Political quiz

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Like I said, y'all just don't get religious believers. People who are actually religious (as opposed to just going to church so they can say they are) don't compartmentalize their faith. They can't.

I thought you were from New Jersey? You're not allowed to say "y'all". And claiming people aren't "actually religious" unless they are constantly injecting their religion into everything and making everything about their religion is pretty insulting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I thought you were from New Jersey? You're not allowed to say "y'all". And claiming people aren't "actually religious" unless they are constantly injecting their religion into everything and making everything about their religion is pretty insulting.

Yeeeeeeahhh... you keep trying to tell folks that their foundation for how they see existence and everything in it should be "compartmentalized" and then speak about insulting those of religious faith

[DinoDoc]

I thought you were from New Jersey? You're not allowed to say "y'all".

He lives in Georgia now. It won't be long before he calls every carbonated beverage coke.

[Lorizael]

I get it, Imran. My politics are greatly informed by my personal philosophy, which is not religious only because I specifically make no claims about the supernatural. I don't understand the arbitrary distinction some draw between religious and non-religious beliefs. Religious politicians shouldn't attempt to enforce their specific religious beliefs with whatever power they are granted, but they can sure get elected for having religious beliefs that happen to mirror the beliefs (religious or otherwise) of their electorate.

[kentonio]

****ing atheists. Y'all really have no understand of religious beliefs and how they may effect a person's underlying viewpoint.

In the US you may have people talk about their faith a bit too much, but at least we get how it impacts their views.

Wow.. so much for reasonable Imran.

[Sava]

Wow.. so much for reasonable Imran.

He at least makes an attempt... so he recognizes reason is a good thing... even if he rarely makes use of it.

[C0ckney]

I prefer statistics to anecdotes too, but due to the nature of the problem there aren't any accurate statistics. Re those 5000 people you talk about btw, how recent are those figures?

i'm pretty sure they're current, or at least from last year.

the statistics may not be perfect, but we can't substitute our, necessarily, very limited experiences for them. this is in fact exactly why the campaign against the unemployed and the sick works so well. people read a few outrageous cases, know or at least know of a couple of people who they think are cheating the system in some way, and start to think that all people on benefits are like that.

True, but that doesn't mean that it was an illusionary problem. Benefits did not just include JSA, you're forgetting about housing benefit. A lot of people (****, I know a bunch of them) decided that it was easier to have their flat paid for and some beer money provided than it was to work. It's a stupid decision that most realized later was idiotic once they'd had a job and seen the difference in earnings, but it certainly happened an alarming amount. You can call it anecdotal all you like, but when I've known probably a dozen people who spent several years unemployed by choice, then either my home town is wildly unrepresentative of the country (possible, it is a **** hole), or the statistics are not telling the whole story.

90% of housing benefit claimants are in work, which brings us to the real problems, low wages and high rents.

these are soluble problems, although probably not within the context of the present system. even without abolishing the state and private property, we could scrap all taxes on labour and capital and tax land instead. we could also introduce a citizen's income, a guaranteed amount given to everyone regardless of their circumstances, that would enable all to have the necessities of life and to enjoy the benefits of civilisation. (if you're not sure what i'm talking about, i can go into more detail.)

Who's arguing with you? Zero hour contracts in particular are an absolute blight. I was shocked the other day to hear the post office have started using them too.

i'm pointing out that these things are a result of the economic, social and political context in which we live.

Yes of course, its a Catch 22 situation of their own making. I have no sympathy for the major parties for causing this, but equally I can't see a way out of it that isn't going to take decades of re-educating the public on what EU membership actually means. Of course in the meantime as you rightly say it means a rise in the extremist parties.

i would prefer that people are given a choice and decide for themselves, rather than be denied that choice 'for their own good'. if the consequences of the people's choice are negative (which is, at the very least, debatable), then so be it.

i remember having a debate about this years ago with mikeh. it went a bit like this:

mikeh: the EU is a good thing. we [pro-EU people] have been telling you this for years and you just refuse to listen.
c0ckney: have you ever considered the possibility that the reason we [eurosceptics] don't believe you is because your arguments are not very good?

Yeah, you want to move away from parliamentary democracy. That's fair enough, I just don't. I'd hate us to end up with a system that entrenches the political parties even more deeply into the process and becomes more presidential.

of course we have different views, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. i will limit myself to saying that we already have entrenched parties and an almost presidential system, and if that we must have such a system, it would be far better to have one where every vote counts and large numbers of people are not effectively disenfranchised.

[Jon Miller]

Lori and Imran save the thread.

