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.

 dæl wrote:

See now we are getting somewhere, so the jobs are available for locals, but they aren't applying for them. Seems to me that it's not immigration that's the problem, but motivation.

No. Until my friend mentioned it to me, I wasn't even aware that there were such jobs available, or that I could apply for them. The average young english person probably isn't aware that they can pick up a phone and get work with an agency.

Tbf I did just write factory jobs into google and go with one of the top results, a concerted effort will reveal far more vacancies. But as you alluded to, young people don't put in the effort as these jobs are seen as beneath them.

Or because they're filled by foreigners? If you advertised in a jobcentre for factory operatives, you'd probably get around a hundred applications for every opening, I know that's roughly the amount we get at work.

We have the first past the post, you were offered something different and declined it. You don't then get to complain when the electoral system works as it always has. How it will look if UKIP get more of the popular vote than the Lib Dems but less seats? It will look like the system is working as intended. There's not going to be a revolution or any other nonsense like that, we once had a party win the popular vote but lose the election.

Again, you're assuming that because something is technically correct, that this is somehow important. That millions of people aren't going to get pissed off or angry because their voice isn't being listened to, simply because that's how the system works. Please open your eyes to these things called emotions. They are far more important than logic or evidence in deciding the fate of mankind.

 BryllCream wrote:
No. Until my friend mentioned it to me, I wasn't even aware that there were such jobs available, or that I could apply for them. The average young english person probably isn't aware that they can pick up a phone and get work with an agency.

And this is the fault of immigrants how, exactly?

Because why should a factory or agency bother advertising for vacancies when they'll get 50 phone calls a day from eager young Poles, Pakistanis and Nigerians?

Because they have 50 applicants who are willing to work, I'm pretty sure factory owners don't care who works there as long as they are productive and don't break the rules

 BryllCream wrote:
Because why should a factory or agency bother advertising for vacancies when they'll get 50 phone calls a day from eager young Poles, Pakistanis and Nigerians?

Ah, so your anger isn't at immigrants, it's at people who are more proactive at going and getting a job than you?

 BryllCream wrote:
The average young english person probably isn't aware that they can pick up a phone and get work with an agency.

If that is actually the case then I hold little hope for this country. For well over a decade the majority of semi-skilled and unskilled work has been sourced through recruitment agencies. People are asked to sign on with recruitment agencies when they sign onto jobseekers so it's highly unlikely that people aren't aware of the existence of agencies.

Again, you're assuming that because something is technically correct, that this is somehow important. That millions of people aren't going to get pissed off or angry because their voice isn't being listened to, simply because that's how the system works. Please open your eyes to these things called emotions. They are far more important than logic or evidence in deciding the fate of mankind.

People were given the opportunity to change the system. The vast majority of UKIP supporters will have, I am guessing, voted no to AV. They don't then get to complain that the electoral system is unfair when it no longer suits them.

Emotions are not more important than logic or evidence for deciding the fate of mankind, quite the opposite. Progress depends upon acting in the most effective manner toward your goals, sometimes the most effective path is not the one that common sense dictates, for example, if you wish to reduce drug related crime the best thing you could do would be to legalise drugs. This seems counter-intuitive, but it is effective. I thought this whole logic/emotion argument was resolved during the Enlightenment, and yet here we are in the 21st Century with someone arguing that we should make decisions based on emotion rather than evidence.

This is what we should be calling for...

 BryllCream wrote:
Nothing you've said there addresses the one crucial fact - immigration amongst young English people is far higher, because of immigration. I never said that immigration caused the crash, I don't think anyone did.

Except you're simply wrong in your assertion - unemployment among the youth isn't high because of immigration. You've had high levels of immigration for a long time now, throughout which unemployment in general and among the youth has remained at or below historic standards.

Now, in the wake of financial disaster you've got high unemployment. Concluding it is due to immigration is just wrong.

