UK Election

  On 4/9/2010 at 3:05 PM, Dirty Protest said:

  On 4/9/2010 at 12:39 AM, ezkerraldean said:

are they really that bad? assuming there are any problems, i blame New Labour for killing all the grammar schools.

 

Im assuming you went to a grammar school. Labeling ¾ of the population as failures, due to an exam they do when theyre 11, seems a bit socially crass to me. The systems probably got a part to play in keeping Northern Ireland in the past.

not at all, in fact i didn't know what a grammar school even was until i started uni - the bog-standard state school in my town was the only one for miles around so i assumed it to be representative of all schools and shit. was the grammar system really that rigid? there's still tonnes in Kent and i know someone who went through the system down there, who says you could move between the "normal" and grammar system with ease, you could take entry exams once a year or some shit.

I went to school a long long time ago =(. Used to be the case you took the 11 plus and that would dictate pretty much the rest of your school life, if not life. I passed mine, but my parents sent me to a state school as my Da's a bit too working class, even for my liking. I was placed in the top bracket in my school and out of my year I can think of 3 people who went on to get a university education, further education was never mentioned by any teacher the whole time I was there. I know this is just my experience, but im guessing theres some sort of numbers that back this up. Regardless of ability the exams taken were the exams the school had set, so I was only ever able to get a C grade in my GCSE math, after I left school I worked out I was quite good with numbers.

I'ld probably say its not the education that affects people the most, but the lack of choice. That lack of choice can take years, if not for ever to work out. I know there are problems in lumping all kids together, there was one class at my school which was like the green room at a Romero shoot, and its difficult to learn when someone sitting next to you can hardly count to their age.

They still have grammar schools where I was schooled, and every year most of the grammar school kids piss off to London/Manc/anywhere but there and the high school kids work in call centers. Obviously, there are exceptions, but they are exceptions.

grammar schools were pretty much abolished gradually by a few different governments.

when thatcher was education secretary (1970-74) she gave away local control over grammar school system, and many local councils decided to abolish them. not sure if it's true but people have told me that thatcher cried when someone asked her about this, now knowing the results of her decisions.

shirley williams, education secretary for labour before thatcher got in as prime minister was one of the biggest proponents of destroying the grammar schools. another cheerleader was anthony crosland, another labour minister. he's famous for saying "If it's the last thing I do, I'm going to destroy every fucking grammar school in England.".

children who didn't get into a grammar school typically went to a "secondary modern". but there were second chances at examinations a year later and parents could discuss with the teacher to see if the child could enter anyway etc. basically most grammar schools were excellent and most "secondary moderns" weren't that good, though many "secondary moderns" were actually better than some of today's comprehensive schools. if you have good schools and bad schools, which one do you shut down, the good ones or the bad ones? the left favoured closing the good schools, telling the lie that their new comprehensive system would offer "grammar schools for all", which disasterously has proven to be a lie.

alternatives to the secondary modern were technical schools, which were excellent where available, though there sadly weren't many around (how different would our country would be if more had been opened........). there were also many more apprenticeships around then, producing many quality tradesmen in various disciplines.

the replacement for the grammar school/secondary modern system was the comprehensive school that we know today. the left decided that creating super size schools with over a thousand pupils was a good idea, and that mixing children by ability would create some kind of egalitarian melting pot where everyone would end up being a high quality student and that everyone would get a grammar school education. i wont give my opinion of today's comprehensive schools, because the actions of today's politicians speaks louder than my words. because there aren't schools any more that decide on entry by the child's ability, other forms of covert selection are in place....

first form of covert selection:- you can get into a good religious state school by going to that specific church. david cameron does this, and his wife writes for the church's newspaper. they live quite far away from the school, and they're rich and they can afford to send their kids to elite schools, but they chose not too, because.... well, we can only speculate about why they would take up a precious state school place.... political reasons for sure imo. thousands of people are pretending to be religious to get their kids into the only good high school in town, loads of people do it at a school near mine. i think the rules might have changed recently, so that church schools must now take even non-religious people.

another covert form of selection:- buying an expensive house within a posh "catchment area". many good schools only take kids from the local area, so the way to get your kid in is to buy a new house in that specific area. rich people can easily rent a flat or buy a second house or move to that area. then their kid gets a good education, while the poor get nothing unless they're really bloody lucky. even the clever poor kids are fucked.

dont get me started on what the charity commission is currently doing to try and destroy the private schools........... :-)

re: the number of people going to university. aphex twin went to a grammar school, and look at him! the thing was, when there were grammar schools, intelligent working class children had the opportunity of a first class education for free, now that opportunity is still around in places but it has been vastly reduced in the name of a disgusting lie... "excellence for all". people didnt all need to go to university, because the grammar school system educated people very very very well.

if there were a return to academic selection, the only fair form of selection unlike today's hypocritical forms, there would have to be detailed policies on how to not go back to the secondary modern schools which were terrible. the current parties are actually planning to create more technical schools, and more apprenticeships so good on them for doing that.

