Lol no they fucking weren't.
Advertisement
by Bakery Hill » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:02 am
by Ostroeuropa » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:10 am
Irona wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
I never called people stupid. Just pointed out that the Labour Party tends to revolve it's election campaigns around a conspiracy theory.
It's also not a conspiracy theory to say something is more likely to explain a situation compared to other explanations.
I'm sorry but arguing that the Labour Party deliberately and knowingly tricks voters into following a conspiracy theory IS a conspiracy theory.
by Ostroeuropa » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:18 am
by Rufford » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:22 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:Olivaero wrote:Lol no they fucking weren't.
I agree, they were abolished because the labour party elite keeps going through hysteric periods of hating any type of diversity of outcomes while pretending to be for the masses.
First they hated income diversity and were dragged kicking and screaming into admitting at least some is good for society, and finally admitting their attempts to be hardcore socialists and communists greatly fucked up the sectors of the economy it was tried in.
Then they hated diversity of education and kept talking about how a single state-decided standard was needed, and have finally admitted their attempts to deal with education greatly fucked up the education of the country and worsened social mobility.
Now that's gone out of fashion and they have a hate-boner for ideological diversity and anyone who isn't a radical progressive feminist.
Place your bets on whether it takes them three decades to learn their lesson again, and on which parts of society they manage to fuck up in the meantime. Economy, education, and now demographic relations, freedom of speech, and culture.
I honestly have no idea how anyone finds them appealing, except through their fear of the opposition. Everything they touch turns to shit. Literally the only decent accomplishment they've managed that comes to mind is the NHS, and sure, it's a good one, but it's pretty hard to ignore that white both parties in the UK are shit, we're lookint at Nick Frost pretending to be equal to Simon Pegg in a wacky adventure.
It's just not true. One of them is more competent.
Each of Labours fucked up crusades stems from an ideological need, a communistic impulse, to deliver an equal society and a refusal to engage with the idea that maybe people just aren't supposed to have equal outcomes.
by HMS Vanguard » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:22 am
by Ostroeuropa » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:23 am
Rufford wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
I agree, they were abolished because the labour party elite keeps going through hysteric periods of hating any type of diversity of outcomes while pretending to be for the masses.
First they hated income diversity and were dragged kicking and screaming into admitting at least some is good for society, and finally admitting their attempts to be hardcore socialists and communists greatly fucked up the sectors of the economy it was tried in.
Then they hated diversity of education and kept talking about how a single state-decided standard was needed, and have finally admitted their attempts to deal with education greatly fucked up the education of the country and worsened social mobility.
Now that's gone out of fashion and they have a hate-boner for ideological diversity and anyone who isn't a radical progressive feminist.
Place your bets on whether it takes them three decades to learn their lesson again, and on which parts of society they manage to fuck up in the meantime. Economy, education, and now demographic relations, freedom of speech, and culture.
I honestly have no idea how anyone finds them appealing, except through their fear of the opposition. Everything they touch turns to shit. Literally the only decent accomplishment they've managed that comes to mind is the NHS, and sure, it's a good one, but it's pretty hard to ignore that white both parties in the UK are shit, we're lookint at Nick Frost pretending to be equal to Simon Pegg in a wacky adventure.
It's just not true. One of them is more competent.
Each of Labours fucked up crusades stems from an ideological need, a communistic impulse, to deliver an equal society and a refusal to engage with the idea that maybe people just aren't supposed to have equal outcomes.
Lamadia confirmed...
You talk about the Labour party elite, and then you describe them as communists. Another deluded Tory who dismisses anything red as commie propaganda.
by Rufford » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:25 am
HMS Vanguard wrote:Grammar schools were abolished because without grammar schools there exists an implicit education tax on the upper middle class: the money that would have been spent on the state school education of their children but can instead be spent on other government objectives because those children are being privately educated.
The only reason to raise a surtax on the upper middle class having children is to make it more expensive for them to have children, as if the goal is simply revenue you would rather increase the general top rate of income tax.
