Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist' Watch

This discussion is closed.
Seven_Three
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1901
Report 9 years ago
#1901
(Original post by Adorno)
Race does not exist. The concept of race emerged from prejudice in ages past. If you wish to absolve yourself of your digusting views towards people who do not look like you, then fine. Do it on somebody else's watch.

You've heard of No Platform right? Well, consider it invoked.
And the concept of bourgeois emerged from prejudice in ages past.

Ha ha aww diddums. Who is absolving themselves of their views? At least I can defend my ideas. I dunno maybe the Socialist party doesn't think having ideas that make any sort of sense really matters. gg
0
LtCommanderData
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1902
Report 9 years ago
#1902
(Original post by Adorno)
Being prejudicial towards the rich bothers most people a lot less than being prejudicial to an entire group of people on the singular basis of their skin colour.
Besides, skin colour gives no indication of attitude, personality etc.

I can't speak for Adorno, but I have been accused of being prejudiced against the rich in the past aswell. I don't hate rich people, but I do feel that it is irresponsible and immoral to have significantly more than is needed and not use it to help others who have significantly less than is needed.
0
Seven_Three
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1903
Report 9 years ago
#1903
(Original post by LtCommanderData)
Besides, skin colour gives no indication of attitude, personality etc.
Having money doesn't give any indication of attitude, personality ect. So why is it ok to be prejudice against them?

I can't speak for Adorno, but I have been accused of being prejudiced against the rich in the past aswell. I don't hate rich people, but I do feel that it is irresponsible and immoral to have significantly more than is needed and not use it to help others who have significantly less than is needed.
Well all of us who are middle class have more than is needed, going on a pure need basis even many people who are much poorer than middle class do, but socialists hate them much less then the rich.
0
LtCommanderData
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1904
Report 9 years ago
#1904
(Original post by Seven_Three)
Having money doesn't give any indication of attitude, personality ect. So why is it ok to be prejudice against them?



Well all of us who are middle class have more than is needed, going on a pure need basis even many people who are much poorer than middle class do, but socialists hate them much less then the rich.
Having loads of money and not giving to charity or making any other effort to help close the class divide does indicate the personality traits of greed and selfishness.

I don't think it's right to be prejudiced against people because of how much money they have, it's what they do with it that I'm worried about.

And by need I didn't mean "will die without". Comfort for a 4 person family could be easily attained with significantly less than £50,000 a year. If someone earns that much and doesn't make any effort to share it with those in need, something's wrong as far as I'm concerned.
0
Seven_Three
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1905
Report 9 years ago
#1905
(Original post by LtCommanderData)
Having loads of money and not giving to charity or making any other effort to help close the class divide does indicate the personality traits of greed and selfishness.
By that logic I can say that all poor people are lazy beacuse they are poor and not trying to make more money. It is still prejudicial.

I don't think it's right to be prejudiced against people because of how much money they have, it's what they do with it that I'm worried about.

And by need I didn't mean "will die without". Comfort for a 4 person family could be easily attained with significantly less than £50,000 a year. If someone earns that much and doesn't make any effort to share it with those in need, something's wrong as far as I'm concerned.
So you don't really mean 'need' at all then, at what point is something superfluous and something a need? You seem to draw the boundries just were you like and is convienient for you ideas.
0
LtCommanderData
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1906
Report 9 years ago
#1906
(Original post by Seven_Three)
By that logic I can say that all poor people are lazy beacuse they are poor and not trying to make more money. It is still prejudicial.
Don't be silly, that doesn't follow at all. By my logic some poor people are lazy, but just being poor doesn't mean it should be assumed they're lazy, just like being rich doesn't necessarily mean someone is greedy and selfish. Read what I said and you'll realise this was the point I was making.

So you don't really mean 'need' at all then, at what point is something superfluous and something a need? You seem to draw the boundries just were you like and is convienient for you ideas.
When something is superfluous is when someone spends/hoards unreasonable amounts of money or lives an unnecessarily extravagent lifestyle. I did give you a very rough boundary, if you care to read my post again.
0
Seven_Three
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1907
Report 9 years ago
#1907
(Original post by LtCommanderData)
Don't be silly, that doesn't follow at all. By my logic some poor people are lazy, but just being poor doesn't mean it should be assumed they're lazy, just like being rich doesn't necessarily mean someone is greedy and selfish. Read what I said and you'll realise this was the point I was making.
You said being rich and not giving your money away makes you selfish, but that is still prejudcial beacuse someone could not be giving their money away for all sorts of reasons. Just like someone could be poor for all sorts of reasons.

When something is superfluous is when someone spends/hoards unreasonable amounts of money or lives an unnecessarily extravagent lifestyle. I did give you a very rough boundary, if you care to read my post again.
No you didn't, and you're avoiding the question. What is a 'unreasonable ammount'? Why is it so hard to address the idea of what is nesscessity and what is superfluous?
0
LtCommanderData
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1908
Report 9 years ago
#1908
(Original post by Seven_Three)
You said being rich and not giving your money away makes you selfish, but that is still prejudcial beacuse someone could not be giving their money away for all sorts of reasons. Just like someone could be poor for all sorts of reasons.
The whole point I'm making is that I'm not prejudiced against rich people, but that lots of rich people do act irresponsibly with their wealth. It's these people I don't like.
No you didn't, and you're avoiding the question. What is a 'unreasonable ammount'? Why is it so hard to address the idea of what is nesscessity and what is superfluous?
(Original post by LtCommanderData)
Having loads of money and not giving to charity or making any other effort to help close the class divide does indicate the personality traits of greed and selfishness.

