Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Society will benefit more by introducing...

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2011 7:02:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Traditional Christian values? After the England riots, there is much debate on what caused such an out break of lawlessness. Although there are a number of factors that contributed to the out break, like bad upbringing in family life, conformity, boredom and joblessness, none of those ultimately triggered this outrage in England. Putting aside any conspiracies that people might have about this matter, I want to question want is England lacking that has lead to such riots and lawlessness.

I believe it is a lack of Christian values, that England once strongly held to. Today we have our youth leading our adults, even in the church (not the church of Christ) this is occurring. In church we allow the youth to decide what is best for them in concern with how they wish to learn and grow up. But this is also happening out side the church, youth have been given so much freedom to do what they want, there is almost no discipline that can hit at core problems these days, the discipline that is given out today is very much secular, for example; a mother might ground her child for getting into trouble at school. But the real problem is solved by temporary punishment, rather it is solved by a consistent strict set of rules that ensure children will grow up in respect for the older generation and other peoples property.

As clearly seen, over the past four days, many of the youth of England do not have respect for their own society that also belongs to the older generation. This is concerning, and it raises the question, what is to blame?

What do you think is to blame for these riots and looters?

Is it bad upbringings in families? If so, why is it, and why are there parents unable to bring up their children right and lawfully?

Is it bad or little education? If so, what is it and why has a society like England ended up with such bad schooling that youth are left with a mind set that thinks it is fun and game to loots and trash up their own streets?

It is unemployment? If so, why is it and why has a country like England left with so much unemployment, and how could unemployment lead to such outrages?

What method or political arrangement could fix this problem of lawlessness in England? I believe that introducing Christian teaching back into schools and general society would greatly improve the morals of the English public.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2011 7:36:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
introducing
traditional
wat is this i dont even
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2011 7:52:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Was the Spanish Inquisition influenced by traditional Christian values?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2011 8:19:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/11/2011 7:52:08 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Was the Spanish Inquisition influenced by traditional Christian values?

Reply: Good point, and there are many others to be made about the kinds of things that Christianity teaches. None of them being necessarily good.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 1:46:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is not a lack of 'Christian values' it is a lack of simple common sense. Immigration, excessive welfare and the lack of a decent police force has produced an underclass of people, white and black, who are basically scum.

They are paid not to work, they are trapped in mediocrity and failure, their mistakes and crimes are left unpunished.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 3:54:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 1:46:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It is not a lack of 'Christian values' it is a lack of simple common sense. Immigration, excessive welfare and the lack of a decent police force has produced an underclass of people, white and black, who are basically scum.

They are paid not to work, they are trapped in mediocrity and failure, their mistakes and crimes are left unpunished.

I'd love to see this "excessive welfare". Assuming most people on welfare are under 25 (those who cause this type of violence usually are), normally they'll get £51.40 per week to live on. Secondly, these riots have zero (as in absolutely nothing) to do with welfare or immigration, but if you want to start throwing people out of council houses and cutting their only source of income, let's see if violence can be controlled then. With millions of people losing jobs everywhere because of mistakes made by the banks, it's always amazing to me to see people fall for the daily mail ideological twitch line. It's usually immigrants, welfare recipients, aggressive secularists or gays who get blamed, so it's no surprise to see 2 of these groups at fault in some people's eyes for something as unrelated as a guy getting shot causing riots.

There's no evidence at all that folks on welfare or immigrants are causing this problem (immigrants are one of the groups being targeted), but don't let this get in the way of a good rant.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 10:43:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 3:54:33 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:46:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It is not a lack of 'Christian values' it is a lack of simple common sense. Immigration, excessive welfare and the lack of a decent police force has produced an underclass of people, white and black, who are basically scum.

They are paid not to work, they are trapped in mediocrity and failure, their mistakes and crimes are left unpunished.

I'd love to see this "excessive welfare". Assuming most people on welfare are under 25 (those who cause this type of violence usually are), normally they'll get £51.40 per week to live on.

That is jobseekers alone... and it is excessive. Why should anyone be paid £50 a week for doing nothing? This is before you look at all the other benefits the majority of the rioters are on.

The money is enough to sustain them, but not enough to actually allow them to do anything or aspire to anything. Hence my comments.

Secondly, these riots have zero (as in absolutely nothing) to do with welfare or immigration,

How do you get race riots without immigration? I bet you that the majority of the rioters are on benefits.

but if you want to start throwing people out of council houses and cutting their only source of income, let's see if violence can be controlled then.

The police have guns.

With millions of people losing jobs everywhere because of mistakes made by the banks, it's always amazing to me to see people fall for the daily mail ideological twitch line. It's usually immigrants, welfare recipients, aggressive secularists or gays who get blamed, so it's no surprise to see 2 of these groups at fault in some people's eyes for something as unrelated as a guy getting shot causing riots.

Millions did not lose their jobs due to the banks, the people rioting are not the recently unemployed, but a long term underclass.

There's no evidence at all that folks on welfare or immigrants are causing this problem (immigrants are one of the groups being targeted), but don't let this get in the way of a good rant.

These people set fire to peoples homes, they trashed their local shops, they hurled rocks at ambulances. But no there will always be someone willing to defend them. It's not their fault... it's society's... aww the poor diddums.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 12:25:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 10:43:54 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 3:54:33 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:46:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It is not a lack of 'Christian values' it is a lack of simple common sense. Immigration, excessive welfare and the lack of a decent police force has produced an underclass of people, white and black, who are basically scum.

They are paid not to work, they are trapped in mediocrity and failure, their mistakes and crimes are left unpunished.

I'd love to see this "excessive welfare". Assuming most people on welfare are under 25 (those who cause this type of violence usually are), normally they'll get £51.40 per week to live on.

That is jobseekers alone... and it is excessive. Why should anyone be paid £50 a week for doing nothing? This is before you look at all the other benefits the majority of the rioters are on.

£50 a week is "excessive"? Okay, then let's try and introduce that into tax policy. When the right say that we have enough money to give the 3,000 richest families a tax break in Britain, or that tuition fees for universities are affordable at £9,000 per year, this looks pretty contrived to say the least. It's ironic that the biggest recipients of state funds are corporations (through things like PFIs), farmers (traditionally tory voters, individual tax cheats (which costs an estimated 10 times that of benefits cheats) like tory Lord ashcroft, and the Royal Family, which this government (like every other government) supports to the point where they pay for the wedding of 2 of the richest people in the country. It's scandalous.