I mean, here's the UK's youth unemployment rate for you;


See that marked uptick in 2008, the point where the rate shifted outside of normal historic expectations... that wasn't when immigration suddenly began. It's when the GFC happened. Do you get it now?

I don't see why you saying all of that means that there's been a decrease in living standards large enough to cause 25% of the electorate to turn to another party. Support for fascism has increased in times past when people's living standards were actually piss poor - back in the days of outdoor toilets and before unemployment benefit - but we are not in those times now.

But it isn't the absolute nature of living standards. If it was the absolute nature of living standards that mattered, then fascism wouldn't have just risen in the 1930s, but would have utterly dominated politics in the 19th century, when living conditions were much, much worse. And they'd dominate the discourse of nations in Africa and Asia where living standards are much lower. But of course, that doesn't describe the world at all.

So instead we look at how living standards compare to recent standards, and to people's expectations for how they ought to be able to live. It becomes clear that it is when living standards are stagnant or in decline that people turn to populist politics like the UKIP.

Also unemployment was already high before the recession - largely because of immigration- even at the peak of the recession it was still lower than the 92/93 recession (which saw no increase in support for a fourth party), and pay increases for the majority of the working poor have definitely not kept up with the increase in productivity.

Unemployment before the election wasn't high. That's just completely fething wrong. The market downturn began in late 2007, and the UK entered 2008 with unemployment below 5.5%.

And you've made some kind of crazypants assumption that the only possible response to poor economic conditions is a turn to populist parties like the UKIP. In the recession of the early 90s you saw considerable rioting (iirc didn't someone die?) - another response to the social pressures of poor economic conditions.

Looks to me like an upward trend in youth unemployment starting around half way through Blair's second term in office. Guess which country acceded to full EU membership in 2004...

But no, you're right - immigration has nothing to do with it.

 Albatross wrote:
Looks to me like an upward trend in youth unemployment starting around half way through Blair's second term in office. Guess which country acceded to full EU membership in 2004...

Are you serious? Honestly claiming the ~2% rise in youth unemployment from mid-2003 to mid 2008 is one and the same with ~6% increase from mid 2008 to mid-2009.

2% rise over five years. 6% rise over one year. Totally the same thing.

 BryllCream wrote:
Because why should a factory or agency bother advertising for vacancies when they'll get 50 phone calls a day from eager young Poles, Pakistanis and Nigerians?

Really? That is your sound thought on the issue of youth unemployment? that immigrants may take a pro active approach to seeking employment? Any unemployed person should be taking the same steps towards self respect.

Blaming others is the best way to improve yourself mr burning. Short of that, blame an immigrant, that way you'll get the stupid to agree with you .

Goliath wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Because why should a factory or agency bother advertising for vacancies when they'll get 50 phone calls a day from eager young Poles, Pakistanis and Nigerians?

Ah, so your anger isn't at immigrants, it's at people who are more proactive at going and getting a job than you?

I'm not angry at anyone mate and having a different social circle hardly counts as pro-active.

dæl wrote:
If that is actually the case then I hold little hope for this country. For well over a decade the majority of semi-skilled and unskilled work has been sourced through recruitment agencies. People are asked to sign on with recruitment agencies when they sign onto jobseekers so it's highly unlikely that people aren't aware of the existence of agencies.

I wasn't asked to sign on with an agency. Even if I was I wouldn't have gotten work with them due to lack of experience - I had to use an actual contact to get in on work.

Now, guess who's cheap, and experienced at working in factories/warehouses? Begins with P and rhymes with voles

People were given the opportunity to change the system. The vast majority of UKIP supporters will have, I am guessing, voted no to AV. They don't then get to complain that the electoral system is unfair when it no longer suits them.

I'm not getting sidelined into a debate about AV.

Emotions are not more important than logic or evidence for deciding the fate of mankind, quite the opposite. Progress depends upon acting in the most effective manner toward your goals, sometimes the most effective path is not the one that common sense dictates, for example, if you wish to reduce drug related crime the best thing you could do would be to legalise drugs. This seems counter-intuitive, but it is effective. I thought this whole logic/emotion argument was resolved during the Enlightenment, and yet here we are in the 21st Century with someone arguing that we should make decisions based on emotion rather than evidence.

