Your five top policies (if you were granted then)

Watch
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#41
Report 4 weeks ago
#41
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Which is irrelevant to my point. As you keep on dodging on this question I'll give you one last chance to show why I'm wrong.

It seems to me like your reflexive 'dig' at me was just to score good boy points for any women on the forum to show how enlightened you are without knowing why. Good luck with that.
I agree with you on that point. Not your others
1
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#42
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by Napp)
Its a fun series of contradictions it must be said.
One would contend that the fact drugs are illegal is the only bit that damages society (bar the odd mental breakdown)
Can you explain this sorry I don't understand what you're getting at?
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#43
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
I agree with you on that point. Not your others
+1 for conceding on that

Meh you can disagree with me on state secrets I can at least somewhat get your position but do look at that Epstein stuff. If he did kill himself then I'm Diane Abbot.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
+1 for conceding on that

Meh you can disagree with me on state secrets I can at least somewhat get your position but do look at that Epstein stuff. If he did kill himself then I'm Diane Abbot.
I don’t doubt it’s a possibility. But highly unlikely.

Here’s some names of other powerful men who have taken their own lives when everything they worked for has collapsed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...n_Nazi_Germany


https://m.benzinga.com/article/3444054

If you get a chance. Listen to some work by Canadian clinical phycologist Jordan Peterson. To become a successful businessman like Epstein, you have to have certain personality traits. Those traits lend themselves to a degree of invincibility when things are going right, but a degree of instability when their worlds are crashing down.

Epstein had everything and had avoided the law. At this point in time, there was no getting out of it. Even if he fought it and won ten court case, his business was doomed.

If he were going to get killed, breaking into a high security prison without getting seen and conjuring murder is a lot harder than killing somebody in a more traditional way. Shooting from a distance or laying an inmate to kill him.

Who knows, threats may have even be made against his family if he didn’t take his own life. That’s been used numerous times in the past.

People often keep looking for an explanation when the most obvious is often discounted.

Even, if you look at high end state sponsored assassinations there’s normally some sort of trail. There’s nothing even like this in Epstein’s case.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#45
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
I don’t doubt it’s a possibility. But highly unlikely.

Here’s some names of other powerful men who have taken their own lives when everything they worked for has collapsed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...n_Nazi_Germany


https://m.benzinga.com/article/3444054

If you get a chance. Listen to some work by Canadian clinical phycologist Jordan Peterson. To become a successful businessman like Epstein, you have to have certain personality traits. Those traits lend themselves to a degree of invincibility when things are going right, but a degree of instability when their worlds are crashing down.

Epstein had everything and had avoided the law. At this point in time, there was no getting out of it. Even if he fought it and won ten court case, his business was doomed.

If he were going to get killed, breaking into a high security prison without getting seen and conjuring murder is a lot harder than killing somebody in a more traditional way. Shooting from a distance or laying an inmate to kill him.

Who knows, threats may have even be made against his family if he didn’t take his own life. That’s been used numerous times in the past.

People often keep looking for an explanation when the most obvious is often discounted.

Even, if you look at high end state sponsored assassinations there’s normally some sort of trail. There’s nothing even like this in Epstein’s case.
I perosnally find all of the 'coincidences' I mentioned a little too convenient (one or two maybe) and am 95% certain he was killed, and even if he had wanted to kill himself it would have been next to impossible for him to do. Its a huge scandal even if he did Kill himself in that situation.

His 'business' might have been over but he was still a billionaire with his own private island etc. The guy was also obsesesed with becoming immortal and having his body frozen- plus his family and lawyer said that epstein had been happy and believed he would get a deal.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Because I'm against equality of opportunity too as I said in an earlier post.

Funnily enough I applied to join the civil service once and they were only hiring BAME people. I think that the government as a monopoly should be meritocratic by law but that businesses as private entities should not be forced to be meritocratic by the government. I think people should have freedom of association- if a company only wishes to hire black people then more power to them and I probably wouldn't want to work there anyway.

As to how I'd feel, well that's life. I don't think the government has the right to intervene just because people's feelings get hurt.

Lol your boss absolutely cannot tell you that they don't like bisexual people lmao 🤣🤣🤣
Why should private entities have that freedom of association? Equality of opportunity is not there to stop people's feelings getting hurt, it's there to let people actually live their life. Would you like to live in a world where every job turned you down because of your religion?
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Can you explain this sorry I don't understand what you're getting at?
Most crime associated with drugs is only a crime because of the substances illegality (i.e. possession, dealing) The 2nd order crimes such as thefts, assaults etc. arguably would be greatly reduced if the state stopped treating AOD as a moral failing and actually as a medical problem (which it notionally does in principle but not in practice).
Take, for example, your average heroin addict. They're not the sort to go on a mad rampage and stab a load of randomers (as opposed to snoozing in a doorway) the thefts come in the buy the product that is artificially expensive thanks to its criminality. If the state expanded the heroin prescription programme arguably such problems would be greatly diminished.
This doesnt go for all substances of course, things like PCP, Meth and their ilk are inherently going to screw with peoples minds but forcing addicts into the criminal justice system because AOD problems simply creates a further spiral of use and criminal conduct, as numerous studies have shown and as most civilised countries have outlined in their health policies towards AOD.

