Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 300mg)
    Born into working class family, went to normal school where I had a good time and got good grades. Just finished A levels were I'm probably gonna' get AAB / ABB. Heading to a good university to do comp science. Only had one chance to vote since turning 18 and I didn't cause I have better things to do. Don't give a **** about thatcher.

    I am actually right wing, I just hate soft, preppy little ******* like yourself that think your something cause you were born with a silver spoon up your arse.

    Good luck with the 'business', I'm sure your dad will place a substantial order and pat you on the back for doing well. Unlucky with the attempt to neg me.
    Didn't you read my reply, i was not born with a silver spoon in my arse. My dad is a software engineering manager and my mum is a nurse so im not eactly rich. You don't have to be born wealthy to have capitalist views and i am an example of that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    Didn't you read my reply, i was not born with a silver spoon in my arse. My dad is a software engineering manager and my mum is a nurse so im not eactly rich. You don't have to be born wealthy to have capitalist views and i am an example of that.
    Average salary for software engineering manager in south-east of England: £37k. Band 5 NHS nurse: £19k. Your household income is more than double the median. It's very easy for people in middle class families with professional parents, who go to school and socialise with a bunch of kids from other middle class families with professional parents, to not realise quite how well off they are. You were born with significantly more advantages than a very large slice of the population.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Let's be honest here Mel, there's plenty of evidence around TSR that you are a "Soft Socialist", perhaps a Social-Democrat of the marginally more free variety, but you're certainly no right winger. From my interpretation of your posts, at least.
    It depends on what you interpret as being "socialist". The TSR Centrists certainly aren't "socialist". I wouldn't describe the Lib Dems as socialist, nor would I describe the modern Labour party as being "socialist". To equate "feminism" with socialism is equally lazy and misleading (as he did). Granted, you'll see a few Rousseau arguments, a few appeals to Marx, a few criticisms of unregulated systems and a few criticisms of property rights - none of which are exclusive to socialists. This attitude is similar to that which seven_three enjoys - where socialists are perceived to be anti-individual and pro-collective. He has a fierce agenda of categorising "socialists" (and users) into neat categories; such that people on the "left" are apparently doomed to be lefties purely because they're allegedly crippled with feelings of inferiority. I have seen no evidence to support that view, and he still refrains from presenting such evidence. Not a shred of decent evidence.

    Incidently, the "you have no evidence" bit referred to an actual quotation of seven_three saying explicitly that he has no evidence to support his view - it was mere impression, apparently. It was a criticism of his nonchalant manner of expressing opinions as facts. So you may have got the wrong end of the stick there.

    As said a few posts above: I'm not "true socialist". I think it's dangerous to tie the centre-left with socialism. Of course, it depends on what loose definition one employs.

    That said, my prime criticism wasn't that he called me a socialist, but rather that he's presenting no evidence for his pyscho-analysis' of whole categories of people (which, it's worth saying, he then tried to apply to me).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Average salary for software engineering manager in south-east of England: £37k. Band 5 NHS nurse: £19k. Your household income is more than double the median. It's very easy for people in middle class families with professional parents, who go to school and socialise with a bunch of kids from other middle class families with professional parents, to not realise quite how well off they are. You were born with significantly more advantages than a very large slice of the population.
    I actually socialise mainly with people with working class parents. I don't feel as i have that much of an advantage over them as my parents have never spoiled me and i always have had to work for anything i recieve. There are countless examples of people who have moved up from working classs to middle class. If you have the desire to create an oppurtunity you will make that oppurtunity.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    His wife's influence has obviously pricked his conscience since it was she who initiated and encouraged his philanthropic gestures.