This is just nonsense. Go read Dawkins or something.

sebster wrote:
Except you're simply wrong in your assertion - unemployment among the youth isn't high because of immigration. You've had high levels of immigration for a long time now, throughout which unemployment in general and among the youth has remained at or below historic standards.

Okay I'll ask this for the last time, and I implore you to *please* not just ignore it.

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".

Now, in the wake of financial disaster you've got high unemployment. Concluding it is due to immigration is just wrong.

I mean, here's the UK's youth unemployment rate for you;


See that marked uptick in 2008, the point where the rate shifted outside of normal historic expectations... that wasn't when immigration suddenly began. It's when the GFC happened. Do you get it now?

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

But it isn't the absolute nature of living standards. If it was the absolute nature of living standards that mattered, then fascism wouldn't have just risen in the 1930s, but would have utterly dominated politics in the 19th century, when living conditions were much, much worse. And they'd dominate the discourse of nations in Africa and Asia where living standards are much lower. But of course, that doesn't describe the world at all.

Not true. Living standards for German peasants - the backbone of support for fascism, though few people know this - were far below what they were in the ninteenth century, due to severe rural overcrowding. Then along came a party that promised huge tariffs on imported agricultural products and bingo! a star was born.

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.

So instead we look at how living standards compare to recent standards, and to people's expectations for how they ought to be able to live. It becomes clear that it is when living standards are stagnant or in decline that people turn to populist politics like the UKIP.

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

Unemployment before the election wasn't high. That's just completely fething wrong. The market downturn began in late 2007, and the UK entered 2008 with unemployment below 5.5%.

Youth unemployment was high.



I'd say 15% was pretty high.

And you've made some kind of crazypants assumption that the only possible response to poor economic conditions is a turn to populist parties like the UKIP. In the recession of the early 90s you saw considerable rioting (iirc didn't someone die?) - another response to the social pressures of poor economic conditions.

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.

 BryllCream wrote:

dæl wrote:
If that is actually the case then I hold little hope for this country. For well over a decade the majority of semi-skilled and unskilled work has been sourced through recruitment agencies. People are asked to sign on with recruitment agencies when they sign onto jobseekers so it's highly unlikely that people aren't aware of the existence of agencies.

I wasn't asked to sign on with an agency. Even if I was I wouldn't have gotten work with them due to lack of experience - I had to use an actual contact to get in on work.

Now, guess who's cheap, and experienced at working in factories/warehouses? Begins with P and rhymes with voles

Agency staff are often inexperienced, and had you actually joined you would have found yourself working pretty quickly. It may have only been a day here or there, but it's work. You can't blame immigrants for wanting it more. Basically what you are saying is the early bird catches the worm, but I want a lie in and then to get angry that someone else got the worm.

People were given the opportunity to change the system. The vast majority of UKIP supporters will have, I am guessing, voted no to AV. They don't then get to complain that the electoral system is unfair when it no longer suits them.

I'm not getting sidelined into a debate about AV.

Yes, because you voted against it and now want to complain about first past the post. You really have noone to blame but yourself and those who also voted the same as you.

Emotions are not more important than logic or evidence for deciding the fate of mankind, quite the opposite. Progress depends upon acting in the most effective manner toward your goals, sometimes the most effective path is not the one that common sense dictates, for example, if you wish to reduce drug related crime the best thing you could do would be to legalise drugs. This seems counter-intuitive, but it is effective. I thought this whole logic/emotion argument was resolved during the Enlightenment, and yet here we are in the 21st Century with someone arguing that we should make decisions based on emotion rather than evidence.

This is just nonsense. Go read Dawkins or something.

