Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As opposed to all those Communist nations that are doing so well right now.

 Albatross wrote:
emotional reasoning definitely plays a large part in that being a bad idea. To deny this is basically just posturing on your part, I feel.

Granted I was attempting to be clever by taking up your challenge. Any system which chooses one method exclusively will always be flawed, however I absolutely stand by my assertion that policy should be backed by at least some evidence rather than being emotionally or ideologically informed.

By legalising drug use you reduce the price massively, even with high taxation, which reduces the amount of stolen goods.

There is know way you can know any of that. That's just guesswork.

Which bit do you want figures on? The level of drug related crime or the price of legalised drugs?

Don't get me wrong, I support some drug legalisation. For example, weed should have been legalised around 30 years ago. But hard drugs? Speaking as probably the only person in this thread who has smoked crack, I can confidently say that it should never be legalised, and I would be surprisingly relaxed about heroin dealers being executed by firing squad in town squares up and down the land.

You'd be surprised, I've smoked crack amongst other things and yes it's bloody awful. I don't think even the most die hard libertarian would argue for hard drugs to be sold over the counter, but going back to the system we had in the 60s of providing them on the nhs might work.

P.S. - I love working with immigrants. It's genuinely interesting.

Absolutely.

So rather than laziness or bigotry being the cause of unemployment among the young

How is it that liberals always talk about representing young people or the working class and then show nothing but bigotry towards them. In my book liberalism is the most gutter gutless ideology in existence second only to the authority worship I see amongst American mainstream conservatives.

I'm going to give you a bit of advice, next time you wish to personally attack someone I suggest that you read exactly what context they are speaking in. BryllCream was making the case that him and his friends did not wish to work in a place if foreigners worked there. Not once have I called the British people racist or bigots, in fact on numerous occasions I have claimed the exact opposite. Not once have I claimed to speak for the British people, in fact I have said a couple of times that to claim to do so is ridiculous. So please, read the thread before you start throwing names around.

I'm going to give you a bit of advice

First I don't need advice.

Second you should pay attention to the context I'm speaking from. I was not talking about any individual I was talking about the Liberals in my country and how they often love to talk about workers rights and young people but turn on them the moment their not usefull.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

As opposed to all those Communist nations that are doing so well right now

I see flaws in both systems.

You should realize the liberals across the pond bear little resemblance to liberals over here. What they call Conservative is what we would call solidly Left Wing. Their Liberals are so far left you can't see them from the center.

ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:

I'm going to give you a bit of advice

First I don't need advice.

Well you demonstrably do, bursting into a thread throwing round insults as your first post isn't a particularly good way of debating an issue, especially when the reason you're commenting was because of something said to prove a point by reductio ad absurdum.

Second you should pay attention to the context I'm speaking from. I was not talking about any individual I was talking about the Liberals in my country and how they often love to talk about workers rights and young people but turn on them the moment their not usefull

The context you were speaking from was to take my words and then try and show me as the purveyor of "bigotry" and of a "gutter, gutless ideology," you made no reference to your country, only to what you saw me as and the people you see as similar.

Anyone else surprised by the results of the drug/harm graph?

Knowing people who work in emergency, i would have said off anecdotal evidence that after alcohol that amphetamines/meth cause the most trouble in emergency depts. , with a high amount of assaults on staff/security.
Considering the high amount of psychosis induced (temporary or otherwise) through the use of amphetamines , I would have thought amphetamines would have rated higher on the "harm" index.

Bullockist wrote:
Anyone else surprised by the results of the drug/harm graph?

Knowing people who work in emergency, i would have said off anecdotal evidence that after alcohol that amphetamines/meth cause the most trouble in emergency depts. , with a high amount of assaults on staff/security.
Considering the high amount of psychosis induced (temporary or otherwise) through the use of amphetamines , I would have thought amphetamines would have rated higher on the "harm" index.