I don't think it's right to be prejudiced against people because of how much money they have, it's what they do with it that I'm worried about.

And by need I didn't mean "will die without". Comfort for a 4 person family could be easily attained with significantly less than £50,000 a year. If someone earns that much and doesn't make any effort to share it with those in need, something's wrong as far as I'm concerned.
0
Seven_Three
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1909
Report 9 years ago
#1909
(Original post by LtCommanderData)
The whole point I'm making is that I'm not prejudiced against rich people, but that lots of rich people do act irresponsibly with their wealth. It's these people I don't like.
So how about a five member family then what is their limit before selfishness?
0
LtCommanderData
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1910
Report 9 years ago
#1910
(Original post by Seven_Three)
So how about a five member family then what is their limit before selfishness?
Like I said, that figure is a rough one, but I'm sure a 5 member family could also get by on that much. If you are going to facetiously demand that I come up with a figure just scale my previously given figure.

EDIT:
Also, this isn't a "limit of selfishness". It's all about the attitude. My family lives on far less than £50,000 a year but we still make an effort to help out those less fortunate when and how we can.
0
Seven_Three
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1911
Report 9 years ago
#1911
(Original post by LtCommanderData)
Like I said, that figure is a rough one, but I'm sure a 5 member family could also get by on that much. If you are going to facetiously demand that I come up with a figure just scale my previously given figure.
So ok 12.5K for each person per year, and this just carries on lineally indefinetly even though the consitution of the family changes i.e. more children vs parents? I would have thought it would go down beacuse of economies of scale.
0
LtCommanderData
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1912
Report 9 years ago
#1912
(Original post by Seven_Three)
I would have thought it would go down beacuse of economies of scale.
Exactly, you asked me a ridiculous question. My answer was just to deflect further facetiousness which ignores the spirit of my argument
0
Seven_Three
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1913
Report 9 years ago
#1913
(Original post by LtCommanderData)
Exactly, you asked me a ridiculous question. My answer was just to deflect further facetiousness which ignores the spirit of my argument
What was ridiculous about the question?

You're making a normative judgement, I want to understand about that judgement. Asking that question is the correct way to find out about it.

I think the spirt of your argument boils down to one thing, class hatred and jelously.
0
Thunder and Jazz
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1914
Report 9 years ago
#1914
...

Someone from the PCP accused someone else of being a bit racist?

... aboout rich people? Golden.
0
LtCommanderData
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1915
Report 9 years ago
#1915
(Original post by Seven_Three)
What was ridiculous about the question?

You're making a normative judgement, I want to understand about that judgement. Asking that question is the correct way to find out about it.
I said a family of 4 could live comfortably on £50000, and you said "So how about a five member family then what is their limit before selfishness?"

You're the one who pulled this limit of selfishness thing out of the air.
I think the spirt of your argument boils down to one thing, class hatred and jelously.
Oh dear, hear comes the jealousy (sorry, jelously) card. And don't "class hatred" AND "jelously" make two things, rather than one? Or do I get to choose which?
0
Seven_Three
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1916
Report 9 years ago
#1916
(Original post by LtCommanderData)
I said a family of 4 could live comfortablyon £50000, and you said "So how about a five member family then what is their limit before selfishness?"

You're the one who pulled this limit of selfishness thing out of the air.
Still can't identify any principle or spirit behind what you're saying.

Oh dear, hear comes the jealousy (sorry, jeslously) card. And don't "class hatred" AND "jelously" make two things, rather than one? Or do I get to choose which?
I dunno might aswell put it all under the definition prejudice.

Also 'hear'?
0
LtCommanderData
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1917
Report 9 years ago
#1917
(Original post by Seven_Three)
Also 'hear'?
Aaaah, well played. I'll give you that one.
0
ukebert
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1918
Report 9 years ago
#1918
(Original post by Seven_Three)
so why is it then that you hate the rich people when most rich people are white?
:rofl:

Hahaha. Haha. HAHAHAHAHA

This is quite possibly the best PCP quote yet.
0
Cardozo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1919
Report 9 years ago
#1919
Where have you lot gone?
0
Bagration
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1920
Report 9 years ago
#1920
(Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
...

Someone from the PCP accused someone else of being a bit racist?

... aboout rich people? Golden.
Frankly I think he has a point though, and Adorno's response wasn't a response at all. If we go along with the assertions that the PCP hate ethnic minorities and that the Socialists hate the petty/bourgeoise, what's the difference? I mean, really? It doesn't matter whether more people find one or the other acceptable as Adorno suggested. Collectivism leads you open to prejudice. That's not to say it's intrinsic but if you base your ideology on making distinctions between groups of people you are bound to run into some issues of prejudice.

However, I'm more concerned about this:
(Original post by Kase)
Its wrong to say that the people of eastern europe were scared off communism and socialism.
Is it true that Soviet Union revisionism is popular in the Socialist Party?
0
X
new posts
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

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1047)
79.08%
Leave (277)
20.92%

Watched Threads

View All