Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I think a better comparison would be if someone got really drunk and then ran over someone. Sure, they weren't meaning too but ultimately is that a whole lot better than if you had intended to? Is being reckless to the point you are putting people at risk that much better?
    Youre avoiding the question and shifting the goal posts. Stop and answer the question. You lefties always obfuscate like this.


    But fine, yes being drunk and accidentally hitting someone is morally better than deliberately targeting someone although not as morally innocent as someone who accidentally hit them through no reasonable fault of their own.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Your avoiding the question and shifting the goal posts. Stop and answer the question. You lefties always obfuscate like this.


    But fine, yes being drunk and accidentally hitting someone is morally better than deliberately targeting someone although not as morally innocent as someone who accidentally hit them through no reasonable fault of their own.
    I'm not avoiding any question. I'm making the point that from the victim's angle if makes no difference. If someone ends up homeless because their benefits are taken away, it's not going to matter to them while they're freezing to death whether or not it was the intention of the Tories is it?

    If the fit to work schemes are declaring seriously ill people fit to work (as they have been) then again, it matters little to them whether that was the intention.

    So no, I don't think intention matters when your policies have such an impact.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I'm not avoiding any question. I'm making the point that from the victim's angle if makes no difference. If someone ends up homeless because their benefits are taken away, it's not going to matter to them while they're freezing to death whether or not it was the intention of the Tories is it?

    If the fit to work schemes are declaring seriously ill people fit to work (as they have been) then again, it matters little to them whether that was the intention.

    So no, I don't think intention matters when your policies have such an impact.
    You are avoiding my question.


    For the last time, I will answer yours until you extend the courtesy otherwise I shall have to assume that as a presumably rational person you can see there is a clear moral difference between the 2.

    As per your example re sanctions.

    It matters for a number of reasons. The largest being the concern of justice: if intentions don’t matter then the state is effectively trying to kill him. This is why McDonnel et al tend to be in favour of terrorists because they are engaging in a justified war against an oppressive state. Morally he has a duty to seek redress from the wrongs inflicted on him.

    Another example.

    A minority applies for a job for 2 diffeeent companies. Both reject him. One does it because they hate that minority. The other does it because they don’t have any vacancies. By your logic, he should hate both equally.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    I think a better comparison would be if someone got really drunk and then ran over someone. Sure, they weren't meaning too but ultimately is that a whole lot better than if you had intended to? Is being reckless to the point you are putting people at risk that much better?

    Actually it's more like if you have a decently functioning welfare system and then do everything you can to **** it up despite the obvious fact that this will inevitably result in thousands of casualties. We shouldn't let these people cloud the debate with inane analogies. Just tell it like it is.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    You are avoiding my question.


    For the last time, I will answer yours until you extend the courtesy otherwise I shall have to assume that as a presumably rational person you can see there is a clear moral difference between the 2.

    As per your example re sanctions.

    It matters for a number of reasons. The largest being the concern of justice: if intentions don’t matter then the state is effectively trying to kill him. This is why McDonnel et al tend to be in favour of terrorists because they are engaging in a justified war against an oppressive state. Morally he has a duty to seek redress from the wrongs inflicted on him.

    Another example.

    A minority applies for a job for 2 diffeeent companies. Both reject him. One does it because they hate that minority. The other does it because they don’t have any vacancies. By your logic, he should hate both equally.
    What's your question?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    So why is the north east going to be hundreds of millions out of pocket this year if theirs a budget surplus? Cutting money from the poor and under privileged to either put it in their back pockets or dump it all in London and the south.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    oh yes momentum who love New Labour....
    They were right to run, which was at the time, a historically insignificant deficit. Our country's infrastructure needed upgrading. We needed new schools, roads, hospitals and general infrastructure. PFI was wrong, I'm glad you agree. The only problem was the financial crash. Had that not occurred we would not be talking about Labour's spending.

    Well momentum and new Labour are both overwhelming europhiles, so they want unelected European Commissioners to increasingly decide our future so in effect they want exactly the same thing. If Corbyn and McDonnell had stuck to their eurosceptic principles I would respect them and probably vote for them.


    You couldn't respond to any of my points about spending or the banking crisis, just repeated yourself as I predicted, so not much point continuing.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    What's your question?
    RE if you were hit by a driver, either A) who did it because he hates you or B) who did it because he lost control over his vehicle somehow, would you be equally angry with both of them and want both to serve the same amount of prison time.

    I have said that I would want A to go to jail but not B. Would you?
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bob072)
    Well momentum and new Labour are both overwhelming europhiles, so they want unelected European Commissioners to increasingly decide our future so in effect they want exactly the same thing. If Corbyn and McDonnell had stuck to their eurosceptic principles I would respect them and probably vote for them.


    You couldn't respond to any of my points about spending or the banking crisis, just repeated yourself as I predicted, so not much point continuing.
    Lol momentum aren't europhiles. I'm not even sure why you brought them up, or the EU.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Lol momentum aren't europhiles. I'm not even sure why you brought them up, or the EU.
    Actually, although Corbyn and his inner circle are all closest brexiters, the bulk of momentum membership are very pro EU.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    So if the economy is doing well (I know budget surplus is not everything but it is certainly good) "HURR DURR EVIL CONSERVATIVES SO BAD AT RUNNING A COUNTRY"

    If the economy is doing bad "HURR DURR EVIL CONSERVATIVES CANNOT EVEN GET A BUDGET SURPLUS THEY ARE SO BAD"
    This is only some people but is hilarious
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Austerity is no where near as respected in the economics community as the mainstream media and poeple like L i b let on. It's arguable a largely discredited position and those that do sing its praises are a minority.