That is your response to my explaining a position? You call it nonsense. How about you have a think and see if you can come up with a proper response which explains why you feel the way you do. I can't see how emotion can be better for mankind as it's messy and ineffective when compared to reason and logic, so enlighten me.

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.

Do NOT claim to speak for England, your view are shared by a tiny minority of this country, so don't think for a second that you have the country behind you. I also notice none of these things are facts, they are feelings. And they are feelings that seem to come from the pages of the Daily Mail. Who was given 3 months for child abuse? How do you know what UKIP's policy on the judiciary is?

Well, this thread has made me very happy. It is heartening to see that it isn't just the United States who are all tied up in knots over immigration.

Well, we're tied up in knots over illegal immigration mostly. The Brits seem tied up in knots over legal immigration

 sebster wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Looks to me like an upward trend in youth unemployment starting around half way through Blair's second term in office. Guess which country acceded to full EU membership in 2004...

Are you serious? Honestly claiming the ~2% rise in youth unemployment from mid-2003 to mid 2008 is one and the same with ~6% increase from mid 2008 to mid-2009.

2% rise over five years. 6% rise over one year. Totally the same thing.

Really? I wouldn't have thought so. How about replying to things I actually type?


Sound like a plan?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dæl wrote:

Emotions are not more important than logic or evidence for deciding the fate of mankind, quite the opposite. Progress depends upon acting in the most effective manner toward your goals, sometimes the most effective path is not the one that common sense dictates, for example, if you wish to reduce drug related crime the best thing you could do would be to legalise drugs. This seems counter-intuitive, but it is effective. I thought this whole logic/emotion argument was resolved during the Enlightenment, and yet here we are in the 21st Century with someone arguing that we should make decisions based on emotion rather than evidence.

This is just nonsense. Go read Dawkins or something.

That is your response to my explaining a position? You call it nonsense. How about you have a think and see if you can come up with a proper response which explains why you feel the way you do. I can't see how emotion can be better for mankind as it's messy and ineffective when compared to reason and logic, so enlighten me.

I'm gonna jump in here, because the fact that BryllCream is, frankly, a raving lunatic shouldn't leave you with the feeling that you are correct. Because you aren't.

Abortion has had, and continues to have a deleterious effect on the crime rate in the USA, because the uptake of abortions in the wake of Roe v. Wade meant that many children who would otherwise have been born (I'm simplifying this massively, but the data is out there), but were aborted before they could embark upon a life of crime, do not now exist. The net effect of this is that crime has steadily decreased. Should abortion be mandatory for young, poor, unmarried girls from challenging backgrounds?

Explain why (or why not) without referring to 'emotion' but also without sounding like one of history's monsters.

Also, the idea that the best way to reduce drug-crime is to legalise drugs? Sorry, but that's the sort of facile drivel I would have heard from dreadlocked bores at the Steve Biko Lounge of my local student union, if my overwhelming desire to kick such people's heads in hadn't precluded my drinking there. I mean, seriously, golf-clap. The best way to reduce the number of people in prison for murder is to legalise murder, too. Have I just blown your mind?

 Albatross wrote:

Abortion has had, and continues to have a deleterious effect on the crime rate in the USA, because the uptake of abortions in the wake of Roe v. Wade meant that many children who would otherwise have been born (I'm simplifying this massively, but the data is out there), but were aborted before they could embark upon a life of crime, do not now exist. The net effect of this is that crime has steadily decreased. Should abortion be mandatory for young, poor, unmarried girls from challenging backgrounds?

Explain why (or why not) without referring to 'emotion' but also without sounding like one of history's monsters.

Absolutely not, for a start you would need to look at the problem comprehensively and ascertain all of the causes of the crime reduction and all of the effects of the increased abortion rate. But let's for simplicities sake take what you proposed as the entire issue. Logically you would want a reduction in the number of children born in that situation, however every so often a child will be born who is exceptional, if you were to abort all of the children the exceptional child is never born. No, abortion should remain a choice, and the best form of birth control is education, so make it easy for these girls to get an abortion should they choose, mandatory abortion is not preferable. There would also be an influx of unregistered children which would cause all manner of social problems.