Meth and amphetamines have really low usage rates in the UK compared to other places. Speed and base are used far less than MDMA or even ketamine, and crystal meth is practically non existent. I should imagine if we had the usage rates it would rank far higher.

Yeah, the effect of a drug on that graph is being diluted by the population.

If you were to do a study which drugs were worst for the person taking them you'd find the various hard drugs winning by a landslide. But as for which has the biggest effect on the country as a whole you have to consider the rate of usage. Meth can't do much harm if hardly anyone uses it.

 BryllCream wrote:
What would happen if immigrants upped sticks and left? According to your assertion, British people simply wouldn't fill those jobs - they would go undone, and our economy would collapse. You are denying the link between businesses in need of labour, and unemployment. If what you are saying is true, it is such a radical economic concept that we'd have heard more about it until now. I mean, it'd be a pretty big headline - "vacancies no longer filled by unemployed".

I don't think you understand one fething thing about how business works, and that is only a small problem compared to the much bigger issue that you don't want to know how business works.

Simply put, if you no longer had factories and market gardens staffed reasonably cheap and hard working immigrants, you wouldn't just switch to factories and market gardens staffed by equally cheap but much less hard working local labour, instead you'd get no factories and no market gardens.

I know you like to pretend that isn't true, and that if you could just somehow get rid of all the immigrants then England would return to being a worker's paradise, but it just isn't fething true.

So because one thing has an impact, nothing else can impact it? Great logic.

Oh for feth's sake. You claim one thing drove it. I show, very fething clearly, that UK youth unemployment with no upward trend despite immigration, and then you post nonsense in response.

This is pathetic. You doing nothing at this point than just ignoring the basic facts that disagree with how you'd like to see the world. You are wasting everyone's time, and doing it in order to continue to believing a very stupid thing.

But seriously - Britain is not like that. We are not a "poor" nation, despite what the media rubs in our face. Spain has around 50% youth unemployment, and fascism there isn't doing particularly well, same for Italy and Portugal, though Greece has what I think you're looking for - neo-nazis walking around the streets, beating up immigrants and doing well in the polls. Just to remind you that UKIP are *not* a neo-nazi party, they have roughly the same policy agenda that the conservative party did in the 60s. I don't remember Britain in the 60s being particularly fascistic, though it's not my area of historical expertise.

At least fething read what's being posted. Once again, because I'm a sucker for punishment, the rise of facism is not guaranteed when there are poor economic circumstances. You don't see a 3% spike in unemployment on Monday and brownshirts on the streets on Tuesday. It depends on the country, on the positioning of its political parties at the time, and the nature of the political dialogue. Poor economics are one ingredient, not the whole recipe.

And now let's return to your original claim, in which it isn't relative economic conditions but their absolute values that matter. For that to make sense you'd have to argue Germany was more impoverished in 1930 than it was in 1830 (which you kind of almost tried to, when talking about rural overcrowding). And then you'd have to argue it was worse than 1730. The whole line of argument is just beyond ridiculous.

How much do you know about British politics? Are you aware that there is no distinction whatsoever between British political parties? The opposition Labour party even actually *refuse* to release any policies until like 6 months before the election

How much do you know about politics in any country? Anywhere? Are you aware that 'there's no difference between the major parties' is a constant complaint in developed countries across the globe, and has been decades. And despite that, the only time you see 'therefore I'm going to support some fringe nutters with a series of remarkably stupid policies' is during... you guessed it... poor economic times.

Youth unemployment was high.



I'd say 15% was pretty high.

I accept that a lot of people don't know much about basic economic figures. They'd be unaware that youth unemployment between 12 and 15% is pretty standard in developed countries. Youth unemployment is always markedly higher than standard unemployment - welcome to the basic ways of the real world.

But I already posted a graph showing the youth unemployment rate is this thread. It's in the post you were responding to. How in feth can you claim you're honestly making an effort at debate here, while that just slipped by you?

