Your five top policies (if you were granted then)

Watch
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#61
Report 3 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
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 .
There’s evidence that there’s change on ten horizon.

even the BBC seems to appear to be changing direction.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#62
Report 3 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by 64Lightbulbs)
antisemitism isn't right or left wing, it's just bigotry.
He’s not anti Semitic.

his critics on the left (remember he’s not a big fan of extremists) have done what the normally do which is about racist/fascist/homophobic etc etc rather than engaging in debate.



any chance of showing me anything he’s said that’s anti Semitic?

here’s his blog.

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/psyc...wish-question/

so for an anti semetic, he seems to be rather defensive of the criticism Jewish people get fro the extreme right wing.

i’ll take it that you sit on the left of the political spectrum and gets upset when he questions your belief systems. Much easier to accuse him of being a Nazi than engaging in debate.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#63
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
There’s evidence that there’s change on ten horizon.

even the BBC seems to appear to be changing direction.
Such as?

The only thing I've heard is that Dacre is getting put in charge of OfCom. Meh.

Hmmph, I doubt there's anything the BBC could do that would want me to keep that wretched den of filth short of making Rod Liddle Director general, scrapping Dr Who and publicly apologising to the nation for betraying its core values and the country. Otherwise it should be sold off at the earliest convenience.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#64
Report 3 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
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.
Equality of opportunity does not mean everyone is literally the same or has the same abilities. We discussed this before. What equality of opportunity means is that the opportunities given to people should not be affected by things that are irrelevant to what they could be doing. For example, someone's sexuality, religion or race should not affect their opportunity to get a job.

There are obviously major difference between my hypothetical and the ones you have given. I am not talking about the rights of chickens or criminals, I am talking about the rights of everyday people and, in particular, the rights of those who are vulnerable and less fortunate than you and I. You're reluctant to answer the question: if you were the minority, would you be happy live in a world where people discriminated against you and where that discrimination were legal? Put yourself into the shoes of those who will suffer the most from your idea. If you yourself wouldn't like to be in their position, why put them in it?
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Equality of opportunity does not mean everyone is literally the same or has the same abilities. We discussed this before. What equality of opportunity means is that the opportunities given to people should not be affected by things that are irrelevant to what they could be doing. For example, someone's sexuality, religion or race should not affect their opportunity to get a job.

There are obviously major difference between my hypothetical and the ones you have given. I am not talking about the rights of chickens or criminals, I am talking about the rights of everyday people and, in particular, the rights of those who are vulnerable and less fortunate than you and I. You're reluctant to answer the question: if you were the minority, would you be happy live in a world where people discriminated against you and where that discrimination were legal? Put yourself into the shoes of those who will suffer the most from your idea. If you yourself wouldn't like to be in their position, why put them in it?
firstly you have not responded to my argument that i believe equality of opportunity leads inexorably to equality of outcome. I believe that people make opportunities for themselves and this isn't some divine gift passed down from the government. And again, I think that individuals should hire who they want to without being forced by the government to hire people they may not want to and this goes against their freedom of association.

Your argument (which is basically Rawls's veil of ignorance argument) is utterly facile.

I may as well ask you 'what if you never got hired for a job again because it kept on being given to the "less fortunate", how would that make you feel?'


Why doesn't your argument apply to chickens or criminals? If you were a chicken or criminal you wouldn't want bad things to happen to you either, just as 'normal everyday people' don't. Aren't they 'less fortunate' than us too? Why do you want them to suffer?

You're also assuming I think people will suffer if they scrap the equality act, as i said i don't think corporatioms are suddenly going to sack minorites en masse if they did. But if they did, no I probably wouldn't be bothered and if i woke up and was a minority effected by that I would try and build my own company and work with my community- which is historically how Asians and Jews have operated and are now outperforming white people.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#66
Report 3 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
firstly you have not responded to my argument that i believe equality of opportunity leads inexorably to equality of outcome. I believe that people make opportunities for themselves and this isn't some divine gift passed down from the government. And again, I think that individuals should hire who they want to without being forced by the government to hire people they may not want to and this goes against their freedom of association.