>tldr

hehe :-)

  Quote

here's an analogy. voting to me is like deciding who gets to rape you.

 

your argument is like saying that if you don't want to actively choose your rapist you have no right to complain about which orifice they fuck you in.

an excellent analogy

you can always leave to avoid getting "raped"

  Quote

how could you guarantee that Zeitgeist wouldn't fuck the planet? i'm not on about pollution, i mean physical space - all that energy-producing and product-manufacturing infrastructure would surely take up a fuckign tonne of space. plus people are going to want plenty of space to themselves too, with big pretty houses to enjoy their post-scarcity lives in. would other animals be able to continue their lives unhindered?

The whole concept of an RBE is almost a minimal kind of society - e.g. only produce and create what is needed to meet demand. This includes buildings, laboratories, public buildings etc.. there would be no kind of waste to worry about. A monetary system does not take care of waste at all - companies prefer to waste and over produce products without necessarily meeting the demand in society. Think about how much shit that is wasted and thrown to landfills, where (as you mentioned) physical space is being put to a wasteful cause when we can cut down on waste so much by using technologies to improve existing recycling processes of certain plastics for instance. I can't see how there would be absolutely tonnes of automated manufacturing warehouses? - there's no need.

What makes you assume that people would still hold the same value system as they do now in a monetary system? What I mean by this is you imply that everyone would want a big house to themselves. Value systems would gradually change, as people would learn through educative means that it is irrational to have more than what you actually need to live with.

Humans who enjoy taking care of animals, or who would like to work with them as vets can do so just like we see today. We'd appreciate that Earth is a planet we share with other species. This means that yes, we'd inevitably allow wildlife to flourish.

  Quote

what if some aspect of the post-scarcity system collapses, and people are forced to live by their own means? how would they be able to, if they've lived their lives being pampered by robots and lacking the knowledge to catch their own food or make furniture and shit?

You'd have to be specific and mention what sort of problems could arise which would trigger the collapse of an RBE? People would learn the importance of sustainability. Imagine teaching kids how to plant and nurture vegetation from an early age, and allow them to see the results of their plants/vegetables/fruit? That's a beautiful thing to consider - and a lot of children do not learn how you can live sustainably and "living in accordance with nature", so to speak. A lot of kids don't actually know how to relate to the natural environment - an education system in an RBE would encourage people to learn how to live sustainably.

People's time can go into improving new technologies to create better things in society. Remember that machines are tools, just like the tools you use to build furniture, and more or less considered extensions of human attributes - they're the output of cognitive human thought from our very brains!

  Quote

Social democracy, what does that even mean? Would there still be a money system based on scarcity?

  Quote

what we have now plus a generous safety net and public welfare system, much-reduced social inequalities

What about jobs? Would people still live in servitude and submit to employment to "pay their way" in life, or would the Government intervene financially? How would technology play out in a social democracy? Would decision making still be based on the old ways we still adopt? > forming opinions based on nothing tangible? Would it essentially have money, which is based on keeping things scarce to make things valuable? (notice now that money doesn't make sense).

  Quote

True democracy is electing ideas, not people saying what they will do.

  Quote

democracies presently operating in the world are not necessarily only the latter

Give me some examples - when I say the above, I mean that most politicians are often elected to office without any evidence of a contribution to society. Most are from backgrounds of business (which brings corrupt tendencies) and some come from backgrounds concerning law (again, corrupt tendencies can be identified in the fact that lawyers twist semantics for their own benefit). Why are these backgrounds relevant towards making a better society? The truth is, they're completely irrelevant when considering science, the natural world, human needs etc.. We need people who know how to make a better society technologically.

it's just fucking insane. we're all going to become vulcans because this french asshole tells us that it's "irrational" oh no! that means i will gladly give up the billion dollar empire my lineage has strived for by exploiting people for decades! you know what, living in this mansion and having everything i could ever want totally sucks!