With all that being said i will qualify that the issue can aptly be described as a wicked problem with countless 2nd and 3rd order effects no matter what happens so its generally unhelpful to speak in generalisations.
0
reply
64Lightbulbs
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#48
Report 4 weeks ago
#48
i'm confused, do they have to be reasonable/likely to pass, or not?
0
reply
64Lightbulbs
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#49
Report 4 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
I don’t doubt it’s a possibility. But highly unlikely.

Here’s some names of other powerful men who have taken their own lives when everything they worked for has collapsed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...n_Nazi_Germany


https://m.benzinga.com/article/3444054

If you get a chance. Listen to some work by Canadian clinical phycologist Jordan Peterson. To become a successful businessman like Epstein, you have to have certain personality traits. Those traits lend themselves to a degree of invincibility when things are going right, but a degree of instability when their worlds are crashing down.

Epstein had everything and had avoided the law. At this point in time, there was no getting out of it. Even if he fought it and won ten court case, his business was doomed.

If he were going to get killed, breaking into a high security prison without getting seen and conjuring murder is a lot harder than killing somebody in a more traditional way. Shooting from a distance or laying an inmate to kill him.

Who knows, threats may have even be made against his family if he didn’t take his own life. That’s been used numerous times in the past.

People often keep looking for an explanation when the most obvious is often discounted.

Even, if you look at high end state sponsored assassinations there’s normally some sort of trail. There’s nothing even like this in Epstein’s case.
i'm pretty sure Jordan Peterson is antisemitic, so take him with at least 2 entire shakers of salt
Spoiler:
Show
antisemitic as in the references to "cultural marxism" which is usually a neo-nazi dogwhistle for Jews.
1
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by 64Lightbulbs)
i'm pretty sure Jordan Peterson is antisemitic, so take him with at least 2 entire shakers of salt
Spoiler:
Show
antisemitic as in the references to "cultural marxism" which is usually a neo-nazi dogwhistle for Jews.
That would be a no. Absolutely not.

Extreme right wing hate him as he criticise them. They call him and extreme left winger.

Extrem left wing hate him as he criticises them. They call him an extreme right winger.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wtI8RKe6HwE
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#51
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Why should private entities have that freedom of association? Equality of opportunity is not there to stop people's feelings getting hurt, it's there to let people actually live their life. Would you like to live in a world where every job turned you down because of your religion?
Because I think the state shouldn't stick it's nose in and is intruding too much. The state is becoming more and more soft totalitarian with thousands of laws, regulations etc that get in the way of people trying to live their lives.

That's a nonsense hypothetical statement. If under my view companies are allowed to discriminate there may be companies that don't want to hire straight white Christians I would be fine with that provided it was not coming from the government. As white people are the majority in this country I dont think that is likely to happen.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Because I think the state shouldn't stick it's nose in and is intruding too much. The state is becoming more and more soft totalitarian with thousands of laws, regulations etc that get in the way of people trying to live their lives.

That's a nonsense hypothetical statement. If under my view companies are allowed to discriminate there may be companies that don't want to hire straight white Christians I would be fine with that provided it was not coming from the government. As white people are the majority in this country I dont think that is likely to happen.
Don’t worry, we’ve left the EU. Hopefully we’ll see a return to British legal systems away from European legal codex’s
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#53
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#53
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
Don’t worry, we’ve left the EU. Hopefully we’ll see a return to British legal systems away from European legal codex’s
I certainly hope so but Boris's government hasn't given me cause for optimism on that front either...

Though we've left the EU we're still being run mostly by the same Berks who got us into this mess in the first place. It will take a lot of hard work and some political heavyweights (which we are sorely lacking) to extricate our self out of this mess. Brexit was always a means to an end .
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Because I think the state shouldn't stick it's nose in and is intruding too much. The state is becoming more and more soft totalitarian with thousands of laws, regulations etc that get in the way of people trying to live their lives.

That's a nonsense hypothetical statement. If under my view companies are allowed to discriminate there may be companies that don't want to hire straight white Christians I would be fine with that provided it was not coming from the government. As white people are the majority in this country I dont think that is likely to happen.
Discrimination and lack of opportunity are exactly the sort of things that "get in the way of people trying to live their lives". I get that you don't like laws and regulations in general, but the Equality Act is there to protect people and help them. This includes you.

