UK Politics IV: Disraeli Gears

[Ostroeuropa]

It's one of the bits of garbage the progressive left has generated that sent me screaming and running into the arms of the Tories.
Val has reached the point where she prefers theocrats to these people, as I said earlier.

Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism dude, at least it's an ethos.
Don't call it moral relativism. Give it it's proper name. It's nihilism. This is a moral vacuum. An absence of ethics. To say cultures are equal is a statement that you lack a moral compass. An extreme way of wording it, but ultimately true.

What I will say is that you are playing with dangerous, inflammatory rhetoric. It is hard to regard one as civilised when they must resort to excessive and hyperbolic demonisation.

If you have a better way of wording it i'm all ears. I want an accurate way of refering to it. If it makes them look like a demon, that's not my problem. How else can you describe the mechanism at play here?
If it makes them look better I don't care either, so long as it's accurate.

[Olivaero]

I think to say a culture is merely as worthy as the values and beliefs it holds is quite simplistic. A culture may have valuable beliefs right beside primitive ones, sure there are regressive and disgusting beliefs and values there and they should rightfully be repressed but this is true of our own culture as well. I think "Culture" is the way we simplify the actions of millions of other individuals because we are not really capable of comprehending groups of that size. And like any simplification it's ultimately found wanting when compared to actual reality..

[The Nihilistic view]

I am a moral and existential nihilist.

there's not fucking way you're a moral nihlist lol

Why? Morals are subjective to me thus no action can be called objectively wrong on a moral level thus any talk of morals as a justification is an appeal to a fallacy. I thus never use the word in debate.

Unless we are debating the existence of morals or something lol.

[Napkiraly]

Apparently that's nonsense.



You can up and decide to play for the other team in football and call people narrowminded too if you like.
You're British. You should be out to advocate for our interests.

1)"Better" is always going to be subjective. 2)How do you objectively define some cultures as better than others?

1. a) So? b) Appealing to subjectivity is not an argument.

2) You can't, but unless you're a moral vacuum I assume you have beliefs and ideals that you hold near and dear and genuinely believe that those are a) what make you a "good" person b) if people and society held them, most things would be better off.

[Ostroeuropa]

the valuation of which culture is better is, to extent itself, influenced by cultural background and there's no way you can avoid this

*drops mic*

I fully accept that. But it's the best we can do.
Notice that the poll on British Immigration showed that we like nations culturally similar to us...

And Japan.
(if you read watching the english, you'll understand why.) Insular negative-politeness societies.

[Wolfmanne2]

Cultural superiority is just such a phenomenally stupid concept. I don't think anyone can really quantify what makes a given culture objectively superior to another.

In Papua New Guinea there are societies where cannibalism is acceptable and euthanasia is widely practiced. Now, we do not have a duty to civilise them, which is what I'm sure some people on this thread would love, but would you want to live in a society where cannibalism is considered acceptable and where involuntary euthanasia of the disabled occurs on a regular basis? No? Then you think that those moral values are inferior as a code to the ones we've developed regarding the human body.

[Souseiseki]

there's not fucking way you're a moral nihlist lol

Why? Morals are subjective to me thus no action can be called objectively wrong on a moral level thus any talk of morals as a justification is an appeal to a fallacy. I thus never use the word in debate.

i'm having trouble seeing how you can want to help people without attaching a moral judgment to such an act, and if you're acting based on moral justification i'm having trouble reconciling that with moral nihilism.

since law itself is to an extent/large extent based around morality i'm not sure you get around that either if you don't think morals are a good justification.

[Imperializt Russia]

Because it's only unfair when laws get forced on English people.

Therefore, you think that the Scots, the Welsh, the N. Irish, deserve devolved assemblies, but we do not?

---

I don't like devolution period- I think the best deal for this country is embracing Britishness, with a single Parliament and very few devolved powers. However, it is a necessary part of the modern constitution, and, reluctantly, it should be maintained.
In an ideal world, though, Scottish, English, Welsh, N. Irish- we would all come under a single flag, and would take pride in being British first, then English, Scottish, Welsh, N. Irish.

We have devolution, and need devolution, because Parliament is a little unhealthily focused upon England, and the South and Home Counties at that, London especially - largely at the expense of anyone north of the M25.

According to what law?

