition but the suicide rate amongst post - op individuals remains very high.

4: An evil dictator is systematically slaughtering his own people. You could intervene and save millions of lives at comparatively little expense to yourself. If you choose not to are you responsible for the civilians that could have been saved? (I don’t think it matters, but for sake of argument let’s assune this is somewhere that has never been colonised)

5: there is a huge influx of migration trying to get to Europe sailing on unsafe rafts. If they are let in more and more will come and more will also die attempting the journey. (Again I don’t think it matters but let’s assume it’s from a non colonised or interfered with country- if you think it makes a difference then state so)

6: In an attempt to deter this one small impoverished European country laces its harbour with mines that are clearly visible and with multiple warnings. This generally works but occasionally one boat will occasionally be blown to smithereens.

7: one of the countries has accepted some 10000 refugees. Of these 1% (100) become or already are affiliated with a terrorist organisations and later govon to commit a mass atrocity killing 300 civilians.

8: every year roughly 1200 people are killed by traffic collisions. This could be lowered massively if the government lowered the national speed limit to 35 mph

9: Due to a government imposed quota of some description a less qualified candidate got a job over a more qualified candidate in a large IT firm. The newly hired person goes on to make a huge blunder that bankrupts the company.

10: A new compulsory government vaccine has been contaminated with HIV by a mentally unstable doctor, up to ten thousand elderly patients were later reported as infected.


Are all/ any of these the responsibility of the government if so which and why?
The essential problem of the left is that everything is an existential crisis. It's the rhetoric that is used to motivate people. The drawback of this is that when the doomsday predictions don't come true, it's another cry of wolf to add to a growing list, and people stop listening.

You don't hear the centre saying that we are going to die, be it from the environment, social policy, the impending destruction of the NHS and so on.

Grenfell was a classic case. There were people like Lammy and Lily Allen publicly wishing for more death and refusing to believe in what should have been "positive" (or rather "less negative") news.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by DeBruyne18)
Yawn.

Every post of yours on here seems to be a stereotypical alt right rant against the 'left', 'social Marxism' and the elites. Packed full of straw men too, arguing against points that people haven't made.
And every post you make is just ad hominem. If my posts are really as dumb as you think, it should be pretty easy to beat me in debate shouldn’t it?

Also yeah the alt right rail against Marxism the same way the left rails against capitalism and inequality...so what?
0
reply
username3672344
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by Davij038)
And every post you make is just ad hominem. If my posts are really as dumb as you think, it should be pretty easy to beat me in debate shouldn’t it?

Also yeah the alt right rail against Marxism the same way the left rails against capitalism and inequality...so what?
You have a typical tendency to just using the word 'left', as if every left wing person thinks exactly the same on every issue. There are all sorts of different groups and ideologies within the vague definition of the 'left' yet you continuosly broad brush them.

You also seem to regularly imply that there's something sinister about being left wing or a Labour voter, or that such voters are stupid or immature.

I vote Labour because having analysed the various parties, it's the one that best represents me and I believe they would be much better for the country than the Tories. You are free to disagree but stop trying to tell me that I must have all these opinions that I don't, like accusing me of saying whites are to blame for everything or that the tories murder everyone. I haven't said nor thought either.

Largely because Marxism is completely irrelevant and only exists in the minds of the alt right. I have never heard anyone else go on about it.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by DeBruyne18)
You have a typical tendency to just using the word 'left', as if every left wing person thinks exactly the same on every issue. There are all sorts of different groups and ideologies within the vague definition of the 'left' yet you continuosly broad brush them.


You also seem to regularly imply that there's something sinister about being left wing or a Labour voter, or that such voters are stupid or immature.

I vote Labour because having analysed the various parties, it's the one that best represents me and I believe they would be much better for the country than the Tories. You are free to disagree but stop trying to tell me that I must have all these opinions that I don't, like accusing me of saying whites are to blame for everything or that the tories murder everyone. I haven't said nor thought either.

Largely because Marxism is completely irrelevant and only exists in the minds of the alt right. I have never heard anyone else go on about it.
Yes, obviously there is a lot of Nuance to both the left and right but generally people on the left DO hold certain things in common whether it’s George Galloway or Tony Blair- even though they are radically different in many ways. When I say Left it is generally an economically socialist, socially liberal and internationalist (or globalist) perspective- that is generally very well represented in the Corbyn clique. I don’t see why I need to spend a paragraph defining exactly who I’m railing against when generalisations are perfectly excepted. If you are moaning about right wingers not wanting to raise the minimum wage you don’t need to clarify exactly which group you are on about.