As for why people should be paid jobseeker's, well, it's simply an economic necessity. Even Milton Friedman recognised that there will always be a natural rate of unemployment, and if you don't have subsistence money for a labour force (particularly when you cut hundreds of thousands of jobs), you will be left with a labour market consisting of working people and homeless people. It's hardly attractive to foreign investment, is it?

Just as a last point, blaming folks for not having a job after the right destroyed industry in the 80s and is cutting public sector jobs everywhere is as Jimmy Reid put it, like have someone cutting your legs off and asking why you aren't standing on your own 2 feet. It takes balls to blame social workers, teachers, cleaners and so forth for not having a job, when they have been turfed out because this and the previous government wanting to preserve the stock exchange and all the various bonuses given to folk who were successful in taking neo-liberalism to its predictable demise.

The money is enough to sustain them, but not enough to actually allow them to do anything or aspire to anything. Hence my comments.

I don't know of any evidence you actually have to suggest that those rioting are recipients of welfare, much less the welfare state causing the problem. I take it you're of the view of Charles Murray and others who think we should decrease the surplus population? What's more, I bet you have no idea of how the welfare system actually works in Britain. People are spoonfed this crap about benefits all the time by the tabloids. The ordeal of actually trying to get ANY benefit from the state is difficult at the best of times. The fact that you literally never hear in the tabloids about people being refused benefits when they have things like terminal cancer dementia, fibromialgia and so forth is stunning, and you really think society would be better to tell people with these conditions to work or starve would be better than paying people the tiny amounts we do to continue living?

If we can find money to kill people oversees, bail out banks, subsidise businesses and rich individuals, and pay for royal weddings, as well as helping countries like Ireland, we can find money help people to have support while looking for work (which is after all, a necessary condition for jobseekers), and to support those who can't work because of illness or disabilities.

Secondly, these riots have zero (as in absolutely nothing) to do with welfare or immigration,

How do you get race riots without immigration? I bet you that the majority of the rioters are on benefits.

This is like blaming Judaism for the Holocaust. Even if immigration were a necessary component (which it obviously would be if the riots were based on race), this is, ironically, excusing violence because of poor immigration policy. If as you say later on, one cannot blame society for the rioting of individuals, then okay, stop blaming society. If poverty cannot excuse violence, then neither can immigration policies. As for your bet, again, what are you basing it on?

but if you want to start throwing people out of council houses and cutting their only source of income, let's see if violence can be controlled then.

The police have guns.

Yep. Let's throw millions of people out of their homes then slowly starve them. If they resist, we'll shoot them. BTW, when you cut police along with everything else, it's going to be enormously difficult to control a concerned population.

With millions of people losing jobs everywhere because of mistakes made by the banks, it's always amazing to me to see people fall for the daily mail ideological twitch line. It's usually immigrants, welfare recipients, aggressive secularists or gays who get blamed, so it's no surprise to see 2 of these groups at fault in some people's eyes for something as unrelated as a guy getting shot causing riots.

Millions did not lose their jobs due to the banks, the people rioting are not the recently unemployed, but a long term underclass.

Again, evidence.

There's no evidence at all that folks on welfare or immigrants are causing this problem (immigrants are one of the groups being targeted), but don't let this get in the way of a good rant.

These people set fire to peoples homes, they trashed their local shops, they hurled rocks at ambulances. But no there will always be someone willing to defend them. It's not their fault... it's society's... aww the poor diddums.

I don't defend people who riot in the way that they have been and think that folks caught stealing should be prosecuted as harshly as possible, as well as the thugs that beat people up and so on. It's like I said, you don't support your assertion of who or what caused the riots, you just make a long-winded rant cut wholecloth from a daily mail type reflex, and this is what I disputing, not whether the riots had a legitimate point (whether they did or not is irrelevant, given the way they have behaved, attacking innocent people and vandalising the streets).

Weren't we supposed to debate the welfare state? I'd be more than happy to do so if you really think you can still defend the politics of the right in Britain.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 12:59:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 12:25:19 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 10:43:54 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 3:54:33 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:46:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It is not a lack of 'Christian values' it is a lack of simple common sense. Immigration, excessive welfare and the lack of a decent police force has produced an underclass of people, white and black, who are basically scum.

They are paid not to work, they are trapped in mediocrity and failure, their mistakes and crimes are left unpunished.

I'd love to see this "excessive welfare". Assuming most people on welfare are under 25 (those who cause this type of violence usually are), normally they'll get £51.40 per week to live on.

That is jobseekers alone... and it is excessive. Why should anyone be paid £50 a week for doing nothing? This is before you look at all the other benefits the majority of the rioters are on.

£50 a week is "excessive"? Okay, then let's try and introduce that into tax policy. When the right say that we have enough money to give the 3,000 richest families a tax break in Britain, or that tuition fees for universities are affordable at £9,000 per year, this looks pretty contrived to say the least. It's ironic that the biggest recipients of state funds are corporations (through things like PFIs), farmers (traditionally tory voters, individual tax cheats (which costs an estimated 10 times that of benefits cheats) like tory Lord ashcroft, and the Royal Family, which this government (like every other government) supports to the point where they pay for the wedding of 2 of the richest people in the country. It's scandalous.

As for why people should be paid jobseeker's, well, it's simply an economic necessity. Even Milton Friedman recognised that there will always be a natural rate of unemployment, and if you don't have subsistence money for a labour force (particularly when you cut hundreds of thousands of jobs), you will be left with a labour market consisting of working people and homeless people. It's hardly attractive to foreign investment, is it?

Just as a last point, blaming folks for not having a job after the right destroyed industry in the 80s and is cutting public sector jobs everywhere is as Jimmy Reid put it, like have someone cutting your legs off and asking why you aren't standing on your own 2 feet. It takes balls to blame social workers, teachers, cleaners and so forth for not having a job, when they have been turfed out because this and the previous government wanting to preserve the stock exchange and all the various bonuses given to folk who were successful in taking neo-liberalism to its predictable demise.

The money is enough to sustain them, but not enough to actually allow them to do anything or aspire to anything. Hence my comments.

I don't know of any evidence you actually have to suggest that those rioting are recipients of welfare, much less the welfare state causing the problem. I take it you're of the view of Charles Murray and others who think we should decrease the surplus population? What's more, I bet you have no idea of how the welfare system actually works in Britain. People are spoonfed this crap about benefits all the time by the tabloids. The ordeal of actually trying to get ANY benefit from the state is difficult at the best of times. The fact that you literally never hear in the tabloids about people being refused benefits when they have things like terminal cancer dementia, fibromialgia and so forth is stunning, and you really think society would be better to tell people with these conditions to work or starve would be better than paying people the tiny amounts we do to continue living?