I am surprised that somebody in his 50s doesn't see past legal jargon. Especially due to the fact that you are certainly not a lawyer in real life.
Disqualification is not necessarily a legal term, Ifleann, and I would expect you to know this. Of course, nothing would stop a traitor running for office.

An actual traitor would be violating one or several laws, in order to become a traitor, and would indeed be barred from holding office, largely due to being exiled or imprisoned. Or in an earlier time, shot.

Elepsis' views are not traitorous though. They're rational and reject nationalism and patriotism, which are not ideal qualities. They are divisive qualities.

But from a moral view- not even a moral view, but a reflection of conscience- this would be totally & utterly wrong. To hold office with no regard for this country would be wrong, and I believe that the general public would respond to any attempt as it deserves.

But that's not what rejecting nationalism and patriotism are.

Well in my humble opinion you and the overwhelming majority of the British public are terribly parochial.

Kill people, harm people, stuff like that. Not a liking for fajita and Mayan history.

Many of the countries listed negatively are known for homophobia and anti-abortion sentiment.

As noble a belief it would be otherwise, I doubt that's a leading reason for their low ranking.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/gay-marriage-reaches-record-support-in-nc.html

This poll shows that 64% of North Carolinas over 45 are against gay marriage. Should we ban all North Carolinans over 45 from coming?

Being against gay marriage is on a significantly different level to believing homosexuality should be illegal.
As is typical for multiculturalists, you are determined to pretend these cultures are equal.
They aren't.

Even the most backward example you could think up from a first world nation is still better, and you just refuse to notice it.

That's not as backwards as it gets. Spend a few hours watching AronRa presentations on Youtube. I'd forgotten how bad sections of the American South were.

why is this civilization and its lump of rock better than any other?

Because of our values, ethics, and priorities.

That makes it better than some states which are shit.
Which wasn't the question that was asked.

[Ostroeuropa]

Cultural superiority is just such a phenomenally stupid concept. I don't think anyone can really quantify what makes a given culture objectively superior to another.

In Papua New Guinea there are societies where cannibalism is acceptable and euthanasia is widely practiced. Now, we do not have a duty to civilise them, which is what I'm sure some people on this thread would love, but would you want to live in a society where cannibalism is considered acceptable and where involuntary euthanasia of the disabled occurs on a regular basis? No? Then you think that those moral values are inferior as a code to the ones we've developed regarding the human body.

Would you go from here, to saying that ranking countries in immigration desirability is an acceptable policy?

[Wolfmanne2]

What I will say is that you are playing with dangerous, inflammatory rhetoric. It is hard to regard one as civilised when they must resort to excessive and hyperbolic demonisation.

If you have a better way of wording it i'm all ears. I want an accurate way of refering to it. If it makes them look like a demon, that's not my problem. How else can you describe the mechanism at play here?
If it makes them look better I don't care either, so long as it's accurate.

You lose the moral high ground when you have to resort using the language of hate. Calling 'moral relativists' nihilists shows that you do not at least seek to understand where they're coming from. Instead you've arranged the world around your perspective only. I think what many relativists fear is that deeming one group or another superior can result in the unjust oppression of another and all you do is prove their fears. The way in which you demonise conservative Muslims for instance doesn't persuade those who defend them, it gives them and those who defend them a siege mentality where you are the enemy and you see them as an enemy.

Multiculturalism may be undesirable... but community cohesion is very desirable.

[Wolfmanne2]

In Papua New Guinea there are societies where cannibalism is acceptable and euthanasia is widely practiced. Now, we do not have a duty to civilise them, which is what I'm sure some people on this thread would love, but would you want to live in a society where cannibalism is considered acceptable and where involuntary euthanasia of the disabled occurs on a regular basis? No? Then you think that those moral values are inferior as a code to the ones we've developed regarding the human body.

Would you go from here, to saying that ranking countries in immigration desirability is an acceptable policy?

I wouldn't. Immigration needs to be tackled on a basis of consistency.

[Philjia]

there's not fucking way you're a moral nihlist lol

Why? Morals are subjective to me thus no action can be called objectively wrong on a moral level thus any talk of morals as a justification is an appeal to a fallacy. I thus never use the word in debate.

Unless we are debating the existence of morals or something lol.

Arbitrary morals are a necessity when creating a functioning society.