"15% youth unemployment, well that sounds like a big number. I'll just post that, and figure I've made my point. Should I look in to what the UK and other nation's post as youth unemployment consistently... should I even look at the youth unemployment history graph already posted in the thread... nah, all that would is provide information and context that'd make my argument stupid, and we can't have that."

No, I'm saying that the economic climate isn't that important, though obviously is a contributing factor. What's more important is:

a)The English feeling besieged in their own cities

b)The English feeling that the ruling parties only care about minorities

c)A huge disconnect between how liberal successive governments have been, and how conservative the British people actually are. 3 months for child rape? Wouldn't happen under UKIP.

And, as I said in my first post to you - that stuff is just vague, narrative driven with no relation at all to actual, nuts and bolts policy that runs a country.

'Got a vague feeling that things in your country aren't right? Well then here in the UKIP we've got all the empty, populist rhetoric you'll ever need!'

ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:

The capitalist ideal of increasing population size only works insomuch as your nation remains capitalist

Capitalism and Usury are the downfall of the West, it leads to a disillusioned proletariat that will follow anyone who will promise then a better life and a worthless elite composed of the worst people.

Ah, school is done for the summer and so the high school Marxists come out to play.

 sebster wrote:

No, I'm saying that the economic climate isn't that important, though obviously is a contributing factor. What's more important is:

a)The English feeling besieged in their own cities

b)The English feeling that the ruling parties only care about minorities

c)A huge disconnect between how liberal successive governments have been, and how conservative the British people actually are. 3 months for child rape? Wouldn't happen under UKIP.

And, as I said in my first post to you - that stuff is just vague, narrative driven with no relation at all to actual, nuts and bolts policy that runs a country.

'Got a vague feeling that things in your country aren't right? Well then here in the UKIP we've got all the empty, populist rhetoric you'll ever need!'

That has really made my day. Well said sebster.
I've always felt if you judge how at home you feel in your own country by the perceived ethnicity of others around you you've got some serious problems with your patriotism.

a ) I've never known there was a siege on English cities, must be hordes of immigrants doing important jobs like cleaners, labourers, waiters and chefs, those bastards stealing all the good jobs. People who expect to be handed a job don't do well in those jobs, i know I've done them all bad hours and bad pay, i can see the self righteous entitled ones lining up for those.

b) If this is the case the Welsh must be having the time of their lives atm, how are things in Wales again?

c) I really fail to see how a first term government like the all english UKIP could change a law system set on precedence, probably though they'd do it after kicking out all the darkies , starting a pasty utopia , and giving everyone a big pile of rocks to build a castle from.
Just after this they would guarantee a job for every young TRUE englishman , hang on that sounds socialist.

Bullockist wrote:
and giving everyone a big pile of rocks to build a castle from.

Don't mock our national pastime

Ah, school is done for the summer and so the high school Marxists come out to play.

Both Medieval Europe and Ancient Islamic civilizations saw usury as a crime against God. The way I see it the enlightenment led to the spiritual degradation and fall of mankind. Marxism is the inevitable and negative reaction to the problem of capitalism and the misused worker rather than an appropriate reaction to the individual and the community being dehumanized and reverted to being mere cogs in a machine. I'm not in high school, I'm working over the summer, and am not a communist though I understand their disillusionment with the current state of things.

ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:

Ah, school is done for the summer and so the high school Marxists come out to play.

Both Medieval Europe and Ancient Islamic civilizations saw usury as a crime against God. The way I see it the enlightenment led to the spiritual degradation and fall of mankind. Marxism is the inevitable and negative reaction to the problem of capitalism and the misused worker rather than an appropriate reaction to the individual and the community being dehumanized and reverted to being mere cogs in a machine. I'm not in high school, I'm working over the summer, and am not a communist though I understand their disillusionment with the current state of things.

Oh dear lord. Is someone actually wheeling out the ineluctable nature of the historical dialectic as a serious thing?

ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:

Ah, school is done for the summer and so the high school Marxists come out to play.