If we can find money to kill people oversees, bail out banks, subsidise businesses and rich individuals, and pay for royal weddings, as well as helping countries like Ireland, we can find money help people to have support while looking for work (which is after all, a necessary condition for jobseekers), and to support those who can't work because of illness or disabilities.

Secondly, these riots have zero (as in absolutely nothing) to do with welfare or immigration,

How do you get race riots without immigration? I bet you that the majority of the rioters are on benefits.

This is like blaming Judaism for the Holocaust. Even if immigration were a necessary component (which it obviously would be if the riots were based on race), this is, ironically, excusing violence because of poor immigration policy. If as you say later on, one cannot blame society for the rioting of individuals, then okay, stop blaming society. If poverty cannot excuse violence, then neither can immigration policies. As for your bet, again, what are you basing it on?

but if you want to start throwing people out of council houses and cutting their only source of income, let's see if violence can be controlled then.

The police have guns.

Yep. Let's throw millions of people out of their homes then slowly starve them. If they resist, we'll shoot them. BTW, when you cut police along with everything else, it's going to be enormously difficult to control a concerned population.

With millions of people losing jobs everywhere because of mistakes made by the banks, it's always amazing to me to see people fall for the daily mail ideological twitch line. It's usually immigrants, welfare recipients, aggressive secularists or gays who get blamed, so it's no surprise to see 2 of these groups at fault in some people's eyes for something as unrelated as a guy getting shot causing riots.

Millions did not lose their jobs due to the banks, the people rioting are not the recently unemployed, but a long term underclass.

Again, evidence.

There's no evidence at all that folks on welfare or immigrants are causing this problem (immigrants are one of the groups being targeted), but don't let this get in the way of a good rant.

These people set fire to peoples homes, they trashed their local shops, they hurled rocks at ambulances. But no there will always be someone willing to defend them. It's not their fault... it's society's... aww the poor diddums.

I don't defend people who riot in the way that they have been and think that folks caught stealing should be prosecuted as harshly as possible, as well as the thugs that beat people up and so on. It's like I said, you don't support your assertion of who or what caused the riots, you just make a long-winded rant cut wholecloth from a daily mail type reflex, and this is what I disputing, not whether the riots had a legitimate point (whether they did or not is irrelevant, given the way they have behaved, attacking innocent people and vandalising the streets).

Weren't we supposed to debate the welfare state? I'd be more than happy to do so if you really think you can still defend the politics of the right in Britain.

You have laden your post with so many strawmans, ad hominems and irrelevancies that is it pointless me even bothering. When you want a serious conversation try again.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 1:16:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 12:59:22 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 12:25:19 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 10:43:54 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 3:54:33 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:46:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It is not a lack of 'Christian values' it is a lack of simple common sense. Immigration, excessive welfare and the lack of a decent police force has produced an underclass of people, white and black, who are basically scum.

They are paid not to work, they are trapped in mediocrity and failure, their mistakes and crimes are left unpunished.

I'd love to see this "excessive welfare". Assuming most people on welfare are under 25 (those who cause this type of violence usually are), normally they'll get £51.40 per week to live on.

That is jobseekers alone... and it is excessive. Why should anyone be paid £50 a week for doing nothing? This is before you look at all the other benefits the majority of the rioters are on.

£50 a week is "excessive"? Okay, then let's try and introduce that into tax policy. When the right say that we have enough money to give the 3,000 richest families a tax break in Britain, or that tuition fees for universities are affordable at £9,000 per year, this looks pretty contrived to say the least. It's ironic that the biggest recipients of state funds are corporations (through things like PFIs), farmers (traditionally tory voters, individual tax cheats (which costs an estimated 10 times that of benefits cheats) like tory Lord ashcroft, and the Royal Family, which this government (like every other government) supports to the point where they pay for the wedding of 2 of the richest people in the country. It's scandalous.

As for why people should be paid jobseeker's, well, it's simply an economic necessity. Even Milton Friedman recognised that there will always be a natural rate of unemployment, and if you don't have subsistence money for a labour force (particularly when you cut hundreds of thousands of jobs), you will be left with a labour market consisting of working people and homeless people. It's hardly attractive to foreign investment, is it?

Just as a last point, blaming folks for not having a job after the right destroyed industry in the 80s and is cutting public sector jobs everywhere is as Jimmy Reid put it, like have someone cutting your legs off and asking why you aren't standing on your own 2 feet. It takes balls to blame social workers, teachers, cleaners and so forth for not having a job, when they have been turfed out because this and the previous government wanting to preserve the stock exchange and all the various bonuses given to folk who were successful in taking neo-liberalism to its predictable demise.

The money is enough to sustain them, but not enough to actually allow them to do anything or aspire to anything. Hence my comments.

I don't know of any evidence you actually have to suggest that those rioting are recipients of welfare, much less the welfare state causing the problem. I take it you're of the view of Charles Murray and others who think we should decrease the surplus population? What's more, I bet you have no idea of how the welfare system actually works in Britain. People are spoonfed this crap about benefits all the time by the tabloids. The ordeal of actually trying to get ANY benefit from the state is difficult at the best of times. The fact that you literally never hear in the tabloids about people being refused benefits when they have things like terminal cancer dementia, fibromialgia and so forth is stunning, and you really think society would be better to tell people with these conditions to work or starve would be better than paying people the tiny amounts we do to continue living?

If we can find money to kill people oversees, bail out banks, subsidise businesses and rich individuals, and pay for royal weddings, as well as helping countries like Ireland, we can find money help people to have support while looking for work (which is after all, a necessary condition for jobseekers), and to support those who can't work because of illness or disabilities.

Secondly, these riots have zero (as in absolutely nothing) to do with welfare or immigration,

How do you get race riots without immigration? I bet you that the majority of the rioters are on benefits.

This is like blaming Judaism for the Holocaust. Even if immigration were a necessary component (which it obviously would be if the riots were based on race), this is, ironically, excusing violence because of poor immigration policy. If as you say later on, one cannot blame society for the rioting of individuals, then okay, stop blaming society. If poverty cannot excuse violence, then neither can immigration policies. As for your bet, again, what are you basing it on?

but if you want to start throwing people out of council houses and cutting their only source of income, let's see if violence can be controlled then.