[Olivaero]

In Papua New Guinea there are societies where cannibalism is acceptable and euthanasia is widely practiced. Now, we do not have a duty to civilise them, which is what I'm sure some people on this thread would love, but would you want to live in a society where cannibalism is considered acceptable and where involuntary euthanasia of the disabled occurs on a regular basis? No? Then you think that those moral values are inferior as a code to the ones we've developed regarding the human body.

Would you go from here, to saying that ranking countries in immigration desirability is an acceptable policy?

Judging an individual based on their potential actions because some others in their ethnic group happen to really love thoes actions doesn't make much sense. Judging people on what they have actually done makes more sense. Funnily enough we also live in an age where this is easier than ever as facebook continues to spread. If you want to evaluate a potential immigrant on their ideals why not just browse through their statuses? However that is pretty much stepping on the right of free speech, but it's certainly more fair then what your proposing.

[Napkiraly]

In Papua New Guinea there are societies where cannibalism is acceptable and euthanasia is widely practiced. Now, we do not have a duty to civilise them, which is what I'm sure some people on this thread would love, but would you want to live in a society where cannibalism is considered acceptable and where involuntary euthanasia of the disabled occurs on a regular basis? No? Then you think that those moral values are inferior as a code to the ones we've developed regarding the human body.

Would you go from here, to saying that ranking countries in immigration desirability is an acceptable policy?

I'm not entirely sure, but I think it could be a basis of how much assimilation or lack thereof can be expected and tolerated.

[Vassenor]

I don't think anyone has really explained why we should be capping immigration anyway. What is the benefit?

[The Nihilistic view]

Why? Morals are subjective to me thus no action can be called objectively wrong on a moral level thus any talk of morals as a justification is an appeal to a fallacy. I thus never use the word in debate.

i'm having trouble seeing how you can want to help people without attaching a moral judgment to such an act, and if you're acting based on moral justification i'm having trouble reconciling that with moral nihilism.

since law itself is to an extent/large extent based around morality i'm not sure you get around that either if you don't think morals are a good justification.

There is a difference between having ones own morals and being a moral objectivist in my mind. Morals are to me at least clearly subjective thus one can have their own moral code they live by without believing said moral code is based in universal truth. It's then only a short step from there to moral nihilism. I have my morals, but that does not mean I find other people with different ideas morally wrong. That differs from practical reasons for taking actions.

Just a simple example, but murder. Not morally wrong to me however it's practically wrong on a self preservation level that punishment is needed. That is independent to the existence of a universal moral code. Thus a desire to punish certain actions are based creating a nice environment to live in rather than a moral truth. At least in my case, but yes a majority of people would call it morally wrong.

A moral code is to me purely a code by which an individual chooses to live by nothing more. And because I have one I am not inherently right, it's just my personal choice or belief.

[Lamadia III]

Your argument is irrelevant, as it is based on a dislike for this country. That's it; you don't feel proud about what this country & its people have done, therefore your opinions are based on nothing but hypothetical. You have no wish to help the people of this country, as you do not respect them. Shame on you.

---

I'm entirely confident that I receive less benefit from the country, and contribute more to it, than you do. This is a transaction that I'm quite comfortable with, but not any reason for pride.

I doubt very much that I take more from the state than you do. Hell, I don't even use the NHS!
In terms of contribution- currently, no, I doubt I do contribute more than you, because I am 16. My parents on the other hand, I am sure, contribute far more financially, and take far less out. But this isn't a competition; the fact that you feel the need to say to me that you contribute more is sad.

[Sanctissima]

Would you go from here, to saying that ranking countries in immigration desirability is an acceptable policy?

Judging an individual based on their potential actions because some others in their ethnic group happen to really love thoes actions doesn't make much sense. Judging people on what they have actually done makes more sense. Funnily enough we also live in an age where this is easier than ever as facebook continues to spread. If you want to evaluate a potential immigrant on their ideals why not just browse through their statuses? However that is pretty much stepping on the right of free speech, but it's certainly more fair then what your proposing.

Depends.

If they're emigrating from Saudi Arabia, that's a bit of a red flag as far as religious fundamentalism is concerned. I'm not saying that's reason enough to deny them entry outright, but national origin should play a considerable factor in how extensive a prospective immigrant's background check should be.

[The Nihilistic view]

If you have a better way of wording it i'm all ears. I want an accurate way of refering to it. If it makes them look like a demon, that's not my problem. How else can you describe the mechanism at play here?
If it makes them look better I don't care either, so long as it's accurate.