As for your second point. No I do t think labour voters are stupid- I don’t think they have generally thought hard about why they think the way they do (Sure so do some Tories) but unlike these Tory voters the left is pretty intolerant to those with different views (eg see T-shirts saying ‘never kissed a tory’ etc).

You may not have thought those thoughts but a lot of people in the Labour Party do and that this is relevant.

As for Marxism being irrelevant and existing only in the minds of the alt right.
You do realise labours shadow chancellor is a self declared Marxist?

It’s stuff like this why I think I’m somewhat justified in thinking a lot of labour voters are naive or disingenuous as either you didn’t know or did know but wanted to play down that fact.
0
reply
username3672344
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
Utter drivel, the lot of it. Rarely can I respond to a post on this forum and quite honestly refute every sentence within it.

Oh where to start...

(Original post by Davij038)
Yes, obviously there is a lot of Nuance to both the left and right but generally people on the left DO hold certain things in common whether it’s George Galloway or Tony Blair- even though they are radically different in many ways. When I say Left it is generally an economically socialist, socially liberal and internationalist (or globalist) perspective- that is generally very well represented in the Corbyn clique. I don’t see why I need to spend a paragraph defining exactly who I’m railing against when generalisations are perfectly excepted. If you are moaning about right wingers not wanting to raise the minimum wage you don’t need to clarify exactly which group you are on about.
Well actually you do need to define it. Sure there are some broad similarities that people on the left have. But there are also broad similarities that people on the left will have with the right too. Blair and John Major for example, will have a lot more in common than Blair and Corbyn or Major and Rees Mogg do. Trying to divide everyone neatly as either left or right is overly simplistic at best.

You seem to take examples of a handful of people and make out they are representative of millions upon millions. I can do that too. I can say Katie Hopkins and Alex Jones are representative of the right. Or I could say that Nick Griffin represents the right. Or I could say that the Daily Mail, when they call judges 'enemies of the people' represent the right. But I don't, because the right, like the left is a very broad church with all sorts of different ideologies and groups.

Grouping them all together as if they all think and do the same is stupid, yet you continuously do so. Stop referring to 'the left' as if they are one body and one voice. Politics and people do not work like that.

Labour's support comprises all sorts of groups. Public sector workers, graduates in professional roles, students, working class northern towns, socialists, social democrats, third way-ers, environmentalists etc. So stop broad brushing.

As for your second point. No I do t think labour voters are stupid- I don’t think they have generally thought hard about why they think the way they do (Sure so do some Tories) but unlike these Tory voters the left is pretty intolerant to those with different views (eg see T-shirts saying ‘never kissed a tory’ etc).
So Labour voters aren't stupid, they just don't think? Well that clears that one up doesn't... How non-patronizing and smarmy.

Oh come on. The T-shirt is a joke, stop being...'triggered'. As for 'the right' being tolerant? You mean like those who sent death threats to remain mps the other week? Or those who sent racist abuse to Diane Abbot? Or those who accuse those on 'the left' as being terrorist lovers? Or the Daily Mail and other such media outlets who called our judges 'enemies of the people'?

Yep, real tolerant bunch the lot of them. Not like those scary folk wearing t-shirts.

You may not have thought those thoughts but a lot of people in the Labour Party do and that this is relevant.
Except they don't and just because you want to believe something, it doesn't make it so.

As for Marxism being irrelevant and existing only in the minds of the alt right.
You do realise labours shadow chancellor is a self declared Marxist?

It’s stuff like this why I think I’m somewhat justified in thinking a lot of labour voters are naive or disingenuous as either you didn’t know or did know but wanted to play down that fact.
Yawn.

You are absolutely obsessed with Marx and have fallen for the invention of 'social Marxism' which doesn't exist in any meaningful context. It's usually alt-right folk trying to blame everyone else for their lack of success.

If there's a post about 'Marx' on here, you can guarantee its from an alt-right nutjob who spends most of their time shouting about 'social marxism' and believes in all sorts of conspiracy theories.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by DeBruyne18)
Utter drivel, the lot of it. Rarely can I respond to a post on this forum and quite honestly refute every sentence within it.

Oh where to start...



Well actually you do need to define it. Sure there are some broad similarities that people on the left have. But there are also broad similarities that people on the left will have with the right too. Blair and John Major for example, will have a lot more in common than Blair and Corbyn or Major and Rees Mogg do. Trying to divide everyone neatly as either left or right is overly simplistic at best.

You seem to take examples of a handful of people and make out they are representative of millions upon millions. I can do that too. I can say Katie Hopkins and Alex Jones are representative of the right. Or I could say that Nick Griffin represents the right. Or I could say that the Daily Mail, when they call judges 'enemies of the people' represent the right. But I don't, because the right, like the left is a very broad church with all sorts of different ideologies and groups.