Kento, how much of Blair's view was influenced by his Catholicism? I bet most of it...

JM

[kentonio]

I get it, Imran. My politics are greatly informed by my personal philosophy, which is not religious only because I specifically make no claims about the supernatural. I don't understand the arbitrary distinction some draw between religious and non-religious beliefs.

You clearly don't understand the mindset of a secular society then.

Religious politicians shouldn't attempt to enforce their specific religious beliefs with whatever power they are granted, but they can sure get elected for having religious beliefs that happen to mirror the beliefs (religious or otherwise) of their electorate.

In America maybe, not here.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Yeeeeeeahhh... you keep trying to tell folks that their foundation for how they see existence and everything in it should be "compartmentalized" and then speak about insulting those of religious faith

You shouldn't be insulted when people who don't share your beliefs about a middle eastern superhero want to get things done without you making it about your religion. If you insist on basing lawmaking on your religion you're asking for a theocracy.

"I don't think our laws should be based on religion"
Imran: "WHY DO YOU HATE RELIGION???? YOU JUST DON'T UNDDERSTAND!!!"

[Imran Siddiqui]

I get it, Imran. My politics are greatly informed by my personal philosophy, which is not religious only because I specifically make no claims about the supernatural. I don't understand the arbitrary distinction some draw between religious and non-religious beliefs. Religious politicians shouldn't attempt to enforce their specific religious beliefs with whatever power they are granted, but they can sure get elected for having religious beliefs that happen to mirror the beliefs (religious or otherwise) of their electorate.

Bingo.

[Sava]

Religion is given far too much credit for "influencing" beliefs. If we're going to credit religion for influencing beliefs like "don't murder" or "don't steal", then religion (Christianity in particular) needs to be held accountable for not mentioning stuff like slavery and child rape as being wrong.

[Sava]

Bingo.

That's literally the opposite of what you've been saying.

Well, when you haven't been hiding the fact that you don't know what "truism" means.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Religion is given far too much credit for "influencing" beliefs. If we're going to credit religion for influencing beliefs like "don't murder" or "don't steal", then religion (Christianity in particular) needs to be held accountable for not mentioning stuff like slavery and child rape as being wrong.

It's funny when people convert to Christianity and then insist all their morals are based on Christianity.

[kentonio]

i'm pretty sure they're current, or at least from last year.

the statistics may not be perfect, but we can't substitute our, necessarily, very limited experiences for them. this is in fact exactly why the campaign against the unemployed and the sick works so well. people read a few outrageous cases, know or at least know of a couple of people who they think are cheating the system in some way, and start to think that all people on benefits are like that.

There's certainly an element of that, but there's also a real situation whereby millions of people have these experiences in their real lives, that aren't represented by the statistics (how do you calculate how many people are successfully defrauding exactly?), and are then told it's all fantasy. If government had moved to deal with the problems without resorting to demonization, we'd all be a lot better off now.

90% of housing benefit claimants are in work, which brings us to the real problems, low wages and high rents.

these are soluble problems, although probably not within the context of the present system. even without abolishing the state and private property, we could scrap all taxes on labour and capital and tax land instead. we could also introduce a citizen's income, a guaranteed amount given to everyone regardless of their circumstances, that would enable all to have the necessities of life and to enjoy the benefits of civilisation. (if you're not sure what i'm talking about, i can go into more detail.)

No arguments from me about that problem, although I think there are less radical solutions. We need a massive clampdown on buy to let, a rise in minimum wage and the complete destruction of zero hour contracts. That'd go a decent way towards helping.

i would prefer that people are given a choice and decide for themselves, rather than be denied that choice 'for their own good'. if the consequences of the people's choice are negative (which is, at the very least, debatable), then so be it.

i remember having a debate about this years ago with mikeh. it went a bit like this:

mikeh: the EU is a good thing. we [pro-EU people] have been telling you this for years and you just refuse to listen.
c0ckney: have you ever considered the possibility that the reason we [eurosceptics] don't believe you is because your arguments are not very good?

I was very anti-EU until not that long ago. Withdrawing from the EU now however would carry with it some pretty terrible outcomes. A huge trade hit, massive disruption of the millions of British people living and working on the continent and a wide swathe of other disruption.

of course we have different views, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. i will limit myself to saying that we already have entrenched parties and an almost presidential system, and if that we must have such a system, it would be far better to have one where every vote counts and large numbers of people are not effectively disenfranchised.

Aye, we'll have to just disagree. I see many problems in teh system, but I don't believe the answer is to make them slightly better but then entrench them permanently into the system.