The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Letters]

Of course. This video is narrated by a fan of Dawkins. Don't know how that's possible, but anyway.

Wait, wait, wait. I got a minute in and the bloke said he was going to argue why we'd be worse off staying in the EU.
That doesn't address what Dawkins said at all. It's clear that he thinks we should have stayed but his main point in the original video was that a pretty close snapshot of opinion from a (in general) ill-informed public is a pretty flimsy mandate for a serious constitutional change.

[Niall_Quinn]

Wait, wait, wait. I got a minute in and the bloke said he was going to argue why we'd be worse off staying in the EU.
That doesn't address what Dawkins said at all. It's clear that he thinks we should have stayed but his main point in the original video was that a pretty close snapshot of opinion from a (in general) ill-informed public is a pretty flimsy mandate for a serious constitutional change.

There's more stuff after the first minute.

[Letters]

I'm suggesting the great British public are silly for voting at all. Your argument is people are too stupid or uninformed to vote, which is different to my argument that it's stupid to vote for something that doesn't represent you. You argument ultimately advocates technocratic authoritarianism, mine advocates self determination and liberty. Opposite ends of the spectrum.

My point would be that if the majority voted for the Tories (which is not the case but the system is rigged) then the theoretical majority must want and approve of inequality and injustice and misrepresentation and general white collar criminality. Perhaps they tolerate these things because they perceive some sort of personal payoff. Or else they are afraid of the other choice that has been chosen for them and are all but ignoring the harm inherent in a Tory victory to prevent the harm they perceive in a Labour victory. It's a bit like jumping overboard and into the mouth of a waiting shark just before the boat hits the rocks. It's the fact you boarded the boat that's the real problem, not the seemingly hopeless choices you are left with thereafter. The argument that everyone else is on the boat anyway is hardly a consolation, is it?

Wouldn't it be a lot more constructive and certainly funnier if everyone watched from the shore? But of course the politicians will tell you the shore is the worst place to be because chaos reigns there, unlike on their doomed boat in shark infested waters where you'll be safe.

Madness. Only thing to do is wait it out until a majority cops on. In the meantime though, there's no conceivable benefit to letting a kraut or a frog remote control the ship. You can't even throttle the captain and grab the wheel in that instance, it wouldn't make any difference.

If you think that people are stupid to keep voting for something which doesn't represent them doesn't that also suggest they are too stupid to vote on major, complicated decisions which most people (and I include myself in that) don't understand in enough detail to make a well informed decision? Especially when there ARE alternatives which would represent their views more closely like the Greens or UKIP or whoever, but because of our FPTP system people get into tactical voting and don't vote for the party they want to rule. That is partly a problem with the system rather than the people but we had a chance to change the system to one which demonstrably yields more representitive results but the people rejected it because it was a bit complicated.
Either way, people are, on average, a bit stupid so while self-determination may be a nice theory, the reality is that stupid people sorting things out for themselves sounds like a terrible idea.

The majority (in the sense of over 50%) didn't vote for the Tories but more people voted for them than any other party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
Again, that's a flaw in our system. 12% of people voted for UKIP. 1 in 8. And they have 1 out of 650 MPs. Whatever you think of UKIP that is a lot of disenfranchised people. And I don't think voting that way does mean they approve of inequality and injustice, that would only be valid reasoning if you (or 'the people') thought that the alternatives would deliver equality and justice.

It's a similar argument to the Arsenal one - if everyone stopped going, stopped buying the shirts, stopped subscribing to the TV channels then the board would get the message. If everyone stopped voting then the powers that be might get the message that the system needs to change but the reality is neither will happen so most people figure we might as well get on with it and vote. The alternative only works (if it would work at all) if everyone signs up and there's no sign that will happen any time soon.

[Letters]

There's more stuff after the first minute.

Really?
I hadn't thought of that. Will try to listen later, apparently I'm supposed to be doing work now

[Niall_Quinn]

If you think that people are stupid to keep voting for something which doesn't represent them doesn't that also suggest they are too stupid to vote on major, complicated decisions which most people (and I include myself in that) don't understand in enough detail to make a well informed decision? Especially when there ARE alternatives which would represent their views more closely like the Greens or UKIP or whoever, but because of our FPTP system people get into tactical voting and don't vote for the party they want to rule. That is partly a problem with the system rather than the people but we had a chance to change the system to one which demonstrably yields more representitive results but the people rejected it because it was a bit complicated.
Either way, people are, on average, a bit stupid so while self-determination may be a nice theory, the reality is that stupid people sorting things out for themselves sounds like a terrible idea.

The majority (in the sense of over 50%) didn't vote for the Tories but more people voted for them than any other party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
Again, that's a flaw in our system. 12% of people voted for UKIP. 1 in 8. And they have 1 out of 650 MPs. Whatever you think of UKIP that is a lot of disenfranchised people. And I don't think voting that way does mean they approve of inequality and injustice, that would only be valid reasoning if you (or 'the people') thought that the alternatives would deliver equality and justice.

It's a similar argument to the Arsenal one - if everyone stopped going, stopped buying the shirts, stopped subscribing to the TV channels then the board would get the message. If everyone stopped voting then the powers that be might get the message that the system needs to change but the reality is neither will happen so most people figure we might as well get on with it and vote. The alternative only works (if it would work at all) if everyone signs up and there's no sign that will happen any time soon.

It sounds to me you view the alternative as a virtual copy of the current system but with a few of the rules adjusted. Most people are the same. They can't even theorise about a non-authoritarian system, the concept doesn't register with them. This is why the current system prevails despite it's extensive and structurally harmful failings.

And I don't think voting that way does mean they approve of inequality and injustice, that would only be valid reasoning if you (or 'the people') thought that the alternatives would deliver equality and justice.

Your logic, for heavens sake. How does the inequality of the present system rely on the presence or lack of it in an alternative? It is what it is.

[Letters]

I view the alternative as a properly representative government.
And for all your bluster you have never once proposed an alternative and explained in any detail how it would work in practise.

[Niall_Quinn]

I view the alternative as a properly representative government.
And for all your bluster you have never once proposed an alternative and explained in any detail how it would work in practise.

You always resort to lying. I most certainly have proposed and detailed two alternatives (three really). The interim solution to government, the mid term goal and the long term ideal. All those silly, "but who would build the roads", debates and you remember none of it? Use the search.

[Letters]

I've never seen any practical detail from you. I may have forgotten posts but don't call me a liar. You always resort to abuse...

[Niall_Quinn]

I've never seen any practical detail from you. I may have forgotten posts but don't call me a liar. You always resort to abuse...

Not the first time you have done it. Won't be the last I'm sure. I can remember your posts, not all word for word of course, but the gist of the body of them at very least. Perhaps this is innocent and you have a poor memory?

[Letters]

I remember a "who would build the roads" conversation, I don't remember a coherent answer which made any sense which indicates to me there wasn't one.