Also, the idea that the best way to reduce drug-crime is to legalise drugs? Sorry, but that's the sort of facile drivel I would have heard from dreadlocked bores at the Steve Biko Lounge of my local student union, if my overwhelming desire to kick such people's heads in hadn't precluded my drinking there. I mean, seriously, golf-clap. The best way to reduce the number of people in prison for murder is to legalise murder, too. Have I just blown your mind?

I said drug related crime, so burglary, violence etc. By legalising drug use you reduce the price massively, even with high taxation, which reduces the amount of stolen goods. By providing areas for drug use you reduce risk to users and passers by. By removing dealers violent crime will see a reduction. You will also see a reduction in the power level of some criminals, which may contribute to a reduction in such things as human trafficking and prostitution.

Everyone agrees that murder is wrong but not many people agree that taking drugs is wrong.

Murder has obvious ill effects on other people, but taking drugs doesn't, in itself.

 Albatross wrote:
Also, the idea that the best way to reduce drug-crime is to legalise drugs? Sorry, but that's the sort of facile drivel I would have heard from dreadlocked bores at the Steve Biko Lounge of my local student union, if my overwhelming desire to kick such people's heads in hadn't precluded my drinking there. I mean, seriously, golf-clap. The best way to reduce the number of people in prison for murder is to legalise murder, too. Have I just blown your mind?

It's not complete nonsense in 2001 Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession, also drug users were to be targeted with therapy rather than prison sentences and the country saw five years after the start of decriminalization,

illegal drug use by teenagers had declined, the rate of HIV infections among drug users had dropped, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction had doubled. That being said that type of policy

might not work for other countries or there might be some other unknown variables that effect those reductions.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone agrees that murder is wrong but not many people agree that taking drugs is wrong.

Murder has obvious ill effects on other people, but taking drugs doesn't, in itself.

I would say that entirely depends on the drug.

Mind altering drugs can certainly make you do stuff that will effect other people. That's like saying Alcohol is only a danger to the user.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Also, the idea that the best way to reduce drug-crime is to legalise drugs? Sorry, but that's the sort of facile drivel I would have heard from dreadlocked bores at the Steve Biko Lounge of my local student union, if my overwhelming desire to kick such people's heads in hadn't precluded my drinking there. I mean, seriously, golf-clap. The best way to reduce the number of people in prison for murder is to legalise murder, too. Have I just blown your mind?

It's not complete nonsense in 2001 Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession, also drug users were to be targeted with therapy rather than prison sentences and the country saw five years after the start of decriminalization,

illegal drug use by teenagers had declined, the rate of HIV infections among drug users had dropped, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction had doubled. That being said that type of policy

might not work for other countries or there might be some other unknown variables that effect those reductions.

The problem with legalizing drugs in the US is that the drug cartels would still smuggle their product into the US as they could offer it cheaper than anything being taxed. Plus they still would have a market among those not able to purchase the drugs.

Weed had a proposed legal age of 21 IIRC from the last bill in CA.

The illegal growers could still sell to the under 21 market. And then you will still have people bootlegging weed to get away from taxes.

All it will do is make it harder to distinguish between legal and illegal weed.


If we are going to legalize weed as a medicinal drug it should be regulated like any other prescription drug. You can't make it yourself, you have to buy it from a regulated dispensary and only if you have a prescription. This will clear up the issue of people getting a bunch of their friends with licenses together and growing 100+ plants together "for personal use".

And stop giving out prescriptions out to anyone willing to pony up the license fee.



And if they do get crowded out of the weed market, there's always Heroine and Crack. Which I do not see getting legalized any time soon.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone agrees that murder is wrong but not many people agree that taking drugs is wrong.

Murder has obvious ill effects on other people, but taking drugs doesn't, in itself.

I would say that entirely depends on the drug.

