|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 18, 2024 22:08:01 GMT
livetv785.me is a pretty reliable streaming site. The fight is listed. You occasionally need to refresh streams on here or try more than one of the many options but unlike most, it does actually work.
I'll be tuning in tomorrow afternoon to watch City win their 4th consecutive premier league title.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 18, 2024 19:23:11 GMT
No. The benefits system however, is. The current government support and will continue with the current benefits system (with a few tweaks). Indeed. There's little appetite for real change in this country.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 18, 2024 19:19:42 GMT
Anybody find this interesting? I'm pretty sure plenty of people do. I'm pretty sure you don't.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 18, 2024 19:12:04 GMT
Yes, we know, your only interest in life is films. You don't like to read about other people's interests. You feel it appropriate to point this out to them.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 18, 2024 19:10:20 GMT
I think on balance that a smaller government with families taking the responsibility they should naturally incurr for their actions produces a better society than one with Marxist style redistribution principles. The vast majority of the world agrees with me. Do you think our current government is based upon Marxist principles? They do redistribute wealth... No. The benefits system however, is. There are countries with wider ranging benefits and more generous payments, particularly for unemployment. Nowhere else though, is no distinction made between those who have contribtuted and those who haven't, for the vast majority of benefit categories. People sometimes wonder why some countries with higher taxes have people who seem more willing to pay them. Some Scandanavian countries are often mentioned. Could it be a factor: those making significant contributions don't find themselves excluded from receiving payments under these systems?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 18, 2024 18:59:33 GMT
Not a single country has ever chosen to return a Marxist style government. The funny thing is that you clearly consider yourself to be an intellectual. Nowhere near as funny as someone who thinks he's witty, completely failing to realise how boring he is.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 18, 2024 18:09:03 GMT
Charities fit in wherever they need to. The point here is that Jim claims that if people had free choice, opened their minds, they would choose a Marxist style needs based comprehensive welfare system together with other large government functions. There are plenty of countries around the world where people are free to think as they wish. Elections are free and anybody can take part. Not a single country has ever chosen to return a Marxist style government. Each example of such government, throughout history, only gained power by the use of force. So how can he possibly conclude that free thought might bring about this choice? Spain That's interesting. I lived and worked in Spain. I had to contribute via my taxes for a minimum of 6 months before I was entitled to any cash benefits at all. Unemployment benefit was interesting there. You received amounts commensurate with your contributions. A percentage of your salary. Seems fair to me. Unlike in Britain when the likelihood is that those who contribute the most, should they lose their jobs, will be entitled to nothing at all. I could envisage many British people currently unhappy paying high levels of tax being less unhappy, should such a system exist in Britain. Perhaps it's changed, Spain quietly voted for a new, Marxist system, since 2012?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 18, 2024 18:06:00 GMT
I wasn't asking about Jim's thoughts, I was asking about your thoughts.
Another question to you; Do you think family and community, (and possibly charity) will solve all health/infrastructure/financial and care support? Or is there a need for another 'thing' to fill the gaps?
I think on balance that a smaller government with families taking the responsibility they should naturally incurr for their actions produces a better society than one with Marxist style redistribution principles. The vast majority of the world agrees with me.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 18, 2024 18:01:23 GMT
At least 3 weeks, before you walk on it.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 18, 2024 14:29:27 GMT
Charities fit in wherever they need to.
The point here is that Jim claims that if people had free choice, opened their minds, they would choose a Marxist style needs based comprehensive welfare system together with other large government functions. There are plenty of countries around the world where people are free to think as they wish. Elections are free and anybody can take part. Not a single country has ever chosen to return a Marxist style government. Each example of such government, throughout history, only gained power by the use of force.
So how can he possibly conclude that free thought might bring about this choice?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 18, 2024 12:24:31 GMT
I do indeed want people to be educated as independent thinkers. As is currently the case in most countries in the world. Oddly, from your perspective, it's only in Britain that the independent thinkers come up with a system which, for example, pays welfare almost entirely on the basis of perceived need, with very little reference to contributions made to the system. Why not sit back for a moment, and have a little think. You spoke of philosophy and freedom of thought, championing these as desirables. We can agree on that. Philosophy and freedom of thought, throughout the world, does not deliver the social systems you desire. In the vast majority of cases it delivers systems which are more in line with what might be described as natural human social systems. That is, that the connection of family and community provides the strongest society, considering the nature of humans. Aided by charity, which is a trait of the human character. So, the vast majority of the world, its scholars, academics and philosophers, disagree with you. So what do you say. Is it that you are a superior being, that others, 'the less enlightened ones' are inferior beings? If so, how does this differ from the old, now thankfully kicked into touch notion that white people are superior to black people? Your thoughts on some of this are muddled.
You seem to critisise the UK state for paying out welfare if the recipient hasn't contributed to the 'system'.
You seem to praise families and charity (society if you like) of helping others regardless of whether the recipient has paid into the 'system'.
Why critisise the state for acting how you think others should do so?