    Just am example from a professor of economics who is a mainstream economist so you can be assured this isn't just hard left wingbattery or heterodox bias.

    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2...-when-our.html
    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2...ke-happen.html

    Austerity, by which I mean cutting public services and privatasing will not stop under the Tories as it is an ideological mission. The notion that it is neutral sound economics is just good politics to get the public to vote fot them. If "austerity" goes out of fashion and becomes a poltcial liability they will try and come up with another framing for and justfication of it.
    Keynesians tell us that public spending can promote growth coming out of a downturn. Yet of course, the UK managed to be the world's leading advanced economy in terms of growth in that period despite the policies you attack.

    The reality of it is that there was never actual "austerity", there was sensible, moderate spending - but spending that saw gradual reductions to get the UK back into a sensible position. Yet we were still spending billions more than we brought in until almost a decade after the last downturn.

    It would've been wrong to simply cut the deficit overnight. But what George Osborne did was responsible and paid dividends for the country.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/he...-a8057306.html
    https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2...mortality.html

    If it makes you sleep easier at night you can refuse to consdier it if you like. Actions have consequences, and so do economic policies. Maybe it was worth the sacrfice. But the least you can do is acknolegde those who died as a result as opposed to pretending they don't exist.
    I see you don't answer my question: exactly what spending envelope does not make us murderers in your eyes? An extra billion a year? An extra £10 billion? An extra £100 billion?

    Because public services cannot prevent every unfortunate incident from happening. You could perfectly cogently argue that spending more on one thing or another would lead to some people living longer. The Conservatives did that with the Cancer Drugs Fund: when they came into office, they spend far more than the normal QALY expenditure on new and orphan cancer drugs: the outcome did indeed help people, but (arguably) it was still a poor use of public funds.

    The point is that you've alienated yourself from mainstream politics with these sorts of lunatic claims. They're just there to be offensive and nothing more. I'm not even convinced you actually believe them.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Actually, although Corbyn and his inner circle are all closest brexiters, the bulk of momentum membership are very pro EU.
    I would disagree. The New Labour types and the Milibandite factions are very pro EU. Momentum are not as bothered about it.
    Yes most people in Momentum would be broadly pro EU on average but they're nowhere near as passionate about the EU as the likes of Umunna are. Love for the EU tends to be a centre left to liberal centre right phenomenon. To put it like this, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in Momentum as pro EU as Anna Soubry or John Major.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    So if the economy is doing well (I know budget surplus is not everything but it is certainly good) "HURR DURR EVIL CONSERVATIVES SO BAD AT RUNNING A COUNTRY"

    If the economy is doing bad "HURR DURR EVIL CONSERVATIVES CANNOT EVEN GET A BUDGET SURPLUS THEY ARE SO BAD"
    This is only some people but is hilarious
    There is no contradiction there.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    RE if you were hit by a driver, either A) who did it because he hates you or B) who did it because he lost control over his vehicle somehow, would you be equally angry with both of them and want both to serve the same amount of prison time.

    I have said that I would want A to go to jail but not B. Would you?
    Well no but I don't get why we are using this analogy rather than using the actual topic at hand.
    If I was made homeless I wouldn't care whether it was the intention of them or not.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeBruyne18)
    Well no but I don't get why we are using this analogy rather than using the actual topic at hand.
    If I was made homeless I wouldn't care whether it was the intention of them or not.
    Dealing in hypotheticals here but I think you would care whether it was a deliberate policy to make you homeless or not.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Dealing in hypotheticals here but I think you would care whether it was a deliberate policy to make you homeless or not.
    I really doubt I would. While I 2as sitting there starving and freezing, I would hardly be comforted by knowing it was not their intention.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bob072)
    Well momentum and new Labour are both overwhelming europhiles, so they want unelected European Commissioners to increasingly decide our future so in effect they want exactly the same thing. If Corbyn and McDonnell had stuck to their eurosceptic principles I would respect them and probably vote for them.


    You couldn't respond to any of my points about spending or the banking crisis, just repeated yourself as I predicted, so not much point continuing.
    Everything is going to be much better when we are ruled by unelected bureaucrats in Whitehall rather than unelected bereaucrats in Brussels...

    Ignoring any economic benefit for a second a budget surplus is a political hand grenade with no pin.

    The government is esse totally going to be sitting on a big pile of cash, refusing to spend it. How well do you think that is going to play to the public when the NHS needs investment, when schools, education, local government, the military are all desperately asking for more investment?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    Everything is going to be much better when we are ruled by unelected bureaucrats in Whitehall rather than unelected bereaucrats in Brussels...

    Ignoring any economic benefit for a second a budget surplus is a political hand grenade with no pin.

    The government is esse totally going to be sitting on a big pile of cash, refusing to spend it. How well do you think that is going to play to the public when the NHS needs investment, when schools, education, local government, the military are all desperately asking for more investment?

    And elected politicians tell the civil service what to do. Personally I would like reform of the electoral system, change it to AV+ which the Labour government refused to do, and have more direct democracy.


    You do realise we have a national debt of nearly £2 trillion? And each year £40 billion is spent paying interest to rich investors (at a time interest rates are low).

    If we continually run a deficit as you want, we will never make progress at paying it off and investors will lose confidence so we won't be able to borrow any money to invest in the NHS, education, military.

    It's kind of like using all your firewood at the start of winter, it feels great for us in the present but the future generation will pay the price.
 
 
 

2,061

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.