Grammar schools aren't good because they improve social mobility. They probably do, although not much. They are good because they make it easier and cheaper for the best people to have children.
by HMS Vanguard » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:26 am
Rufford wrote:HMS Vanguard wrote:Grammar schools were abolished because without grammar schools there exists an implicit education tax on the upper middle class: the money that would have been spent on the state school education of their children but can instead be spent on other government objectives because those children are being privately educated.
The only reason to raise a surtax on the upper middle class having children is to make it more expensive for them to have children, as if the goal is simply revenue you would rather increase the general top rate of income tax.
Grammar schools aren't good because they improve social mobility. They probably do, although not much. They are good because they make it easier and cheaper for the best people to have children.
The cost of having a child is higher than ever and is rising regardless. It will continue to rise.
by Ostroeuropa » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:29 am
HMS Vanguard wrote:Grammar schools were abolished because without grammar schools there exists an implicit education tax on the upper middle class: the money that would have been spent on the state school education of their children but can instead be spent on other government objectives because those children are being privately educated.
The only reason to raise a surtax on the upper middle class having children is to make it more expensive for them to have children, as if the goal is simply revenue you would rather increase the general top rate of income tax.
Grammar schools aren't good because they improve social mobility. They probably do, although not much. They are good because they make it easier and cheaper for the best people to have children.
by Rufford » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:29 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:Rufford wrote:Lamadia confirmed...
You talk about the Labour party elite, and then you describe them as communists. Another deluded Tory who dismisses anything red as commie propaganda.
I don't think they are communists. But I'd say they typically have a communistic impulse driving whatever current drive for equality they tend to be undergoing. The belief that rather than the government treating people equally being a goal, the goal of the government should be to deliver equality in some sector.
by Imperializt Russia » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:30 am
HMS Vanguard wrote:Grammar schools were abolished because without grammar schools there exists an implicit education tax on the upper middle class: the money that would have been spent on the state school education of their children but can instead be spent on other government objectives because those children are being privately educated.
The only reason to raise a surtax on the upper middle class having children is to make it more expensive for them to have children, as if the goal is simply revenue you would rather increase the general top rate of income tax.
Grammar schools aren't good because they improve social mobility. They probably do, although not much. They are good because they make it easier and cheaper for the best people to have children.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Olivaero » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:31 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:Olivaero wrote:Lol no they fucking weren't.
I agree, they were abolished because the labour party elite keeps going through hysteric periods of hating any type of diversity of outcomes while pretending to be for the masses.
First they hated income diversity and were dragged kicking and screaming into admitting at least some is good for society, and finally admitting their attempts to be hardcore socialists and communists greatly fucked up the sectors of the economy it was tried in.
Then they hated diversity of education and kept talking about how a single state-decided standard was needed, and have finally admitted their attempts to deal with education greatly fucked up the education of the country and worsened social mobility.
Now that's gone out of fashion and they have a hate-boner for ideological diversity and anyone who isn't a radical progressive feminist.
Place your bets on whether it takes them three decades to learn their lesson again, and on which parts of society they manage to fuck up in the meantime. Economy, education, and now demographic relations, freedom of speech, and culture.
I honestly have no idea how anyone finds them appealing, except through their fear of the opposition. Everything they touch turns to shit. Literally the only decent accomplishment they've managed that comes to mind is the NHS, and sure, it's a good one, but it's pretty hard to ignore that white both parties in the UK are shit, we're lookint at Nick Frost pretending to be equal to Simon Pegg in a wacky adventure.
It's just not true. One of them is more competent.
Each of Labours fucked up crusades stems from an ideological need, a communistic impulse, to deliver an equal society and a refusal to engage with the idea that maybe people just aren't supposed to have equal outcomes.
by Eastfield Lodge » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:31 am
HMS Vanguard wrote:Grammar schools were abolished because without grammar schools there exists an implicit education tax on the upper middle class: the money that would have been spent on the state school education of their children but can instead be spent on other government objectives because those children are being privately educated.
The only reason to raise a surtax on the upper middle class having children is to make it more expensive for them to have children, as if the goal is simply revenue you would rather increase the general top rate of income tax.