Grouping them all together as if they all think and do the same is stupid, yet you continuously do so. Stop referring to 'the left' as if they are one body and one voice. Politics and people do not work like that.

Labour's support comprises all sorts of groups. Public sector workers, graduates in professional roles, students, working class northern towns, socialists, social democrats, third way-ers, environmentalists etc. So stop broad brushing.



So Labour voters aren't stupid, they just don't think? Well that clears that one up doesn't... How non-patronizing and smarmy.

Oh come on. The T-shirt is a joke, stop being...'triggered'. As for 'the right' being tolerant? You mean like those who sent death threats to remain mps the other week? Or those who sent racist abuse to Diane Abbot? Or those who accuse those on 'the left' as being terrorist lovers? Or the Daily Mail and other such media outlets who called our judges 'enemies of the people'?

Yep, real tolerant bunch the lot of them. Not like those scary folk wearing t-shirts.



Except they don't and just because you want to believe something, it doesn't make it so.


Yawn.

You are absolutely obsessed with Marx and have fallen for the invention of 'social Marxism' which doesn't exist in any meaningful context. It's usually alt-right folk trying to blame everyone else for their lack of success.

If there's a post about 'Marx' on here, you can guarantee its from an alt-right nutjob who spends most of their time shouting about 'social marxism' and believes in all sorts of conspiracy theories.
Ok let me clarify my terms then. By left and right I mean Culturally where there is I think a dividing line.

That is:

Left: those happy with the status quo or/ and wish to make it more radical. This ranges from liberal conservatives such as Justine Greening to Marxists like John McDonnel

Right- those critical of the status quo or/and wish to make it more reactionary snd thus ranges from classical liberals like Nigel Farage to White Nationalists such as Nick Griffin


So In this sense actually yes, Alex Jones, Hopkins et al are indicative of the right and Corbyn to Major are indicative of the left in this regard.

You could argue reasonably that some people will just follow the zeitgeist and don’t really care, I think David Cameron might be a good example of that.

*** There is actually a difference I think between being dumb and not being critical or reflective of your own biases and beliefs. Plenty of people no doubt far smarter than me say haven’t really thought about why they have the political beliefs they do- mainly because politics doesn’t interest them. A lot of these people work in the sciences for instance. ***

There are zealots on both sides for sure **^

Well actually they do and they willingly say it , are they lying? I could post more examples but you seem to struggle with the fact that McDonnell who has openly declared himself to be a Marxist inspired by Lenin and Trotsky. Look here he is saying that:

http://www.pulsemedia-online.co.uk/j...-am-a-marxist/

Or am I imagining things?
0
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by Davij038)
If society is committing social murder is society also committing white genocide as the birth rates are decreasing and the effects of mass immigration.

If not why not?
Because it is anathema to the cult of "progressivism".
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by TCA2b)
He's a jumped up little marxoid. Expect verbal diarrhoea when engaging this sort.
Well aware, but I’m a natural optimist fam
0
reply
username3672344
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
You've somehow managed to insert even more bizarreness into this post than your last.

(Original post by Davij038)
Ok let me clarify my terms then. By left and right I mean Culturally where there is I think a dividing line.

That is:

Left: those happy with the status quo or/ and wish to make it more radical. This ranges from liberal conservatives such as Justine Greening to Marxists like John McDonnel

Right- those critical of the status quo or/and wish to make it more reactionary snd thus ranges from classical liberals like Nigel Farage to White Nationalists such as Nick Griffin
The left like the status quo? Justine Greening is a leftist? Nigel Farage is a classical liberal? I'll have some of what you're smoking please. You've decided to take completely arbitrary definitions of right and left, based on little substance. You've then decided to take the actions of a handful of people and use them to group together millions upon millions of people with radically different opinions, as if they were one body.

Again, Justine Greening left wing? I'm guessing that Corbyn must be a hardcore neoliberal if we're going off your logic.

So In this sense actually yes, Alex Jones, Hopkins et al are indicative of the right and Corbyn to Major are indicative of the left in this regard.
John Major left wing?

Words fail me at this point.



*** There is actually a difference I think between being dumb and not being critical or reflective of your own biases and beliefs. Plenty of people no doubt far smarter than me say haven’t really thought about why they have the political beliefs they do- mainly because politics doesn’t interest them. A lot of these people work in the sciences for instance. ***

There are zealots on both sides for sure **^
Of course, the left aren't stupid, they just don't think?

If only we could all be as intelligent and as thoughtful of you. It's strange how Labour voters all don't think and are naive, but you are so much more mature. How noble.

Congratulations.