Mind altering drugs can certainly make you do stuff that will effect other people. That's like saying Alcohol is only a danger to the user.

It's interesting you mention alcohol...

Source


Notice where the mind altering psychedelics are on the list?

Its also interesting to note which of those is legal

Edit: I assume that the data is for the UK but I imagine we'd see a similar trend for the US.

 dæl wrote:

Agency staff are often inexperienced, and had you actually joined you would have found yourself working pretty quickly. It may have only been a day here or there, but it's work. You can't blame immigrants for wanting it more. Basically what you are saying is the early bird catches the worm, but I want a lie in and then to get angry that someone else got the worm.

So the dozen agencies that I applied for work in told me that I wasn't experienced enough because they didn't like my face? I'm sick of you directly contradicting the experiences of myself and people I know. How about you come down to Nottingham and I'll take you to the canteen at work, then I'll take you to a jobcentre. Then you can ask the guys at the jobcentre who wants a job in the factory.

Yes, because you voted against it and now want to complain about first past the post. You really have noone to blame but yourself and those who also voted the same as you.

Oh look you're still banging on about AV.

That is your response to my explaining a position? You call it nonsense. How about you have a think and see if you can come up with a proper response which explains why you feel the way you do. I can't see how emotion can be better for mankind as it's messy and ineffective when compared to reason and logic, so enlighten me.

No I'm not, and the more you bang on about this the more you sound like a robot, it's a bit depressing.

Do NOT claim to speak for England, your view are shared by a tiny minority of this country, so don't think for a second that you have the country behind you. I also notice none of these things are facts, they are feelings. And they are feelings that seem to come from the pages of the Daily Mail. Who was given 3 months for child abuse? How do you know what UKIP's policy on the judiciary is?

Oh look I read the Daily Mail then. I suppose the fact that I find myself constantly argueing with racists is just a figment of my imagination, or the years I spent reading the Guardian (which is a gak newspaper by the way).

I'm speaking as someone with the same views and opinions as the people I know, who happen to be working class English people. I'm sure you've got a survey somewhere that says that working class English people aren't racist, the same way I have a survey that says builders always pay taxes.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its also interesting to note which of those is legal

Edit: I assume that the data is for the UK but I imagine we'd see a similar trend for the US.

Yeah it's UK, but should correspond to the US as well. It's possible that alcohol is less damaging to the US as you don't have quite the problems we do with it, but the results should broadly come out the same.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its also interesting to note which of those is legal

The fact that you can buy cigarettes and alcohol everywhere kind of excassebates that though. Coke/heroin in particular are awful things, though ecstasy and weed are basically harmless.

 BryllCream wrote:
How about you come down to Nottingham and I'll take you to the canteen at work, then I'll take you to a jobcentre. Then you can ask the guys at the jobcentre who wants a job in the factory.

Basically you are saying that British people don't want to work with foreigners, yes? So let me get this right...

You think that immigration is the cause of unemployment.
You have acknowledged that immigrants are more proactive in getting work because they try harder.
You now claim that British people don't want to work in the same place as immigrants.

So rather than laziness or bigotry being the cause of unemployment among the young, you think it is in fact the tax paying immigrant who gets on with his job, rather than those who feel the country owes them a living? And not only owes them a living but one where they don't have to interact with anyone who isn't white if they don't want to?

That is your response to my explaining a position? You call it nonsense. How about you have a think and see if you can come up with a proper response which explains why you feel the way you do. I can't see how emotion can be better for mankind as it's messy and ineffective when compared to reason and logic, so enlighten me.

No I'm not, and the more you bang on about this the more you sound like a robot, it's a bit depressing.

You're not what? I didn't ask a question that answer makes sense to.

Do NOT claim to speak for England, your view are shared by a tiny minority of this country, so don't think for a second that you have the country behind you. I also notice none of these things are facts, they are feelings. And they are feelings that seem to come from the pages of the Daily Mail. Who was given 3 months for child abuse? How do you know what UKIP's policy on the judiciary is?