    And she's an ardent supporter of social justice.
    Typical woman, in a way... :p: I bet he said he agreed out of love for his wife, rather than the more likely candidate of fear of her.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Average salary for software engineering manager in south-east of England: £37k. Band 5 NHS nurse: £19k. Your household income is more than double the median. It's very easy for people in middle class families with professional parents, who go to school and socialise with a bunch of kids from other middle class families with professional parents, to not realise quite how well off they are. You were born with significantly more advantages than a very large slice of the population.
    In what way do these kids with professional parents have better "advantages" and "opportunities" than working class children, non-economic factors notwithstanding?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    It depends on what you interpret as being "socialist". The TSR Centrists certainly aren't "socialist". I wouldn't describe the Lib Dems as socialist, nor would I describe the modern Labour party as being "socialist". To equate "feminism" with socialism is equally lazy and misleading (as he did). Granted, you'll see a few Rousseau arguments, a few appeals to Marx, a few criticisms of unregulated systems and a few criticisms of property rights - none of which are exclusive to socialists. This attitude is similar to that which seven_three enjoys - where socialists are perceived to be anti-individual and pro-collective. He has a fierce agenda of categorising "socialists" (and users) into neat categories; such that people on the "left" are apparently doomed to be lefties purely because they're allegedly crippled with feelings of inferiority. I have seen no evidence to support that view, and he still refrains from presenting such evidence. Not a shred of decent evidence.
    Well, I'm not disagreeing with your argument, just your posture of not being a Socialist. Until I see voting evidence to the contrary, from the previously stated positions and things that members of the Centrist Party have said, I take the position that you are Socialists. I would call many of the Liberal Democrat members of the House Socialist. And the Labour Party categorise themselves as a Socialist party IRL.

    (Original post by Melancholy)
    As said a few posts above: I'm not "true socialist". I think it's dangerous to tie the centre-left with socialism. Of course, it depends on what loose definition one employs.
    Why? Why is it dangerous?

    (Original post by Melancholy)
    That said, my prime criticism wasn't that he called me a socialist, but rather that he's presenting no evidence for his pyscho-analysis' of whole categories of people (which, it's worth saying, he then tried to apply to me).
    Quite, but let's face it: there are certain personalities that suit certain political ideologies. Just the way that people behave in general influences strongly on their thinking on the way that things ought to be run. That's not to say I agree with either you or 7_3, but rather that I don't disagree with either you or 7_3.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    In what way do these kids with professional parents have better "advantages" and "opportunities" than working class children, non-economic factors notwithstanding?
    There's heaps of research on this. Just for a start, working class kids have a lower average birth weight, which has loads knock-on effects in terms of development, including adult IQ. This disparity in birthweight is primarily caused by differences in diet which obviously effect children as they grow up; working class children are more likely to suffer from a variety of chronic diseases (due to a combination of diet and environmental factors - they're more likely even to be killed by a car than middle class children). Middle class parents can afford to buy their children more toys and educational material, and because of the kinds of jobs they do are much more inclined to be able and willing to teach their children things like literacy and maths. And then there's the whole culture thing - middle class kids find it much easier to get into professional jobs because they already share accents and mannerisms with their prospective employers, and because they tend to look healthier and can afford to be better dressed, and because many of them secure jobs or internships through parental support or connections. These are just a few ways in which middle class children are more advantaged than working class ones - it isn't hard to think of more.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    There's heaps of research on this. Just for a start, working class kids have a lower average birth weight, which has loads knock-on effects in terms of development, including adult IQ. This disparity in birthweight is primarily caused by differences in diet which obviously effect children as they grow up; working class children are more likely to suffer from a variety of chronic diseases (due to a combination of diet and environmental factors - they're more likely even to be killed by a car than middle class children). Middle class parents can afford to buy their children more toys and educational material, and because of the kinds of jobs they do are much more inclined to be able and willing to teach their children things like literacy and maths. And then there's the whole culture thing - middle class kids find it much easier to get into professional jobs because they already share accents and mannerisms with their prospective employers, and because they tend to look healthier and can afford to be better dressed, and because many of them secure jobs or internships through parental support or connections. These are just a few ways in which middle class children are more advantaged than working class ones - it isn't hard to think of more.
    Right.

    So let's take the ones that work on an economic principle (as I said, non-economic reasons notwithstanding): what does the Socialist agenda change? We in the Liberal bloc propose reforms and policies that would make these problems less pronounced. Low prices, for an example, so people can afford good food and more toys. The death of intellectual property (well, real Property Liberals anyway) so that educational material is, well, free -- although, the internet has gone a LONG way in providing this. The diets, the educational ability of children and the sort of things their families can afford to give them, have all increased drastically since 1945 despite the state doing very little (with the exception of state education provision.)