The police have guns.

Yep. Let's throw millions of people out of their homes then slowly starve them. If they resist, we'll shoot them. BTW, when you cut police along with everything else, it's going to be enormously difficult to control a concerned population.

With millions of people losing jobs everywhere because of mistakes made by the banks, it's always amazing to me to see people fall for the daily mail ideological twitch line. It's usually immigrants, welfare recipients, aggressive secularists or gays who get blamed, so it's no surprise to see 2 of these groups at fault in some people's eyes for something as unrelated as a guy getting shot causing riots.

Millions did not lose their jobs due to the banks, the people rioting are not the recently unemployed, but a long term underclass.

Again, evidence.

There's no evidence at all that folks on welfare or immigrants are causing this problem (immigrants are one of the groups being targeted), but don't let this get in the way of a good rant.

These people set fire to peoples homes, they trashed their local shops, they hurled rocks at ambulances. But no there will always be someone willing to defend them. It's not their fault... it's society's... aww the poor diddums.

I don't defend people who riot in the way that they have been and think that folks caught stealing should be prosecuted as harshly as possible, as well as the thugs that beat people up and so on. It's like I said, you don't support your assertion of who or what caused the riots, you just make a long-winded rant cut wholecloth from a daily mail type reflex, and this is what I disputing, not whether the riots had a legitimate point (whether they did or not is irrelevant, given the way they have behaved, attacking innocent people and vandalising the streets).

Weren't we supposed to debate the welfare state? I'd be more than happy to do so if you really think you can still defend the politics of the right in Britain.

You have laden your post with so many strawmans, ad hominems and irrelevancies that is it pointless me even bothering. When you want a serious conversation try again.

I take it that's a no in defending the policies of the right in Britain. I don't blame you. I think Roy had a post criticising those on the left for not engaging with critics. I seem to remember you dug your heals in when I tried to debate you on the welfare state, refusing to support your belief in the destruction of the NHS, and eventually we didn't get to debate after weeks of trying to, and now seem unwilling to defend the points you made in your earlier post. I guess you are an example that those on the right can be just as dismissive and unwil
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 1:27:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 1:16:56 PM, unitedandy wrote:


I take it that's a no in defending the policies of the right in Britain. I don't blame you. I think Roy had a post criticising those on the left for not engaging with critics. I seem to remember you dug your heals in when I tried to debate you on the welfare state, refusing to support your belief in the destruction of the NHS, and eventually we didn't get to debate after weeks of trying to, and

I am happy to defend my politics and my views, I am not willing offer credibility to strawman attacks. With regards the Welfare state debate I was not happy to see my argument crippled by adopted an inconsistent position I did not hold to and never volunteered to adopt. Your description of it is the product of a faulty memory. We did not get the debate because I was not around due to personal issues for that I apoligise.

But there seems to be a pattern forming here with your approach to debates.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 2:34:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 1:27:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:16:56 PM, unitedandy wrote:


I take it that's a no in defending the policies of the right in Britain. I don't blame you. I think Roy had a post criticising those on the left for not engaging with critics. I seem to remember you dug your heals in when I tried to debate you on the welfare state, refusing to support your belief in the destruction of the NHS, and eventually we didn't get to debate after weeks of trying to, and

I am happy to defend my politics and my views, I am not willing offer credibility to strawman attacks. With regards the Welfare state debate I was not happy to see my argument crippled by adopted an inconsistent position I did not hold to and never volunteered to adopt. Your description of it is the product of a faulty memory. We did not get the debate because I was not around due to personal issues for that I apoligise.

But there seems to be a pattern forming here with your approach to debates.

Well, it's not really faulty memory, given that the discussion we had is still in the comments section of the debate. If you are still willing to defend your views, okay, what about a debate on the NHS? You don't support that, right? Or you could actually reply to my post and show straw-manning. It's the easiest thing in the world to do to label an attack on ones views as this or that, but given this is a debate website, I would hope that you would do a little more than label it a straw-man, and try to show that it is a straw-man.

As for my approach to debates, what are you talking about? I tried to get you to debate last time, and after you moaning about the arguments presented, then you leaving we didn't get to debate. If you can point to something substantive here, please do

Given that you don't support universal healthcare (this was the main stumbling block last time) how about we simplify it and just debate the NHS?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 3:08:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 2:34:14 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:27:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:16:56 PM, unitedandy wrote:


I take it that's a no in defending the policies of the right in Britain. I don't blame you. I think Roy had a post criticising those on the left for not engaging with critics. I seem to remember you dug your heals in when I tried to debate you on the welfare state, refusing to support your belief in the destruction of the NHS, and eventually we didn't get to debate after weeks of trying to, and

I am happy to defend my politics and my views, I am not willing offer credibility to strawman attacks. With regards the Welfare state debate I was not happy to see my argument crippled by adopted an inconsistent position I did not hold to and never volunteered to adopt. Your description of it is the product of a faulty memory. We did not get the debate because I was not around due to personal issues for that I apoligise.

But there seems to be a pattern forming here with your approach to debates.

Well, it's not really faulty memory, given that the discussion we had is still in the comments section of the debate.

We agreed to a debate on the welfare state, you extended that to include the NHS and decided that I would take CON on the latter whilst taking PRO on the former. It was a deliberate attempt to cripple my argument, perfectly acceptable... but for the fact it was a debate that I did not agree to have, on views I did not express.

If you are still willing to defend your views, okay, what about a debate on the NHS? You don't support that, right? Or you could actually reply to my post and show straw-manning.

I am not particularly interested in a debate about the NHS, my views are not suffficiently partisan on that. The welfare state yes, my comments with regards the london riots yes. Your post is riddled with straw man and ad hominems, claims that I want the surplus population to die and constant cries of daily mail this and daily that. You are attempting to turn me into a strawman of the right.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 7:12:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 3:08:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 2:34:14 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:27:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:16:56 PM, unitedandy wrote:


I take it that's a no in defending the policies of the right in Britain. I don't blame you. I think Roy had a post criticising those on the left for not engaging with critics. I seem to remember you dug your heals in when I tried to debate you on the welfare state, refusing to support your belief in the destruction of the NHS, and eventually we didn't get to debate after weeks of trying to, and

I am happy to defend my politics and my views, I am not willing offer credibility to strawman attacks. With regards the Welfare state debate I was not happy to see my argument crippled by adopted an inconsistent position I did not hold to and never volunteered to adopt. Your description of it is the product of a faulty memory. We did not get the debate because I was not around due to personal issues for that I apoligise.