Oh look I read the Daily Mail then. I suppose the fact that I find myself constantly argueing with racists is just a figment of my imagination, or the years I spent reading the Guardian (which is a gak newspaper by the way).

I'm speaking as someone with the same views and opinions as the people I know, who happen to be working class English people. I'm sure you've got a survey somewhere that says that working class English people aren't racist, the same way I have a survey that says builders always pay taxes.

You voted for a party that received 6% of the electorate's votes, do you really think the majority of the British people agree with you?
Cool, lets see you peer reviewed study into the taxes paid by builders then, what journal was it published in? You obviously don't understand how studies work, you don't just make up whatever you want and then publish it.
You didn't answer my question on UKIP's policy on the judiciary, you voted for them after all, so what did you vote for regarding crime and punishment? What economic strategy did you vote for? What foreign policy?

 dæl wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

Abortion has had, and continues to have a deleterious effect on the crime rate in the USA, because the uptake of abortions in the wake of Roe v. Wade meant that many children who would otherwise have been born (I'm simplifying this massively, but the data is out there), but were aborted before they could embark upon a life of crime, do not now exist. The net effect of this is that crime has steadily decreased. Should abortion be mandatory for young, poor, unmarried girls from challenging backgrounds?

Explain why (or why not) without referring to 'emotion' but also without sounding like one of history's monsters.

Absolutely not, for a start you would need to look at the problem comprehensively and ascertain all of the causes of the crime reduction and all of the effects of the increased abortion rate.

That was controlled for as part of Levitt's analysis. Also, states that legalised abortion early experienced early drops in their crime rates.

Logically you would want a reduction in the number of children born in that situation, however every so often a child will be born who is exceptional, if you were to abort all of the children the exceptional child is never born.

Bingo! You just made an emotional choice. You effectively just sacrificed the lives of people who would otherwise have gone un-murdered because of some romantic notion of an 'exceptional' child. You call it logical, however the reality is that your suggestion is anything but. Surely if we were treating this objectively we would conclude that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, in that the benefit to humanity of a large number of unproductive (indeed, harmful) members of society never existing is vastly greater than the nebulous possibility that, from the ranks of the unwanted, a great person will emerge. And that's a best case scenario. In the stratum of society we are talking about, 'exceptional' means holding down a job and being responsible enough to bring children into a stable and loving environment.

I'm not arguing for mandatory abortion amongst the underprivileged. It's a bad idea, but 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.

Also, the idea that the best way to reduce drug-crime is to legalise drugs? Sorry, but that's the sort of facile drivel I would have heard from dreadlocked bores at the Steve Biko Lounge of my local student union, if my overwhelming desire to kick such people's heads in hadn't precluded my drinking there. I mean, seriously, golf-clap. The best way to reduce the number of people in prison for murder is to legalise murder, too. Have I just blown your mind?

I said drug related crime, so burglary, violence etc. 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.

By providing areas for drug use you reduce risk to users and passers by. By removing dealers violent crime will see a reduction. You will also see a reduction in the power level of some criminals, which may contribute to a reduction in such things as human trafficking and prostitution.

Again, how is any of that knowable within the specific context of the UK?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. - I love working with immigrants. It's genuinely interesting.

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.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
I plan to vote UKIP, actually - perhaps that makes me racist, but that's not how I see it.
Limiting immigration makes sense, as far as I'm concerned, and their other policies are equally as good as anything else that any of the other parties are lying about wanting to do.

You do understand that both the US and the UK economies are built on the notion of increasing populations, that the current white populations are decreasing and that both nations actually benefit from immigrants coming to and working in the country?

If they come to the US to work, fine. If they come to the US for the benefits, as many do, then they are not "buying in" to the program you describe above.

The capitalist ideal of increasing population size only works insomuch as your nation remains capitalist. When you have people rewarded with welfare for breeding, then sitting on their asses collecting money, the system fails miserably. The result is higher crime rates, taxes, and overall social degradation.

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.