You lose the moral high ground when you have to resort using the language of hate. Calling 'moral relativists' nihilists shows that you do not at least seek to understand where they're coming from. Instead you've arranged the world around your perspective only. I think what many relativists fear is that deeming one group or another superior can result in the unjust oppression of another and all you do is prove their fears. The way in which you demonise conservative Muslims for instance doesn't persuade those who defend them, it gives them and those who defend them a siege mentality where you are the enemy and you see them as an enemy.

Multiculturalism may be undesirable... but community cohesion is very desirable.

Wolf Moral ground is perfectly flat.....

[Ostroeuropa]

Would you go from here, to saying that ranking countries in immigration desirability is an acceptable policy?

Judging an individual based on their potential actions because some others in their ethnic group happen to really love thoes actions doesn't make much sense. Judging people on what they have actually done makes more sense. Funnily enough we also live in an age where this is easier than ever as facebook continues to spread. If you want to evaluate a potential immigrant on their ideals why not just browse through their statuses? However that is pretty much stepping on the right of free speech, but it's certainly more fair then what your proposing.

It's an issue of resources and practicality. Given unlimited funding, we could be far more strenuous. But, fact is, the British government owes its own citizens fair treatment before it owes foreigners fair treatment, and that should be reflected in funding and resource allocation.
So a broad, perhaps unfair, policy, is acceptable to me until home affairs are in better order and more funds could be directed to make immigration checks more individualized instead of generalized.

[Wolfmanne2]

I don't think anyone has really explained why we should be capping immigration anyway. What is the benefit?

Immigration has clearly had a detrimental effect in many deprived communities such as Stoke-upon-Trent, putting pressure upon public services and then there is also the fact that exploitative bosses taking advantage of migrant labour has a detrimental effect upon the British people in regards to wage stagnation and opportunities in low-income jobs. Now, we do need some immigration in order to balance out the impact of an ageing population and also as natives simply do not seek out certain jobs (i.e. fruit picking in agriculture - though there is the argument that they would if wages were higher, but I digress) - but we can cut immigration with little cost to the economy and likely an increased in general welfare for the British people.

[Imperializt Russia]

Your argument is irrelevant, as it is based on a dislike for this country. That's it; you don't feel proud about what this country & its people have done, therefore your opinions are based on nothing but hypothetical. You have no wish to help the people of this country, as you do not respect them. Shame on you.

---

I'm entirely confident that I receive less benefit from the country, and contribute more to it, than you do. This is a transaction that I'm quite comfortable with, but not any reason for pride.

I doubt very much that I take more from the state than you do. Hell, I don't even use the NHS!
In terms of contribution- currently, no, I doubt I do contribute more than you, because I am 16. My parents on the other hand, I am sure, contribute far more financially, and take far less out. But this isn't a competition; the fact that you feel the need to say to me that you contribute more is sad.

Says the person who cannot stop competing where she thinks she can win, and where she mistakenly thinks it matters.

[Olivaero]

I don't think anyone has really explained why we should be capping immigration anyway. What is the benefit?

I would say "None!" but I'm certain I'm in a massive minority. I'd go one step further and say it's actually a fairly ridiculous goal to try and limit immigration to a simple numerical figure when the population of the whole world keeps on growing and the environmental situation is deteriorating.

[Vassenor]

I don't think anyone has really explained why we should be capping immigration anyway. What is the benefit?

Immigration has clearly had a detrimental effect in many deprived communities such as Stoke-upon-Trent, putting pressure upon public services and then there is also the fact that exploitative bosses taking advantage of migrant labour has a detrimental effect upon the British people in regards to wage stagnation and opportunities in low-income jobs. Now, we do need some immigration in order to balance out the impact of an ageing population and also as natives simply do not seek out certain jobs (i.e. fruit picking in agriculture - though there is the argument that they would if wages were higher, but I digress) - but we can cut immigration with little cost to the economy and likely an increased in general welfare for the British people.

Yes, but we seem to be talking more in terms of quotas and only accepting immigrants from certain geographical areas. That's what doesn't make sense to me.

[Philjia]

I don't think anyone has really explained why we should be capping immigration anyway. What is the benefit?

It's a cheaper way of approaching the housing crisis and things like that. Instead if increasing supply, we reduce demand.

Not that it'd work, mind you.