But there seems to be a pattern forming here with your approach to debates.

Well, it's not really faulty memory, given that the discussion we had is still in the comments section of the debate.

We agreed to a debate on the welfare state, you extended that to include the NHS and decided that I would take CON on the latter whilst taking PRO on the former. It was a deliberate attempt to cripple my argument, perfectly acceptable... but for the fact it was a debate that I did not agree to have, on views I did not express.

If you are still willing to defend your views, okay, what about a debate on the NHS? You don't support that, right? Or you could actually reply to my post and show straw-manning.

I am not particularly interested in a debate about the NHS, my views are not suffficiently partisan on that. The welfare state yes, my comments with regards the london riots yes. Your post is riddled with straw man and ad hominems, claims that I want the surplus population to die and constant cries of daily mail this and daily that. You are attempting to turn me into a strawman of the right.

Well, when you take away a welfare state, this is kind of what happens. And to be fair, it's hardly ad hominem when your response to the unrest this would cause was "the police have guns". The daily mail comment was pretty accurate. You blamed the welfare state for something as unrelated as riots which began from a shooting. Then you made a claim that much of the rioters where welfare recipients. A claim with which you provided no evidence. BTW, this is straw-manning, and I'm still waiting for the evidence you have to support this claim, which is ironic from someone who claims to have been the victim of ad hominem and straw-manning.

On the NHS, it's a hell of a lot harder to argue against the welfare state if you support universal healthcare run by the government, because as I pointed out, the most consistent attack on the NHS would be from a libertarian or anarchist perspective. Given that the NHS is (at the very least, arguably) a key part of the welfare state, again it seems prima facie inconsistent to oppose one and not the other, and as I said, one accepts the the welfare state could be legitimate in principle by supporting the NHS. You don't want to debate this, that's fine. Your not a typical right winger, well okay. But understand that regardless of whether you support, for example, Thatcher's destruction of industry in the 1980s, this is still highly relevant when talking about the need for a welfare state.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 8:23:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The funny thing is religion correlates with higher crime rate, but yeah lets ignore the evidence and think religion would lower crime.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 8:25:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 8:23:15 AM, izbo10 wrote:
The funny thing is religion correlates with higher crime rate, but yeah lets ignore the evidence and think religion would lower crime.

A statement without proof isn't true, Izbo10...This is a basic fact of presenting or asserting on this site....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 8:58:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 8:25:14 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/13/2011 8:23:15 AM, izbo10 wrote:
The funny thing is religion correlates with higher crime rate, but yeah lets ignore the evidence and think religion would lower crime.

A statement without proof isn't true, Izbo10...This is a basic fact of presenting or asserting on this site....

Man is good this will be the about 10th time you have asked me to support this, each time before I have shown the studies, I don't need to show you every time, by this point you should have seen the studies, said, well i have never found any adequate means of refuting the studies so I might want to start considering them as likely accurate. But no, each time you come back and troll with the same retarded question.

http://moses.creighton.edu...
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 11:45:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 7:12:06 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/13/2011 3:08:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 2:34:14 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:27:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:16:56 PM, unitedandy wrote:


I take it that's a no in defending the policies of the right in Britain. I don't blame you. I think Roy had a post criticising those on the left for not engaging with critics. I seem to remember you dug your heals in when I tried to debate you on the welfare state, refusing to support your belief in the destruction of the NHS, and eventually we didn't get to debate after weeks of trying to, and

I am happy to defend my politics and my views, I am not willing offer credibility to strawman attacks. With regards the Welfare state debate I was not happy to see my argument crippled by adopted an inconsistent position I did not hold to and never volunteered to adopt. Your description of it is the product of a faulty memory. We did not get the debate because I was not around due to personal issues for that I apoligise.

But there seems to be a pattern forming here with your approach to debates.

Well, it's not really faulty memory, given that the discussion we had is still in the comments section of the debate.

We agreed to a debate on the welfare state, you extended that to include the NHS and decided that I would take CON on the latter whilst taking PRO on the former. It was a deliberate attempt to cripple my argument, perfectly acceptable... but for the fact it was a debate that I did not agree to have, on views I did not express.

If you are still willing to defend your views, okay, what about a debate on the NHS? You don't support that, right? Or you could actually reply to my post and show straw-manning.

I am not particularly interested in a debate about the NHS, my views are not suffficiently partisan on that. The welfare state yes, my comments with regards the london riots yes. Your post is riddled with straw man and ad hominems, claims that I want the surplus population to die and constant cries of daily mail this and daily that. You are attempting to turn me into a strawman of the right.

Well, when you take away a welfare state, this is kind of what happens. And to be fair, it's hardly ad hominem when your response to the unrest this would cause was "the police have guns".

Hmmmm no... can't tell if you are strawmanning again or if this is a honest mistake. I was talking about taking away benefits from the rioters.

The daily mail comment was pretty accurate. You blamed the welfare state for something as unrelated as riots which began from a shooting. Then you made a claim that much of the rioters where welfare recipients. A claim with which you provided no evidence.

There is no point providing evidence for someone who is unwilling to debate an issue. I believe that if you look at those convicted over the london riots the majority will be on benefits or from families supported by benefits.

BTW, this is straw-manning, and I'm still waiting for the evidence you have to support this claim, which is ironic from someone who claims to have been the victim of ad hominem and straw-manning.

How is that strawmanning?

On the NHS, it's a hell of a lot harder to argue against the welfare state if you support universal healthcare run by the government, because as I pointed out, the most consistent attack on the NHS would be from a libertarian or anarchist perspective. Given that the NHS is (at the very least, arguably) a key part of the welfare state, again it seems prima facie inconsistent to oppose one and not the other, and as I said, one accepts the the welfare state could be legitimate in principle by supporting the NHS. You don't want to debate this, that's fine. Your not a typical right winger, well okay. But understand that regardless of whether you support, for example, Thatcher's destruction of industry in the 1980s, this is still highly relevant when talking about the need for a welfare state.

You are still not quite getting it, almost... but not quite.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 12:39:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 11:45:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:12:06 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/13/2011 3:08:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 2:34:14 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:27:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:16:56 PM, unitedandy wrote:


I take it that's a no in defending the policies of the right in Britain. I don't blame you. I think Roy had a post criticising those on the left for not engaging with critics. I seem to remember you dug your heals in when I tried to debate you on the welfare state, refusing to support your belief in the destruction of the NHS, and eventually we didn't get to debate after weeks of trying to, and

I am happy to defend my politics and my views, I am not willing offer credibility to strawman attacks. With regards the Welfare state debate I was not happy to see my argument crippled by adopted an inconsistent position I did not hold to and never volunteered to adopt. Your description of it is the product of a faulty memory. We did not get the debate because I was not around due to personal issues for that I apoligise.