Families and communities are natural providers. They can provide love and comfort, as well as money. It can be argued that families have natural responsibilities to provide for what they have created. Governments can only establish entitlement, systems and money. They are detached from the required humanity. They can't provide comfort, reassurance, company, tenderness or love. Government is effectively a machine, trying to provide for people in need. People in need don't need machines, they need other humans.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 18, 2024 11:44:12 GMT
I see. So, you want the school curriculum to be highly politicised. Drum it into kids from a young age. 'Don't, whatever you do, become one of those nasty right wing types. Be a good left wing girl or boy, everything will then be OK.' This must be the case because philosophy, how to think etc. does not conclude that 'left is good, right is bad' in the way that you do. Your feeling that this is the case is simply your personal bias. History shows us that attrocities are just as likely to be perpetrated by those of the left as those of the right. You might argue that Hitler was of the right while others might counter with Stalin and Pol Pot. Authoritarian domination of people's lives in political ways is arguably, in modern times, a trait far more likely to be seen from left wing leaderships than it is from those to the right. I know you're beyond hope as regards rational thought regarding this matter. Given this is the case you just need to accept your simple left is good, right is bad analysis of life is wrong. This question is something that's been debated since time began and doubtless, will continue to be debated, and argued, until time for humans is no more. I'm still plumping for North Korea for you. A thorough education for the kids, in line with the preferred status quo. An education so thorough, with authorities following up in later years to ensure the education isn't forgotten. Near 100% compliance with the preferred system. What's not to like Jim, for someone like you? So you don't want people to be educated to be independent thinkers, able to spot when the wool is being pulled over their eyes. I wonder why you feel the need to keep the masses down? I do indeed want people to be educated as independent thinkers. As is currently the case in most countries in the world. Oddly, from your perspective, it's only in Britain that the independent thinkers come up with a system which, for example, pays welfare almost entirely on the basis of perceived need, with very little reference to contributions made to the system. Why not sit back for a moment, and have a little think. You spoke of philosophy and freedom of thought, championing these as desirables. We can agree on that. Philosophy and freedom of thought, throughout the world, does not deliver the social systems you desire. In the vast majority of cases it delivers systems which are more in line with what might be described as natural human social systems. That is, that the connection of family and community provides the strongest society, considering the nature of humans. Aided by charity, which is a trait of the human character. So, the vast majority of the world, its scholars, academics and philosophers, disagree with you. So what do you say. Is it that you are a superior being, that others, 'the less enlightened ones' are inferior beings? If so, how does this differ from the old, now thankfully kicked into touch notion that white people are superior to black people?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 18, 2024 6:53:55 GMT
You were the one moaning. Why not move to North Korea? They constantly re-educate adults there. Re-education, something you've expressed a wish for, on this site. Or China perhaps? It doesn't have your preferred wefare, but it's your desired totalitarian state. ah, the usual absolute tripe. No, I have never proposed re education, but a thorough education in the first place, including philosophy, how to think, not what to think, so that charlatans and mountebanks, greedy Tories, right wing activists, the selfish and faux anarchists, can be identified and ignored, while recognising those who care for others and can act selflessly. I wasn't moaning, I was challenging your nonsense. I see you haven't answered the point I raised btw? I see. So, you want the school curriculum to be highly politicised. Drum it into kids from a young age. 'Don't, whatever you do, become one of those nasty right wing types. Be a good left wing girl or boy, everything will then be OK.' This must be the case because philosophy, how to think etc. does not conclude that 'left is good, right is bad' in the way that you do. Your feeling that this is the case is simply your personal bias. History shows us that attrocities are just as likely to be perpetrated by those of the left as those of the right. You might argue that Hitler was of the right while others might counter with Stalin and Pol Pot. Authoritarian domination of people's lives in political ways is arguably, in modern times, a trait far more likely to be seen from left wing leaderships than it is from those to the right. I know you're beyond hope as regards rational thought regarding this matter. Given this is the case you just need to accept your simple left is good, right is bad analysis of life is wrong. This question is something that's been debated since time began and doubtless, will continue to be debated, and argued, until time for humans is no more. I'm still plumping for North Korea for you. A thorough education for the kids, in line with the preferred status quo. An education so thorough, with authorities following up in later years to ensure the education isn't forgotten. Near 100% compliance with the preferred system. What's not to like Jim, for someone like you?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 17, 2024 17:34:30 GMT
If you go somewhere quiet and have a think, you'll realise why people offer comments on public redistribution schemes but not so, on private arrangements between individuals and privately owned businesses. Or at least, I'd hope a quiet think somewhere would make you understand why this is the case. If you don't like it why stay, why move to an area where you are in a minority, voting for a party you don't believe in. I'm happy to live with our NHS and welfare, with no worries about the integrity of my beliefs and being able to vote in furtherance of them honestly. You were the one moaning. Why not move to North Korea? They constantly re-educate adults there. Re-education, something you've expressed a wish for, on this site. Or China perhaps? It doesn't have your preferred wefare, but it's your desired totalitarian state.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 17, 2024 16:32:02 GMT
In some other countries where renting is common, tenants have more security rights. In some other countries where renting is common, tenants are expected to pay a year's rent up front and will be removed by the police, should they fail to do so. No other country, where renting is common, forces other tax payers to pay the full rents of tenants, the tenants not having to make any contribution to the system, in order to earn this privilege. Here, though, we pay into a National Insurance scheme that entitled us to a pittance if we are unemployed or sick. I don't hear whining and whining against those who claim on other insurance schemes for cars, theft from houses etc. If you go somewhere quiet and have a think, you'll realise why people offer comments on public redistribution schemes but not so, on private arrangements between individuals and privately owned businesses. Or at least, I'd hope a quiet think somewhere would make you understand why this is the case.
|
|