Both Medieval Europe and Ancient Islamic civilizations saw usury as a crime against God. The way I see it the enlightenment led to the spiritual degradation and fall of mankind.

Wait so you feel the idea of challenging tradition and religion and emphasizing science and reason will makes things worse?

ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:

Ah, school is done for the summer and so the high school Marxists come out to play.

Both Medieval Europe and Ancient Islamic civilizations saw usury as a crime against God. The way I see it the enlightenment led to the spiritual degradation and fall of mankind. Marxism is the inevitable and negative reaction to the problem of capitalism and the misused worker rather than an appropriate reaction to the individual and the community being dehumanized and reverted to being mere cogs in a machine. I'm not in high school, I'm working over the summer, and am not a communist though I understand their disillusionment with the current state of things.

So you argue that capitalism will collapse because of it's actions misusing and dehumanising people, which caused disillusionment. Now, what do you think happened with religion, which lead us to the enlightenment?

Capitalism isn't alone in misusing and dehumanizing people. Its more a trait of people themselves and not any particular government or belief system.

Capitalism is a lot more natural for people than a lot of systems but it does need oversight. Full capitalism (Free market) is a stupid idea, after all everything should be taken in moderation.

Full capitalism (Free market) is a stupid idea, after all everything should be taken in moderation.

A free market would be bad but far better than an elite protected by laws and tax codes which we have now. In my world we would just nationalize all banks and put an end to the unfree market.

Now, what do you think happened with religion, which lead us to the enlightenment?

The Catholic Church became indebted which led to indulgences hence the reformation as well as the Catholic Church not being taken seriously in Catholic nations such as France. Unlike most of the Protestant world England took the brunt of the enlightenment mainly because of its proximity to the secular Catholic state of France and because of Puritans which oddly enough were very capitalistic and pro enlightenment most likely because of their lack of leadership.

Now, what do you think happened with religion, which lead us to the enlightenment?

Useless people like Voltaire who sat around doing nothing but hating everyone around them.

By the way the enlightenment did not lead to reason, it led to superstition.

They had the history of sex on the history channel and they talked about the bizarre beliefs that English doctors had about sexuality as well as the fact that distributing information about STD's was a criminal offence. This is the enlightenment? What about America, perhaps the greatest creation of the enlightenment and yet its one of the few nations where the teaching of evolution is contested, interestingly not in reactionary states like Spain and Austria who fought the enlightenment at every turn.

How is nationalizing the banks compatible with a free market?

Banks are a business too, and having no competition would be a very bad thing indeed.


I wouldn't be opposed to the government running its own bank in competition with private ones. But to have no private banks would be a mistake. It would be like Cypress if the government was ever in need of bailing the economy out, only worse as they'd have direct control over the bank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:


They had the history of sex on the history channel and they talked about the bizarre beliefs that English doctors had about sexuality as well as the fact that distributing information about STD's was a criminal offence. This is the enlightenment? What about America, perhaps the greatest creation of the enlightenment and yet its one of the few nations where the teaching of evolution is contested, interestingly not in reactionary states like Spain and Austria who fought the enlightenment at every turn.

Would not a theory being contested be a desirable thing for a supposedly enlightened society?

Would not a theory being contested be a desirable thing for a supposedly enlightened society?

Outside the Muslim world and the US its regarded as a fact.

Which is wrong. There is not enough evidence to call evolution fact.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which is wrong. There is not enough evidence to call evolution fact.

Credibility = BOOM! Headshot!

 Ketara wrote:
Oh dear lord. Is someone actually wheeling out the ineluctable nature of the historical dialectic as a serious thing?

Considering the gakky economy I've been relieved there's been so few of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which is wrong. There is not enough evidence to call evolution fact.

You don't understand how science works. There are no scientific 'facts'. It just isn't a term that is used.

Instead, you have hypothesis, an idea of how something might work, which is then experimented on to test that hypothesis. Once that hypothesis has been repeatedly tested and refined to the point where it is a reliable predictor of natural events, then it is combined with other related hypothesis to form a theory.