Grammar schools aren't good because they improve social mobility. They probably do, although not much. They are good because they make it easier and cheaper for the best people to have children.
by Rufford » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:32 am
by HMS Vanguard » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:34 am
by HMS Vanguard » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:35 am
by Ostroeuropa » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:35 am
Olivaero wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
I agree, they were abolished because the labour party elite keeps going through hysteric periods of hating any type of diversity of outcomes while pretending to be for the masses.
First they hated income diversity and were dragged kicking and screaming into admitting at least some is good for society, and finally admitting their attempts to be hardcore socialists and communists greatly fucked up the sectors of the economy it was tried in.
Then they hated diversity of education and kept talking about how a single state-decided standard was needed, and have finally admitted their attempts to deal with education greatly fucked up the education of the country and worsened social mobility.
Now that's gone out of fashion and they have a hate-boner for ideological diversity and anyone who isn't a radical progressive feminist.
Place your bets on whether it takes them three decades to learn their lesson again, and on which parts of society they manage to fuck up in the meantime. Economy, education, and now demographic relations, freedom of speech, and culture.
I honestly have no idea how anyone finds them appealing, except through their fear of the opposition. Everything they touch turns to shit. Literally the only decent accomplishment they've managed that comes to mind is the NHS, and sure, it's a good one, but it's pretty hard to ignore that white both parties in the UK are shit, we're lookint at Nick Frost pretending to be equal to Simon Pegg in a wacky adventure.
It's just not true. One of them is more competent.
Each of Labours fucked up crusades stems from an ideological need, a communistic impulse, to deliver an equal society and a refusal to engage with the idea that maybe people just aren't supposed to have equal outcomes.
You know the narratives we make up for the way the world works are very rarely as correct as we think they are, esepecially when we try to make them up about our rivals. My schooling wasn't fucked up by the non existence of grammar schools, In fact I did pretty shitty on my second round of SATS because I was a kid who didn't fully appreciate exams. There are plenty of none radical progressive feminists in the party, although I hesitate to say that because I have no idea what you consider a radical progressive anymore. And as for society being feing fucked up, well there have been 6 years of tory rule so far, I don't see that it's getting any better, do you?
by Vassenor » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:36 am
HMS Vanguard wrote:Schools don't make much difference to peoples' lives or their value as workers. That is mostly determined by genetic traits.
But we should not supertax people with the best genetic traits.
by Rufford » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:37 am
HMS Vanguard wrote:Rufford wrote:My point is that weather you have them or not, its going to have very little affect on the cost of having a child because of the current price of having a child and the rate the price is rising at.
You seem to be saying that reducing the cost of having a child will not reduce the cost of having a child.
I respectfully decline to respond to this statement.
by Alvecia » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:41 am
HMS Vanguard wrote:Schools don't make much difference to peoples' lives or their value as workers. That is mostly determined by genetic traits.
But we should not supertax people with the best genetic traits.
by HMS Vanguard » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:42 am
Vassenor wrote:HMS Vanguard wrote:Schools don't make much difference to peoples' lives or their value as workers. That is mostly determined by genetic traits.
But we should not supertax people with the best genetic traits.
Right, employers routinely give applicants DNA tests to determine if they have the right genetic traits. They totally don't look at the education listed on the CV at all.
by Vassenor » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:43 am
HMS Vanguard wrote:Vassenor wrote:
Right, employers routinely give applicants DNA tests to determine if they have the right genetic traits. They totally don't look at the education listed on the CV at all.
They use the CV as a DNA test, because we can't currently measure IQ and discipline by DNA tests.
If you have the wrong DNA, you're not going to get in to Oxford.
by Rufford » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:45 am
HMS Vanguard wrote:Vassenor wrote:
Right, employers routinely give applicants DNA tests to determine if they have the right genetic traits. They totally don't look at the education listed on the CV at all.
They use the CV as a DNA test, because we can't currently measure IQ and discipline by DNA tests.
If you have the wrong DNA, you're not going to get in to Oxford.
by HMS Vanguard » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:46 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cannot think of a name, Cyptopir, Shrillland, The Vooperian Union, Tungstan, Victorious Decepticons
Advertisement