But there seems to be a pattern forming here with your approach to debates.

Well, it's not really faulty memory, given that the discussion we had is still in the comments section of the debate.

We agreed to a debate on the welfare state, you extended that to include the NHS and decided that I would take CON on the latter whilst taking PRO on the former. It was a deliberate attempt to cripple my argument, perfectly acceptable... but for the fact it was a debate that I did not agree to have, on views I did not express.

If you are still willing to defend your views, okay, what about a debate on the NHS? You don't support that, right? Or you could actually reply to my post and show straw-manning.

I am not particularly interested in a debate about the NHS, my views are not suffficiently partisan on that. The welfare state yes, my comments with regards the london riots yes. Your post is riddled with straw man and ad hominems, claims that I want the surplus population to die and constant cries of daily mail this and daily that. You are attempting to turn me into a strawman of the right.

Well, when you take away a welfare state, this is kind of what happens. And to be fair, it's hardly ad hominem when your response to the unrest this would cause was "the police have guns".

Hmmmm no... can't tell if you are strawmanning again or if this is a honest mistake. I was talking about taking away benefits from the rioters.

The daily mail comment was pretty accurate. You blamed the welfare state for something as unrelated as riots which began from a shooting. Then you made a claim that much of the rioters where welfare recipients. A claim with which you provided no evidence.

There is no point providing evidence for someone who is unwilling to debate an issue. I believe that if you look at those convicted over the london riots the majority will be on benefits or from families supported by benefits.

Unwilling to debate what? Again, is this just pie in the sky, or do you want to justify this claim?

BTW, this is straw-manning, and I'm still waiting for the evidence you have to support this claim, which is ironic from someone who claims to have been the victim of ad hominem and straw-manning.

How is that strawmanning?

You're presenting a case against the welfare state which, if correct would be a significant problem. However, the causal link between rioting and the welfare state is something you refuse to justify, and calling it excessive and the like is pretty much distorting what the welfare state is, regardless of whether it causes anything.

On the NHS, it's a hell of a lot harder to argue against the welfare state if you support universal healthcare run by the government, because as I pointed out, the most consistent attack on the NHS would be from a libertarian or anarchist perspective. Given that the NHS is (at the very least, arguably) a key part of the welfare state, again it seems prima facie inconsistent to oppose one and not the other, and as I said, one accepts the the welfare state could be legitimate in principle by supporting the NHS. You don't want to debate this, that's fine. Your not a typical right winger, well okay. But understand that regardless of whether you support, for example, Thatcher's destruction of industry in the 1980s, this is still highly relevant when talking about the need for a welfare state.

You are still not quite getting it, almost... but not quite.

What am I not getting?

Tell you what, when the cuts to welfare come in 2013 to disability benefits, and people with terminal illness, and so on are thousands of pounds a year worse off, we'll get a rough idea of what the country will be like with a slimline welfare state.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 12:51:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 12:39:00 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/13/2011 11:45:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:12:06 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/13/2011 3:08:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 2:34:14 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:27:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:16:56 PM, unitedandy wrote:


I take it that's a no in defending the policies of the right in Britain. I don't blame you. I think Roy had a post criticising those on the left for not engaging with critics. I seem to remember you dug your heals in when I tried to debate you on the welfare state, refusing to support your belief in the destruction of the NHS, and eventually we didn't get to debate after weeks of trying to, and

I am happy to defend my politics and my views, I am not willing offer credibility to strawman attacks. With regards the Welfare state debate I was not happy to see my argument crippled by adopted an inconsistent position I did not hold to and never volunteered to adopt. Your description of it is the product of a faulty memory. We did not get the debate because I was not around due to personal issues for that I apoligise.

But there seems to be a pattern forming here with your approach to debates.

Well, it's not really faulty memory, given that the discussion we had is still in the comments section of the debate.

We agreed to a debate on the welfare state, you extended that to include the NHS and decided that I would take CON on the latter whilst taking PRO on the former. It was a deliberate attempt to cripple my argument, perfectly acceptable... but for the fact it was a debate that I did not agree to have, on views I did not express.

If you are still willing to defend your views, okay, what about a debate on the NHS? You don't support that, right? Or you could actually reply to my post and show straw-manning.

I am not particularly interested in a debate about the NHS, my views are not suffficiently partisan on that. The welfare state yes, my comments with regards the london riots yes. Your post is riddled with straw man and ad hominems, claims that I want the surplus population to die and constant cries of daily mail this and daily that. You are attempting to turn me into a strawman of the right.

Well, when you take away a welfare state, this is kind of what happens. And to be fair, it's hardly ad hominem when your response to the unrest this would cause was "the police have guns".

Hmmmm no... can't tell if you are strawmanning again or if this is a honest mistake. I was talking about taking away benefits from the rioters.

The daily mail comment was pretty accurate. You blamed the welfare state for something as unrelated as riots which began from a shooting. Then you made a claim that much of the rioters where welfare recipients. A claim with which you provided no evidence.

There is no point providing evidence for someone who is unwilling to debate an issue. I believe that if you look at those convicted over the london riots the majority will be on benefits or from families supported by benefits.

Unwilling to debate what? Again, is this just pie in the sky, or do you want to justify this claim?

I have already referenced the massive amounts of strawmanning.

BTW, this is straw-manning, and I'm still waiting for the evidence you have to support this claim, which is ironic from someone who claims to have been the victim of ad hominem and straw-manning.

How is that strawmanning?

You're presenting a case against the welfare state which, if correct would be a significant problem. However, the causal link between rioting and the welfare state is something you refuse to justify, and calling it excessive and the like is pretty much distorting what the welfare state is, regardless of whether it causes anything.

I have agreed to debate it, I have no agreed to put effort into this thread due to the ridiculous strawmanning I am being subjected to. Why does everything have to be twisted and turned?