    They're more likely to be killed by a car than middle class children? I mean, what? Causation being...?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Well, I'm not disagreeing with your argument, just your posture of not being a Socialist. Until I see voting evidence to the contrary, from the previously stated positions and things that members of the Centrist Party have said, I take the position that you are Socialists. I would call many of the Liberal Democrat members of the House Socialist. And the Labour Party categorise themselves as a Socialist party IRL.
    I voted for Labour in the European elections, as oppose to parties further to the left (such as the Socialist Labour Party or the Greens). That said, I would have voted for UKIP in the Europeans if I thought it would make sufficiently more of a difference - the choice between a party that couldn't take us out of Europe and a party that would at least fight for some decent ideals became evident. I think the burden of proof is on the person forming the assertion. I wouldn't describe Michael White as a Socialist, nor Peter Singer (despite arguably supporting a free health service), nor would I describe some people even in the Green party as a Socialist. Of course, it depends on what precisely he means by the term "socialist", which is why a question was begged. That's how discussions move forward - he's free to define his own definition and come back to me, and then justify his subsequent assertions. Whether or not I was a socialist wasn't actually the point I was making - rather that it is up to him to define what he means by the term and why it somehow applies to me. Then to justify the judgements he made after that. Then to admit, again, that he had "no evidence" (his words, not mine) to support his own argument (which you pass no judgement on, rather suspiciously).

    The word 'socialist' is thrown around all too commonly on this forum, which differs from how it's actually used in real life. It's a dictionary game, though; which is why I never pretended that it was my focus. In many ways, the Tories are democratic-socialists, or at least the case is easily arguable. Again, a definition of socialism can be as loose as you make it. You'd also have to argue why I'm not in the TSR Socialists (and never have been in all my time here). You're free, however, to call me what you want - as, indeed, I would have said to 7_3. I'm glad I had the chance to say it to somebody, at least.

    Why? Why is it dangerous?
    The term is almost always invariably associated with state-capitalist societies and French style leftwing politics. I'm no fan of unions. I'm a fan of freedom of association. There are various leftwing concepts which clash with my person opinions. I only agree with Marxist philosophers in their views on class, liberty, property rights and key concepts like that; likewise, I take my ideas on individualism from different people. It doesn't justify the claim that I'd support a true Socialist party, read the Socialist Worker or be a "true" Socialist (which, if you look back, was the claim I made before 7_3's final post).

    Quite, but let's face it: there are certain personalities that suit certain political ideologies. Just the way that people behave in general influences strongly on their thinking on the way that things ought to be run. That's not to say I agree with either you or 7_3, but rather that I don't disagree with either you or 7_3.
    No, those are cheap shots at political ideologies. A libertarian need not put on an image of a weed-loving posh bloke. I don't give much credit to these generalisations because I simply don't believe that these stereotypes are accurate enough even to consider in terms of generalisations. Chomsky and Jack Straw are just as inordinary as David Davis and Alan Duncan. Contrary to the stereotype, I don't think it's true to say that political ideologies reflects personal mannerisms or self-interest (though, of course, these stereotypes are casually applied when an obvious example arises). I could see Galloway as the Che-wearing sort, though.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Typical woman, in a way... I bet he said he agreed out of love for his wife, rather than the more likely candidate of fear of her.
    Hahaha...are you married and speaking from experience, Simon?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Thankfully, no
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Right.

    So let's take the ones that work on an economic principle (as I said, non-economic reasons notwithstanding): what does the Socialist agenda change?
    Well I don't think there is a single 'socialist agenda', but if we take, say, redistribution of wealth and schemes such as SureStart, that would certainly alleviate some of the problems.

    We in the Liberal bloc propose reforms and policies that would make these problems less pronounced. Low prices, for an example, so people can afford good food and more toys.
    Well, great, but remember that I'm not a protectionist, high-tax social democrat type, so it's not a great argument against what I'm proposing.

    The death of intellectual property (well, real Property Liberals anyway) so that educational material is, well, free -- although, the internet has gone a LONG way in providing this.
    I don't believe in IP either...

    The diets, the educational ability of children and the sort of things their families can afford to give them, have all increased drastically since 1945 despite the state doing very little (with the exception of state education provision.)
    You're kidding, right? The NHS, free school meals (often the only decent food poor children received when they were first introduced), child tax credits, environmental regulations...