Answer the question. You don't care about legalising discrimination because it would not have a major effect on you. For others, though, it would. Put yourself in their shoes, would you like to live in that sort of world?
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 weeks ago
#55
I don't know, most of my problems with the country are societal rather than political. Its not good legislating for something if its entirely against the way society thinks.

Probably I'd just stick to economic affairs. Plenty of renationalising, and house building would be great, as well as revamping taxation to support smaller businesses at the expense of larger corporations. In other words - I'd tank the economy pretty hard.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#56
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Discrimination and lack of opportunity are exactly the sort of things that "get in the way of people trying to live their lives". I get that you don't like laws and regulations in general, but the Equality Act is there to protect people and help them. This includes you.

Answer the question. You don't care about legalising discrimination because it would not have a major effect on you. For others, though, it would. Put yourself in their shoes, would you like to live in that sort of world?
No I don't agree. And as you acknowledge in your second paragraph it doesn't help me nor probably the majority of people. It also could hinder people in other ways - for instance there is an argument that I agree with that disabled people should be able to work for less to make them competitive in the workplace otherwise they will simply not get employed due to 'equality' laws..

I live in that world already. Do you think if the equality act was scrapped then suddenly all of these companies would sack all of these helpless minorities you're so concerned about? Of course not. And if they did they would probably suffer for it through boycotts etc.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#57
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by 64Lightbulbs)
i'm confused, do they have to be reasonable/likely to pass, or not?
It will be passed but whether it stays that way or will be carried out is a different matter.

Eg Napp is calling for the government to be lynched which although it would pass I doubt it would be carried out under the circumstances
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#58
Report 4 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
No I don't agree. And as you acknowledge in your second paragraph it doesn't help me nor probably the majority of people. It also could hinder people in other ways - for instance there is an argument that I agree with that disabled people should be able to work for less to make them competitive in the workplace otherwise they will simply not get employed due to 'equality' laws..

I live in that world already. Do you think if the equality act was scrapped then suddenly all of these companies would sack all of these helpless minorities you're so concerned about? Of course not. And if they did they would probably suffer for it through boycotts etc.
Why don't you agree? Just because it does not help you as much as it would help other people does not mean it doesn't help or protect you in some way.

If you remove that legislation then minorities would very easily suffer from it. Once again, answer the question. Put yourself in their shoes: is that the sort of suffering you would like to experience? If you were the minority, would you be happy live in a world where people discriminated against you and where this discrimination were legal?
0
reply
64Lightbulbs
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#59
Report 4 weeks ago
#59
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
That would be a no. Absolutely not.

Extreme right wing hate him as he criticise them. They call him and extreme left winger.

Extrem left wing hate him as he criticises them. They call him an extreme right winger.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wtI8RKe6HwE
antisemitism isn't right or left wing, it's just bigotry.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#60
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#60
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Why don't you agree? Just because it does not help you as much as it would help other people does not mean it doesn't help or protect you in some way.

If you remove that legislation then minorities would very easily suffer from it. Once again, answer the question. Put yourself in their shoes: is that the sort of suffering you would like to experience? If you were the minority, would you be happy live in a world where people discriminated against you and where this discrimination were legal?
As I have said because I think it is a power grab by the government. I believe in natural rights not rights given to us by the government which can change over time to suit politicians whims. I think it violates people's freedom of association and ultimately fails on its own terms and will lead to the far worse outcome of equality of outcome.

Let me explain- the government says that we all have equality of opportunity- this is demonstrably false, some people are better looking, talented and otherwise superior to others. Usain Bolt is going to wipe the floor with a dwarf- pretending they both have 'equal opportunity' is absurd. Thus when some job role say is not 'diverse' then its not a failure of equality of opportunity but is due to unfalisifiable 'systemic discrimination'- the only way to address this of course is to lower the entry level or/and positive discrimination to get the desired result.

I think instead it is better to acknowledge we have differences in ability and freely try and help our brother man out of genuine conviction rather than by government diktat and ultimately force.

-------

Again, it's a nonsense hypothetical statement. If I was a chicken, I probably woudn't want to get eaten but that's not going to stop me eating a chicken.
If I was a criminal , I wouldn't want to get arrested for it, that doesn't neccessarily mean that I shouldn't be. etc. I wouldn't want to work in a sweat shop but if the alternative was dying in the gutter i'd choose the sweatshop everytime.

Additionally just because some people may be more disadvantaged than other people doesn't give them an inherent right over others.
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

Which of these would you use to help with making uni decisions?

Webinars (76)
11.82%
Virtual campus tours/open days (156)
24.26%
Live streaming events (52)
8.09%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (59)
9.18%
A uni comparison tool (149)
23.17%
An in-person event when available (151)
23.48%

Watched Threads

View All