On the NHS, it's a hell of a lot harder to argue against the welfare state if you support universal healthcare run by the government, because as I pointed out, the most consistent attack on the NHS would be from a libertarian or anarchist perspective. Given that the NHS is (at the very least, arguably) a key part of the welfare state, again it seems prima facie inconsistent to oppose one and not the other, and as I said, one accepts the the welfare state could be legitimate in principle by supporting the NHS. You don't want to debate this, that's fine. Your not a typical right winger, well okay. But understand that regardless of whether you support, for example, Thatcher's destruction of industry in the 1980s, this is still highly relevant when talking about the need for a welfare state.

You are still not quite getting it, almost... but not quite.

What am I not getting?

I am taking the libertarian angle, you seem to not understand how deciding your opponents politics in a debate is not fair.

Tell you what, when the cuts to welfare come in 2013 to disability benefits, and people with terminal illness, and so on are thousands of pounds a year worse off, we'll get a rough idea of what the country will be like with a slimline welfare state.

It is better that then the country go bankrupt. The majority of people on disability benefits can work, so should not be on benefits. The cuts will be painful, but for the long term good.

But why am I even bothering, obviously anyone who has any issue with a blatantly screwed up welfare system just wants to thrash beggars with his cane whilst drinking the blood of the workers.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 1:50:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 12:51:02 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/13/2011 12:39:00 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/13/2011 11:45:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:12:06 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/13/2011 3:08:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 2:34:14 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:27:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/12/2011 1:16:56 PM, unitedandy wrote:


I take it that's a no in defending the policies of the right in Britain. I don't blame you. I think Roy had a post criticising those on the left for not engaging with critics. I seem to remember you dug your heals in when I tried to debate you on the welfare state, refusing to support your belief in the destruction of the NHS, and eventually we didn't get to debate after weeks of trying to, and

I am happy to defend my politics and my views, I am not willing offer credibility to strawman attacks. With regards the Welfare state debate I was not happy to see my argument crippled by adopted an inconsistent position I did not hold to and never volunteered to adopt. Your description of it is the product of a faulty memory. We did not get the debate because I was not around due to personal issues for that I apoligise.

But there seems to be a pattern forming here with your approach to debates.

Well, it's not really faulty memory, given that the discussion we had is still in the comments section of the debate.

We agreed to a debate on the welfare state, you extended that to include the NHS and decided that I would take CON on the latter whilst taking PRO on the former. It was a deliberate attempt to cripple my argument, perfectly acceptable... but for the fact it was a debate that I did not agree to have, on views I did not express.

If you are still willing to defend your views, okay, what about a debate on the NHS? You don't support that, right? Or you could actually reply to my post and show straw-manning.

I am not particularly interested in a debate about the NHS, my views are not suffficiently partisan on that. The welfare state yes, my comments with regards the london riots yes. Your post is riddled with straw man and ad hominems, claims that I want the surplus population to die and constant cries of daily mail this and daily that. You are attempting to turn me into a strawman of the right.

Well, when you take away a welfare state, this is kind of what happens. And to be fair, it's hardly ad hominem when your response to the unrest this would cause was "the police have guns".

Hmmmm no... can't tell if you are strawmanning again or if this is a honest mistake. I was talking about taking away benefits from the rioters.

The daily mail comment was pretty accurate. You blamed the welfare state for something as unrelated as riots which began from a shooting. Then you made a claim that much of the rioters where welfare recipients. A claim with which you provided no evidence.

There is no point providing evidence for someone who is unwilling to debate an issue. I believe that if you look at those convicted over the london riots the majority will be on benefits or from families supported by benefits.

Unwilling to debate what? Again, is this just pie in the sky, or do you want to justify this claim?

I have already referenced the massive amounts of strawmanning.

How on earth does this provide evidence that the folk who rioted were welfare recipients? In what world?

BTW, this is straw-manning, and I'm still waiting for the evidence you have to support this claim, which is ironic from someone who claims to have been the victim of ad hominem and straw-manning.

How is that strawmanning?

You're presenting a case against the welfare state which, if correct would be a significant problem. However, the causal link between rioting and the welfare state is something you refuse to justify, and calling it excessive and the like is pretty much distorting what the welfare state is, regardless of whether it causes anything.

I have agreed to debate it, I have no agreed to put effort into this thread due to the ridiculous strawmanning I am being subjected to. Why does everything have to be twisted and turned?

Okay, you make the resolution and present the case and I'll debate it. Maybe you'll actually be able to try and justify what you are saying, and not revert to humming and hawing.


On the NHS, it's a hell of a lot harder to argue against the welfare state if you support universal healthcare run by the government, because as I pointed out, the most consistent attack on the NHS would be from a libertarian or anarchist perspective. Given that the NHS is (at the very least, arguably) a key part of the welfare state, again it seems prima facie inconsistent to oppose one and not the other, and as I said, one accepts the the welfare state could be legitimate in principle by supporting the NHS. You don't want to debate this, that's fine. Your not a typical right winger, well okay. But understand that regardless of whether you support, for example, Thatcher's destruction of industry in the 1980s, this is still highly relevant when talking about the need for a welfare state.

You are still not quite getting it, almost... but not quite.

What am I not getting?

I am taking the libertarian angle, you seem to not understand how deciding your opponents politics in a debate is not fair.

See, the libertarian angle makes no sense at all if you are not sufficiently partisan about the massive state involvement which is the NHS. If taxpayer money for the welfare state is theft, and if the free-market is the best way to promote freedom and prosperity, how could the NHS possibly be justified? Just for funs, try and name a single libertarian who supports a govt run healthcare system. You might as well be looking for a married batchelor.

Tell you what, when the cuts to welfare come in 2013 to disability benefits, and people with terminal illness, and so on are thousands of pounds a year worse off, we'll get a rough idea of what the country will be like with a slimline welfare state.

It is better that then the country go bankrupt. The majority of people on disability benefits can work, so should not be on benefits. The cuts will be painful, but for the long term good.

See, this is what I'm talking about. The main benefit for those with disabilities (Disability Living allowance) is NOT a benefit for people who can't work, it is financial support for everyone who has a relevant disability. So someone with a condition which is severe enough will inevitably accrue more costs (through repeated visits to hospital, special diets,uses of taxis and everything else) will get financial help to cover this, whether they are working or not,. as they should. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about with regard to the welfare state. And again, how on earth could you say that MOST people on disability benefits (it's actually ESA you are talking about, but go ahead) should not be on benefits? What do you have to support this claim? Let me guess - absolute hee-haw.

But why am I even bothering, obviously anyone who has any issue with a blatantly screwed up welfare system just wants to thrash beggars with his cane whilst drinking the blood of the workers.