Your argument (which is basically Rawls's veil of ignorance argument) is utterly facile.

I may as well ask you 'what if you never got hired for a job again because it kept on being given to the "less fortunate", how would that make you feel?'


Why doesn't your argument apply to chickens or criminals? If you were a chicken or criminal you wouldn't want bad things to happen to you either, just as 'normal everyday people' don't. Aren't they 'less fortunate' than us too? Why do you want them to suffer?

You're also assuming I think people will suffer if they scrap the equality act, as i said i don't think corporatioms are suddenly going to sack minorites en masse if they did. But if they did, no I probably wouldn't be bothered and if i woke up and was a minority effected by that I would try and build my own company and work with my community- which is historically how Asians and Jews have operated and are now outperforming white people.
Apologies, I addressed the topic of equality of outcome earlier in this thread so I didn't think much of it thereafter. We've had equality of opportunity laws for at least 50 years and no laws on equality of outcome (at least none that I know of). I too wouldn't want equality of outcome to be mandated in law, but it's not something that's a genuine problem. With regards to your later question, I don't see how it's relevant since I'm not advocating for equality of outcome.

Does it need to be said why minorities, chickens and criminals are not comparable? Chickes are a totally different species and aren't going to be applying for, say, jobs or mortgages. We limit the rights of criminals because they have actually done something wrong, whereas there is nothing inherently wrong with any of the characteristics protected by the Equality Act. Furthermore, most of the characteristics are not a matter of choice; you can't choose your skin colour or age, for example.

You're probably right that companies wouldn't start sacking minority employees; we have years of positive social progress that has made people far less prejudiced, which is at least in part thanks to the legislation we're talking about now. You have told me in the past, though, that you would rather life in the UK were more like it was in the 50s and 60s, in other words back when this progress did not exist and when the situation was terrible for minority groups. It's easy for you, being in a comfortable position now, to think that you would just 'deal with it' and start your own company, but life was not like this for everyone.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#67
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Apologies, I addressed the topic of equality of outcome earlier in this thread so I didn't think much of it thereafter. We've had equality of opportunity laws for at least 50 years and no laws on equality of outcome (at least none that I know of). I too wouldn't want equality of outcome to be mandated in law, but it's not something that's a genuine problem. With regards to your later question, I don't see how it's relevant since I'm not advocating for equality of outcome.

Does it need to be said why minorities, chickens and criminals are not comparable? Chickes are a totally different species and aren't going to be applying for, say, jobs or mortgages. We limit the rights of criminals because they have actually done something wrong, whereas there is nothing inherently wrong with any of the characteristics protected by the Equality Act. Furthermore, most of the characteristics are not a matter of choice; you can't choose your skin colour or age, for example.

You're probably right that companies wouldn't start sacking minority employees; we have years of positive social progress that has made people far less prejudiced, which is at least in part thanks to the legislation we're talking about now. You have told me in the past, though, that you would rather life in the UK were more like it was in the 50s and 60s, in other words back when this progress did not exist and when the situation was terrible for minority groups. It's easy for you, being in a comfortable position now, to think that you would just 'deal with it' and start your own company, but life was not like this for everyone.
I think the difference is between Equality of Opportunity (EoO) then and now is that when it was introduced then the UK was a monocultural and homogenous state rather than now where we have all different kinds of grievances etc. Although I don't agree with it then either, if you have a monoculture and virtually everyone is white EoO is going to generally have far less problems than now. So are you against Equality of Outcome?

Of course they are different but your basic argument was 'well you wouldn't like it if you were X group?' I am merely pointing out by that same logic we shouldn't do a lot of things. Haha- again, well you didn't choose to be a human so why are you eating meat etc? So your position is logically unsound unless you're a Vegan in which case, fair enough (although obv i still don't agree)

OK but where have I said that life should be easy?

Also, as it happens David Starkey agrees with me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui1x88kScAs
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#68
Report 3 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
I think the difference is between Equality of Opportunity (EoO) then and now is that when it was introduced then the UK was a monocultural and homogenous state rather than now where we have all different kinds of grievances etc. Although I don't agree with it then either, if you have a monoculture and virtually everyone is white EoO is going to generally have far less problems than now. So are you against Equality of Outcome?