  On 4/10/2010 at 7:03 PM, Funktion said:

it's just fucking insane. we're all going to become vulcans because this french asshole tells us that it's "irrational" oh no! that means i will gladly give up the billion dollar empire my lineage has strived for by exploiting people for decades! you know what, living in this mansion and having everything i could ever want totally sucks!

Think about where you "learn", where you actually pick up on such an attitude that amplifies you wanting a big mansion.. it's only considered right because society has taught you to think that it is ok > remember that society is not always correct

Poor people greatly outnumber rich people = think about that for a moment.

What makes you think I'm French?

i was calling jacques fresco french lol

i think greed is probably innate in us and not some arbitrary societal distinction like pink=girls, blue=boys, but then again i don't know anything about it and neither do you.

  On 4/10/2010 at 10:37 PM, Funktion said:

i was calling jacques fresco french lol

 

i think greed is probably innate in us and not some arbitrary societal distinction like pink=girls, blue=boys, but then again i don't know anything about it and neither do you.

he keeps claiming that you can solve all society's ills and make everyone totally selfless and altruistic solely through education. i really can't see that ever working. plus Zeitgeist folks never talk about how the system could be initially implemented, i can't see it happening voluntarily so the only option is a Lenin-style takeover and purge

  On 4/10/2010 at 10:37 PM, Funktion said:

i was calling jacques fresco french lol

 

i think greed is probably innate in us and not some arbitrary societal distinction like pink=girls, blue=boys, but then again i don't know anything about it and neither do you.

You say greed is innate yet you have zero evidence to support this claim.

I can give you countless information which sways towards the explanation of greed being a behaviour that is socially conditioned/environmental causes - For starters, research feral children and detailed case studies on them, then come back and we'll see if you stand by your statement.

Remember that you have always been growing up in what looks to be a scarce environment [note that a monetary system does not encourage abundance of resources] (cavemen had it worse than us) so you're bound to think that greed is just a genetic cause - when in fact it's the scarce environment and lack of abundant resources which creates aberrant behaviour.

From what I understand, Fresco comes from an Italian background (he often talks in his lectures about how racist his Italian Mother was, and how he disliked it very much as a child), not that it really matters where he's from anyway..

Sometimes I think some people on watmm never want to learn about anything that is totally alien to them.. just stick to the familiar things in life and everything will be all right for you

  On 4/10/2010 at 11:43 PM, ezkerraldean said:

  On 4/10/2010 at 10:37 PM, Funktion said:

i was calling jacques fresco french lol

 

i think greed is probably innate in us and not some arbitrary societal distinction like pink=girls, blue=boys, but then again i don't know anything about it and neither do you.

he keeps claiming that you can solve all society's ills and make everyone totally selfless and altruistic solely through education. i really can't see that ever working. plus Zeitgeist folks never talk about how the system could be initially implemented, i can't see it happening voluntarily so the only option is a Lenin-style takeover and purge

Not necessarily true. It's the combination of education and creating a better environment that could change people's value systems. You underestimate environmental causes greatly. Think about it, how much stuff have you learnt from just being educated as a child? You learnt how to read, yes? How to structure sentences and communicate with people? It's likely that you have adopted the same value systems as the people who are close to you such as family, friends, role models etc.. none of these are genetic causes -- all of these are learned abilities.

Firstly, the monetary system has to fall (or by a large degree, become more worse than it currently is) before people feel persuaded to select a new social system or other ideas for social change (such as a viable option like a resource based economy). At the moment, we have witnessed Greece's economy diminish, and it's only a matter of time before things like this become more widespread globally. The sad truth is that the monetary system relies upon this fantasy of "infinite growth" - no economist can deny this, and it's a complete fantasy in and of itself because a planet, with finite resources, can not have an economy based on infinite growth and consumption. From the word "go", a money economy is pretty much in an inevitable situation to fail.

At the moment, the real priority is educating people about a new direction. People are sick of hearing problems in the world, I think most would agree that it is a better use of time to discuss solutions rather than problems.

  On 4/10/2010 at 11:57 PM, Bread said:

I can give you countless information which sways towards the explanation of greed being a behaviour that is socially conditioned/environmental causes

Do it.