And you complain about straw-manning, eh?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 2:49:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 1:50:51 PM, unitedandy wrote:

I am taking the libertarian angle, you seem to not understand how deciding your opponents politics in a debate is not fair.

See, the libertarian angle makes no sense at all if you are not sufficiently partisan about the massive state involvement which is the NHS. If taxpayer money for the welfare state is theft, and if the free-market is the best way to promote freedom and prosperity, how could the NHS possibly be justified? Just for funs, try and name a single libertarian who supports a govt run healthcare system. You might as well be looking for a married batchelor.

What is your point?


Tell you what, when the cuts to welfare come in 2013 to disability benefits, and people with terminal illness, and so on are thousands of pounds a year worse off, we'll get a rough idea of what the country will be like with a slimline welfare state.

It is better that then the country go bankrupt. The majority of people on disability benefits can work, so should not be on benefits. The cuts will be painful, but for the long term good.

See, this is what I'm talking about. The main benefit for those with disabilities (Disability Living allowance) is NOT a benefit for people who can't work, it is financial support for everyone who has a relevant disability. So someone with a condition which is severe enough will inevitably accrue more costs (through repeated visits to hospital, special diets,uses of taxis and everything else) will get financial help to cover this, whether they are working or not,. as they should. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about with regard to the welfare state. And again, how on earth could you say that MOST people on disability benefits (it's actually ESA you are talking about, but go ahead) should not be on benefits? What do you have to support this claim? Let me guess - absolute hee-haw.

Sounds like an argument that could be raised in a debate...


But why am I even bothering, obviously anyone who has any issue with a blatantly screwed up welfare system just wants to thrash beggars with his cane whilst drinking the blood of the workers.

And you complain about straw-manning, eh?

This is exactly as you are behaving.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 1:15:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 2:49:09 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/13/2011 1:50:51 PM, unitedandy wrote:

I am taking the libertarian angle, you seem to not understand how deciding your opponents politics in a debate is not fair.

See, the libertarian angle makes no sense at all if you are not sufficiently partisan about the massive state involvement which is the NHS. If taxpayer money for the welfare state is theft, and if the free-market is the best way to promote freedom and prosperity, how could the NHS possibly be justified? Just for funs, try and name a single libertarian who supports a govt run healthcare system. You might as well be looking for a married batchelor.

What is your point?

Just that your position is an incoherent junkyard at best.


Tell you what, when the cuts to welfare come in 2013 to disability benefits, and people with terminal illness, and so on are thousands of pounds a year worse off, we'll get a rough idea of what the country will be like with a slimline welfare state.

It is better that then the country go bankrupt. The majority of people on disability benefits can work, so should not be on benefits. The cuts will be painful, but for the long term good.

See, this is what I'm talking about. The main benefit for those with disabilities (Disability Living allowance) is NOT a benefit for people who can't work, it is financial support for everyone who has a relevant disability. So someone with a condition which is severe enough will inevitably accrue more costs (through repeated visits to hospital, special diets,uses of taxis and everything else) will get financial help to cover this, whether they are working or not,. as they should. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about with regard to the welfare state. And again, how on earth could you say that MOST people on disability benefits (it's actually ESA you are talking about, but go ahead) should not be on benefits? What do you have to support this claim? Let me guess - absolute hee-haw.

Sounds like an argument that could be raised in a debate...

Well, like I said present a resolution or an argument or some justification for your views then, otherwise no debate can take place.


But why am I even bothering, obviously anyone who has any issue with a blatantly screwed up welfare system just wants to thrash beggars with his cane whilst drinking the blood of the workers.

And you complain about straw-manning, eh?

This is exactly as you are behaving.

What are you, 12? I don't even think I did straw-man at all, but whatever.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 1:42:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 1:50:51 PM, unitedandy wrote:
I have already referenced the massive amounts of strawmanning.

How on earth does this provide evidence that the folk who rioted were welfare recipients? In what world?

In what world is the implication that it was intended as such? I am refusing to search out various links because I am talking to a zealot, and irrational ideaologue who refuses to even permit me my own position and bombards with nonsense strawmen.

Okay, you make the resolution and present the case and I'll debate it. Maybe you'll actually be able to try and justify what you are saying, and not revert to humming and hawing.

What humming and hawing?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 1:45:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 1:15:52 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 8/14/2011 2:49:09 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/13/2011 1:50:51 PM, unitedandy wrote:

I am taking the libertarian angle, you seem to not understand how deciding your opponents politics in a debate is not fair.

See, the libertarian angle makes no sense at all if you are not sufficiently partisan about the massive state involvement which is the NHS. If taxpayer money for the welfare state is theft, and if the free-market is the best way to promote freedom and prosperity, how could the NHS possibly be justified? Just for funs, try and name a single libertarian who supports a govt run healthcare system. You might as well be looking for a married batchelor.

What is your point?

Just that your position is an incoherent junkyard at best.

How does the above show that my position is incoherent junkyard?

Well, like I said present a resolution or an argument or some justification for your views then, otherwise no debate can take place.

Sure thing.



But why am I even bothering, obviously anyone who has any issue with a blatantly screwed up welfare system just wants to thrash beggars with his cane whilst drinking the blood of the workers.

And you complain about straw-manning, eh?

This is exactly as you are behaving.

What are you, 12? I don't even think I did straw-man at all, but whatever.

I have referenced numerous examples of a strawman. The post which I am replying to begins with a strawman.

I don't think there is any value in a forum discussion with you. You don't seem to want an honest exchange, a formal debate would be better because in theory you can't just spout all this BS. What is a good resolution for you?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 1:51:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'll debate pretty much anything to do with regards to the welfare state, as long as I'm arguing in favour of the welfare state and the resolution is sensible.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:17:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 1:51:15 PM, unitedandy wrote:
I'll debate pretty much anything to do with regards to the welfare state, as long as I'm arguing in favour of the welfare state and the resolution is sensible.

Let me guess, a resolution is not sensible if I am allowed to argue from a consistent basis?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:58:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:17:50 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/15/2011 1:51:15 PM, unitedandy wrote:
I'll debate pretty much anything to do with regards to the welfare state, as long as I'm arguing in favour of the welfare state and the resolution is sensible.

Let me guess, a resolution is not sensible if I am allowed to argue from a consistent basis?

Nope. It wouldn't be sensible if it was something either petty or just a resolution that was, say, marginally related to the welfare state. Other than that, as long as it sounds interesting and I'm arguing on behalf of the welfare state, I ain't fussed.