Of course they are different but your basic argument was 'well you wouldn't like it if you were X group?' I am merely pointing out by that same logic we shouldn't do a lot of things. Haha- again, well you didn't choose to be a human so why are you eating meat etc? So your position is logically unsound unless you're a Vegan in which case, fair enough (although obv i still don't agree)

OK but where have I said that life should be easy?

Also, as it happens David Starkey agrees with me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui1x88kScAs
I like Starkeys approach.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9dA6E3fJw
1
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#69
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
I like Starkeys approach.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9dA6E3fJw
The man is a savage!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp3Obkq536k
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#70
Report 3 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
I think the difference is between Equality of Opportunity (EoO) then and now is that when it was introduced then the UK was a monocultural and homogenous state rather than now where we have all different kinds of grievances etc. Although I don't agree with it then either, if you have a monoculture and virtually everyone is white EoO is going to generally have far less problems than now. So are you against Equality of Outcome?

Of course they are different but your basic argument was 'well you wouldn't like it if you were X group?' I am merely pointing out by that same logic we shouldn't do a lot of things. Haha- again, well you didn't choose to be a human so why are you eating meat etc? So your position is logically unsound unless you're a Vegan in which case, fair enough (although obv i still don't agree)

OK but where have I said that life should be easy?

Also, as it happens David Starkey agrees with me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui1x88kScAs
I'm not sure what this has to do with equality of outcome today. If, in the last 50 years, we've had laws on equality of opportunity yet no laws on equality of outcome then why are you concerned about it now? Even in the last 20 years, where the UK has most certainly been less monocultural and homogenous than it was 50 years ago, we haven't had anything. I'm against equality of outcome being required by law, but I am not against it happening 'on it's own accord'.

The reason why the same logic wouldn't apply to chickens and criminals is because the circumstances are far different. In the case of criminals especially, the reasons to infringe on their rights outways the ''well you wouldn't like it if you were X group?' argument.

You made it sound like life would be easy for you if you were a minority and faced with discrimination. You brushed off any problems when you said you "wouldn't be bothered", which certainly doesn't reflect the lives of the people who lived through this in the past. As for David Starkey, he is free to disagree with me even as someone who is LGBT. His opinion does not affect my argument.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#71
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by SHallowvale)
I'm not sure what this has to do with equality of outcome today. If, in the last 50 years, we've had laws on equality of opportunity yet no laws on equality of outcome then why are you concerned about it now? Even in the last 20 years, where the UK has most certainly been less monocultural and homogenous than it was 50 years ago, we haven't had anything. I'm against equality of outcome being required by law, but I am not against it happening 'on it's own accord'.

The reason why the same logic wouldn't apply to chickens and criminals is because the circumstances are far different. In the case of criminals especially, the reasons to infringe on their rights outways the ''well you wouldn't like it if you were X group?' argument.

You made it sound like life would be easy for you if you were a minority and faced with discrimination. You brushed off any problems when you said you "wouldn't be bothered", which certainly doesn't reflect the lives of the people who lived through this in the past. As for David Starkey, he is free to disagree with me even as someone who is LGBT. His opinion does not affect my argument.
Well, we have had some things case in point Labour women only quotas and as well as private and public sector jobs opening up jobs for minorities only.
Of course, we've largely had a conservative government to act somewhat as an unreliable bulwauk against some of these trends. If we had a long term left wing government things would move much more rapidly on that front. Also you've admitted that you're actually comfortable with Equality of Outcome in some cases, which kinda proves my point that equality of opportunity acts as a sort of gateway drug to equality of outcome. If we had Equality of Outcome now you would be using the same arguments about poor minorities against me.

Why not? Depends what the crime was surely (by your own logic) . But I was talking mainly about chicken. But if I am to grant your argument to only animals the what about the millions of poor people in the world that would like to live in the UK? If I was one of them I may not think it fair that I am allowed entry, but we do not have the room or resources to take in anyway near all of them. An ought does not imply a right- nor is it inherently good.