    They're more likely to be killed by a car than middle class children? I mean, what? Causation being...?
    I imagine it's a combination of housing being cheaper near busy roads and poor people (who drive, at least) owning older or cheaper cars.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Well I don't think there is a single 'socialist agenda', but if we take, say, redistribution of wealth and schemes such as SureStart, that would certainly alleviate some of the problems.
    Surely there is a single Socialist agenda: the achievement of a classless society?

    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Well, great, but remember that I'm not a protectionist, high-tax social democrat type, so it's not a great argument against what I'm proposing.
    Well, ok, but you are a Socialist... regardless of what economics you propose, you're anti free market, I'm sure.

    (Original post by Gremlins)
    I don't believe in IP either...
    Ok, but I'm saying that there are free market proposals to reform or eradicate the problems you're talking about re: class.

    (Original post by Gremlins)
    You're kidding, right? The NHS, free school meals (often the only decent food poor children received when they were first introduced), child tax credits, environmental regulations...
    I think these things pale in comparison to the ability of the market to produce things that people need, under reduced prices each year.

    (Original post by Gremlins)
    I imagine it's a combination of housing being cheaper near busy roads and poor people (who drive, at least) owning older or cheaper cars.
    Or it's just correlation...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Surely there is a single Socialist agenda: the achievement of a classless society?
    Well, OK, if we take that as what our agenda is then a classless society would also be a more financially egalitarian one which would avoid the developmental problems caused by poverty.

    Well, ok, but you are a Socialist... regardless of what economics you propose, you're anti free market, I'm sure.
    Yeah, but I'm anti-market because I think the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. If I thought they were all you cracked them up to be I'd be a free marketeer.

    Ok, but I'm saying that there are free market proposals to reform or eradicate the problems you're talking about re: class.
    Fine.

    I think these things pale in comparison to the ability of the market to produce things that people need, under reduced prices each year.
    And I don't - the market seems to be very good at coming up with whizbang new goodies which have to be upgraded every couple of years and five thousand types of toothbrush each with its own a pseudo-scientific advertising campaign, but it's still not able to feed and clothe everyone in this (very rich) country. Why would it suddenly change its priorities?

    Or it's just correlation...
    Or it's not :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    There's heaps of research on this. Just for a start, working class kids have a lower average birth weight, which has loads knock-on effects in terms of development, including adult IQ. This disparity in birthweight is primarily caused by differences in diet which obviously effect children as they grow up; working class children are more likely to suffer from a variety of chronic diseases (due to a combination of diet and environmental factors - they're more likely even to be killed by a car than middle class children). Middle class parents can afford to buy their children more toys and educational material, and because of the kinds of jobs they do are much more inclined to be able and willing to teach their children things like literacy and maths. And then there's the whole culture thing - middle class kids find it much easier to get into professional jobs because they already share accents and mannerisms with their prospective employers, and because they tend to look healthier and can afford to be better dressed, and because many of them secure jobs or internships through parental support or connections. These are just a few ways in which middle class children are more advantaged than working class ones - it isn't hard to think of more.
    I think this is far too simplistic - for instance, take birth weight. The most recent studies seem to show that there is actually no correlation between low parental income and low birth weight once parental birth weight is controlled for. (Conley, Dalton and Bennett, 2000, “Is Biology Destiny? Birth Weight and Life
    Chances"). In other words, it can't do the work you're arguing it does as there is not apparently any correlation, let alone causation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    I would say yes.
    They are lazy as they expect everyone else to put the hard work in, yet then recieve the same rewards that hardworking people recieve.

    They are jealous as no one should care about what anyone else is earning and should focus on making themselves as successful as possible.
    Very over-simplistic. It's more like your efforts should be in service rather than in making yourself richer purely with no moral conscience. That's how most modern day 'socialists' think.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    I think this is far too simplistic - for instance, take birth weight. The most recent studies seem to show that there is actually no correlation between low parental income and low birth weight once parental birth weight is controlled for.
    So you're saying because working class parents weighed less themselves at birth, and their children weighed less, that means that there's no correlation between class and birth weight ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    So you're saying because working class parents weighed less themselves at birth, and their children weighed less, that means that there's no correlation between class and birth weight ?
    No I mean there's no proof of causation between parental low income and low birth weight - if anything, it would appear that having a low birth weight is hereditary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    No I mean there's no proof of causation between parental low income and low birth weight - if anything, it would appear that having a low birth weight is hereditary.
    Social class is hereditary...
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.