So you get the theory of gravity, and the theory of evolution.

And then you get people who don't understand science and who want to disagree with the findings of one or more of its schools, and so they make a big deal out of the common use meaning of the word 'theory', without ever realising that in science that word means something very, very different. Don't be one of those people.

ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:

Ah, school is done for the summer and so the high school Marxists come out to play.

Both Medieval Europe and Ancient Islamic civilizations saw usury as a crime against God.

Yeah, but we know who they (and you) were really attacking. Knock that gak off.

Yeah, but we know who they (and you) were really attacking. Knock that gak off.

?

 sebster wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Oh dear lord. Is someone actually wheeling out the ineluctable nature of the historical dialectic as a serious thing?

Considering the gakky economy I've been relieved there's been so few of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which is wrong. There is not enough evidence to call evolution fact.

You don't understand how science works. There are no scientific 'facts'. It just isn't a term that is used.

Instead, you have hypothesis, an idea of how something might work, which is then experimented on to test that hypothesis. Once that hypothesis has been repeatedly tested and refined to the point where it is a reliable predictor of natural events, then it is combined with other related hypothesis to form a theory.

So you get the theory of gravity, and the theory of evolution.

And then you get people who don't understand science and who want to disagree with the findings of one or more of its schools, and so they make a big deal out of the common use meaning of the word 'theory', without ever realising that in science that word means something very, very different. Don't be one of those people.

I am well aware of how a Theory works. And all I am saying is Evolution is at the Theory stage. It is not at the fact stage. It has not been proven true, so people should stop teaching it as if it is irrefutable 100% fact.

ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:

Now, what do you think happened with religion, which lead us to the enlightenment?

The Catholic Church became indebted which led to indulgences hence the reformation as well as the Catholic Church not being taken seriously in Catholic nations such as France. Unlike most of the Protestant world England took the brunt of the enlightenment mainly because of its proximity to the secular Catholic state of France and because of Puritans which oddly enough were very capitalistic and pro enlightenment most likely because of their lack of leadership.

Useless people like Voltaire who sat around doing nothing but hating everyone around them.

By the way the enlightenment did not lead to reason, it led to superstition.

They had the history of sex on the history channel and they talked about the bizarre beliefs that English doctors had about sexuality as well as the fact that distributing information about STD's was a criminal offence. This is the enlightenment? What about America, perhaps the greatest creation of the enlightenment and yet its one of the few nations where the teaching of evolution is contested, interestingly not in reactionary states like Spain and Austria who fought the enlightenment at every turn.

Religion became corrupted and was used as a means of keeping the elite from being questioned, that is what caused it's decline.

Of course the enlightenment lead to reason, it brought us the scientific method, without which it would highly unlikely we would have such things as computers. What did religion give to technological progress? Oh yeah, the dark ages.

Also, if you are arguing the case for religion being some panacea for all societies ill's then perhaps bringing up the creationism being taught in schools thing is a little counterproductive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I am well aware of how a Theory works. And all I am saying is Evolution is at the Theory stage. It is not at the fact stage. It has not been proven true, so people should stop teaching it as if it is irrefutable 100% fact.

So what is a scientific "fact"? Do you have any examples?

I never said anything about Scientific Fact.

I only said Evolution has not been proven to be fact/true/etc. Its a theory, one that is lacking many key pieces of evidence to prove its validity. Pieces that if the Theory were true should be found in abundance.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I never said anything about Scientific Fact.

I only said Evolution has not been proven to be fact. Its a theory, one that is lacking many key pieces of evidence to prove its validity. Pieces that if the Theory were true should be found in abundance.

You said it was at the theory stage, not the fact stage. Which implies that some things are at the fact stage. When of course facts and theories are very different things, a fact deals with a single observable occurrence, while a theory deals with the explanation of facts.

Now, what key pieces of evidence do you think evolution is missing?