Well actually they do and they willingly say it , are they lying? I could post more examples but you seem to struggle with the fact that McDonnell who has openly declared himself to be a Marxist inspired by Lenin and Trotsky. Look here he is saying that:

http://www.pulsemedia-online.co.uk/j...-am-a-marxist/

Or am I imagining things?
Yawn, again.

McDonnel, unsurprisingly likes Marx's socio-economic analysis of class relations when he was specifically asked about it. As did Christopher Hitchens and other right wing figures. Yet that's not even the 'Social Marxism' that the alt right obsess over.

Yet the alt right folk have decided to invent 'social marxism' and position themselves strongly against it when it doesn't even exist in reality. There is no such thing as 'social marxism'.

And labelling anyone who you disagree with as a Marxist, says more about you than those you are debating with.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by DeBruyne18)
The left like the status quo? Justine Greening is a leftist? Nigel Farage is a classical liberal? I'll have some of what you're smoking please. You've decided to take completely arbitrary definitions of right and left, based on little substance. You've then decided to take the actions of a handful of people and use them to group together millions upon millions of people with radically different opinions, as if they were one body.

Again, Justine Greening left wing? I'm guessing that Corbyn must be a hardcore neoliberal if we're going off your logic.

John Major left wing?

Words fail me at this point.

Of course, the left aren't stupid, they just don't think?

If only we could all be as intelligent and as thoughtful of you. It's strange how Labour voters all don't think and are naive, but you are so much more mature. How noble.

Congratulations.



Yawn, again.

McDonnel, unsurprisingly likes Marx's socio-economic analysis of class relations when he was specifically asked about it. As did Christopher Hitchens and other right wing figures. Yet that's not even the 'Social Marxism' that the alt right obsess over.

Yet the alt right folk have decided to invent 'social marxism' and position themselves strongly against it when it doesn't even exist in reality. There is no such thing as 'social marxism'.

And labelling anyone who you disagree with as a Marxist, says more about you than those you are debating with.
Justine Greening supports children being able to change genders and enshrining this in law. Does that in anyway sound conservative to you?

Most ‘conservative’ MPs are are fine with current levels of immigration- some even think it should be higher. Again not conservative.



As for the McDonnel question you’re either being deliberately evasive or just thick. He has said he is a Marxist he agrees with Marx.., therefore it seems logical that he is a Marxist.


...and yeah Christopher Hitchens who I admire a lot as it happens was a Marxist.
It’s really not difficult to grasp.
0
reply
Xopher_
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by Davij038)
8: every year roughly 1200 people are killed by traffic collisions. This could be lowered massively if the government lowered the national speed limit to 35 mph
Are you serious? Would you honestly be a fan of travelling at 35mph from London to Scotland? The amount of time saved travelling at 60/70mph divided by the 1200 people dying yearly just doesn't make any sense whatsoever as to why they'd lower it. People cause accidents, not the government. I presume that due to the lower speed limits, congestion would increase, therefore increasing emissions drastically.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by Xopher_)
Are you serious? Would you honestly be a fan of travelling at 35mph from London to Scotland? The amount of time saved travelling at 60/70mph divided by the 1200 people dying yearly just doesn't make any sense whatsoever as to why they'd lower it. People cause accidents, not the government. I presume that due to the lower speed limits, congestion would increase, therefore increasing emissions drastically.
I don’t think you understood the point if my question but yeah you’re right and no I don’t think that.

(The point is that if the government did lower the speed limit it would ‘save lives’ but there would be a plethora of negatives to go with it!)
1
reply
username3672344
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by Davij038)
Justine Greening supports children being able to change genders and enshrining this in law. Does that in anyway sound conservative to you?

Most ‘conservative’ MPs are are fine with current levels of immigration- some even think it should be higher. Again not conservative.
Learn the difference between liberals and leftists.
Some leftists are liberals and some liberals are leftists. Nick Clegg is liberal, he certainly is not left wing by any definition of the word.

Justine Greening also voted for all sorts of benefit cuts and contracting public services out to private contractors. Does that sound leftist to you? Of course not.

If you're going to start calling the conservative party left wing, you are simply a contrarian, trying to be controversial for the sake of it. Don't mistake contrarianism for intellect.



As for the McDonnel question you’re either being deliberately evasive or just thick. He has said he is a Marxist he agrees with Marx.., therefore it seems logical that he is a Marxist.


...and yeah Christopher Hitchens who I admire a lot as it happens was a Marxist.
It’s really not difficult to grasp.
Marxism was about socio-economic theories. Not feminism, or political correctness, which is what the alt right goes on about when they complain about 'social marxism'.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (99)
24.26%
No (309)
75.74%

Watched Threads

View All