I said I wouldn't be bothered if i was white and they did- I think it would be better for them to build themselves up succesfully as have the Jews and Asians- minorities need to become self reliant rather than expect hand outs and government sanctioned 'opportunities' to succeed in life.
0
reply
64Lightbulbs
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#72
Report 3 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
He’s not anti Semitic.

his critics on the left (remember he’s not a big fan of extremists) have done what the normally do which is about racist/fascist/homophobic etc etc rather than engaging in debate.



any chance of showing me anything he’s said that’s anti Semitic?

here’s his blog.

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/psyc...wish-question/

so for an anti semetic, he seems to be rather defensive of the criticism Jewish people get fro the extreme right wing.

i’ll take it that you sit on the left of the political spectrum and gets upset when he questions your belief systems. Much easier to accuse him of being a Nazi than engaging in debate.
He often references "cultural marxism" which is a dogwhistle for jews. I didn't accuse him of being a nazi, that usually involves things other than antisemitism. I said he was probably antisemitic because he uses antisemitic dogwhistles. This is off topic at this point, and if you still want to argue about it, I'd recommend starting your own thread.
0
reply
Imane888
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#73
Report 3 weeks ago
#73
(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.
Have you ever been discriminated against before?
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#74
Report 3 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
The man is a savage!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp3Obkq536k
He's certainly a pin head when it comes to not thinking through his choice of words :lol:
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#75
Report 3 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by 64Lightbulbs)
He often references "cultural marxism" which is a dogwhistle for jews. I didn't accuse him of being a nazi, that usually involves things other than antisemitism. I said he was probably antisemitic because he uses antisemitic dogwhistles. This is off topic at this point, and if you still want to argue about it, I'd recommend starting your own thread.
No it’s not. He attacks the extreme left. They can’t come back with anything cohesive so they check out the anti Semitic card in the hope to discredit him.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#76
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#76
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
No it’s not. He attacks the extreme left. They can’t come back with anything cohesive so they check out the anti Semitic card in the hope to discredit him.
Anyone critical of the status quo gets accused of anti semitism whether that's Donald Trump, Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage. Even other Jews get accused of this. Go figure
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#77
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by Imane888)
Have you ever been discriminated against before?
I once applied to join the civil service and they were only selecting BAME people

I once got attacked in Wales for being English 🤣

Probably some other stuff.

(But I happily concede this is nothing compared to what some minorities go through if that's your point)
0
reply
Imane888
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#78
Report 3 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
I once applied to join the civil service and they were only selecting BAME people

I once got attacked in Wales for being English 🤣

Probably some other stuff.

(But I happily concede this is nothing compared to what some minorities go through if that's your point)
so how an earth do you think that revoking the Equality act will make things better? as SHallowvale says do you only want it removed because it doesn't benefit you?
1
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#79
Report 3 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Anyone critical of the status quo gets accused of anti semitism whether that's Donald Trump, Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage. Even other Jews get accused of this. Go figure
It’s an easy way to get out of debating your stance.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#80
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#80
(Original post by Imane888)
so how an earth do you think that revoking the Equality act will make things better? as SHallowvale says do you only want it removed because it doesn't benefit you?
Reread my debate with Shsllowvale I believe I've made myself clear. If not let me spell it out :

1- I don't believe in Equality of Opportunity and think that it leads inevitably to Equality of Outcome

2- I believe in freedom of association and that government should (largely) stay out of business

3- I believe in natural rights not state imposed rights and that state imposed rights Inevitably leads to the curtailing of natural rights. (Research the difference if you Don't know)

4- I believe that a reliance on state imposed rights makes society and Individuals weaker and does not empower individuals. It enables a victim mentality, social division, identity politics and increased state reliance.

5- Fundamentally even if I were to grant that this legislation has improved things (which I don't) it still violates our natural rights and is therefore wrong.

Eg - if somebody said that unless I had my free speech taken away 1000 people would kill themselves because they were so offended I would tell them to go and **** themselves.
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 (62)
12.89%
Virtual campus tours/open days (112)
23.28%
Live streaming events (44)
9.15%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (46)
9.56%
A uni comparison tool (109)
22.66%
An in-person event when available (108)
22.45%

Watched Threads

View All