  On 4/11/2010 at 1:25 AM, Funktion said:

  On 4/10/2010 at 11:57 PM, Bread said:

I can give you countless information which sways towards the explanation of greed being a behaviour that is socially conditioned/environmental causes

 

Do it.

I just asked you to do your own research on feral children - once you have then let me know if you can still stand by your statement about human behaviour.

saw some column in a Canadian paper today that was on about the expenses scandal etc. and then said "no wonder the Tories are so far ahead". i was like wtf the tories were hit even harder by it than Labour, and the Dems weren't touched by it

stupid Canadians

  On 4/11/2010 at 10:58 AM, Bread said:

  On 4/11/2010 at 1:25 AM, Funktion said:

  On 4/10/2010 at 11:57 PM, Bread said:

I can give you countless information which sways towards the explanation of greed being a behaviour that is socially conditioned/environmental causes

 

Do it.

I just asked you to do your own research on feral children - once you have then let me know if you can still stand by your statement about human behaviour.

ugh burden of proof shifting

  On 4/11/2010 at 12:07 AM, Bread said:

The sad truth is that the monetary system relies upon this fantasy of "infinite growth" - no economist can deny this, and it's a complete fantasy in and of itself because a planet, with finite resources, can not have an economy based on infinite growth and consumption.

the conclusion's obviously true, but surely economic models are based around boom/bust? (i'm no economist, that might be retarded of me)

  On 4/11/2010 at 6:58 PM, ezkerraldean said:

  On 4/11/2010 at 10:58 AM, Bread said:

  On 4/11/2010 at 1:25 AM, Funktion said:

  On 4/10/2010 at 11:57 PM, Bread said:

I can give you countless information which sways towards the explanation of greed being a behaviour that is socially conditioned/environmental causes

 

Do it.

I just asked you to do your own research on feral children - once you have then let me know if you can still stand by your statement about human behaviour.

ugh burden of proof shifting

not at all - if he/she is interested in researching the topic then they will do the research themselves

  On 4/11/2010 at 7:03 PM, ezkerraldean said:

  On 4/11/2010 at 12:07 AM, Bread said:

The sad truth is that the monetary system relies upon this fantasy of "infinite growth" - no economist can deny this, and it's a complete fantasy in and of itself because a planet, with finite resources, can not have an economy based on infinite growth and consumption.

the conclusion's obviously true, but surely economic models are based around boom/bust? (i'm no economist, that might be retarded of me)

You're correct in stating that boom/bust cycle is literally built into a monetary system - in other words, foreclosures and banks failing are an inevitability - and it should be expected but instead the unaware and uneducated vast majority of the public look at economic problems with surprise and anger. I read once that before central banks across the world were implemented by the Rothschild banking family (Federal Reserve, Bank of England etc..), a boom/bust cycle was virtually non-existent and many believe that it is the central banks which brought with them the catastrophes we've witnessed along the way. Still.. I maintain my thoughts on money as completely irrelevant to social progression, and that it's time we moved onto something new which incorporates up-to-date technologies to help societies.

I haven't really been paying attention lately, but I can foresee the Tories winning this as they seem to have had a much better reception with their manifesto's.

The media is turning blue, and I firmly believe that in a modern society the media decides public opinion.

Lib Dem Manifesto today.

Most interesting 'plan' is that they would stop tax on the first £10k. Very appealing, especially for me during the next 4 years of my life. but of course we'd be taxed more elsewhere.

I'll have a browse through it later, and tonight/tomorrow I expect they'll have a comparison guide. Still, it's inspired me to finally send off that Voter Registration form.

When are those TV debates supposed to be on?

  On 4/14/2010 at 2:30 PM, Gary C said:

Still, it's inspired me to finally send off that Voter Registration form.

My mum rang me, they sent my polling card to her house.

  On 4/14/2010 at 4:25 PM, futuregirlfriend said:

When are those TV debates supposed to be on?

first one's tomorrow evening on itv

  On 4/14/2010 at 2:30 PM, Gary C said:

Most interesting 'plan' is that they would stop tax on the first £10k. Very appealing, especially for me during the next 4 years of my life. but of course we'd be taxed more elsewhere.

yeah, this might be the thing to swing me towards the lib dems. i assume they reckon they can afford this with revenue from their mansion tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

pretty good article for anyone who wants to know the philosophy of the main 3 parties