when was the class system removed?

platinum87 · 21 Mar 2010 at 13:00

Dolph said:
but allocation of limited resources and discrimination based on ability or ability value.

You must agree, that eventually going up the scale, there would be a situation where it is correct to exterminate certain people that have a low or negative value..

For example, exterminate all homeless, disabled, prisoners and mental people

If you believe people are not equal then you should have no problem deciding who lives or dies..

Also, bare in mind, calculating someones "value" is also a matter of perspective/opinion everyone else thinks certain people are worth less, if you agree that people are not equal you must agree that all opinions are valid?

PermaBanned · 21 Mar 2010 at 13:00

Dolph said:
We aren't talking about any of those things, but allocation of limited resources and discrimination based on ability or ability value.

Try again.

No, we were actually talking about:

Whackeygrunt said:
..."everyone is equal" crap...

Dolph · 21 Mar 2010 at 13:03

Superewza said:
No, we were actually talking about:

The irony is that the welfare state ensured that people could never be equal...

That was the big change in the UK directly after WW2, nothing to do with equal rights, that came later

Dolph · 21 Mar 2010 at 13:04

platinum87 said:
You must agree, that eventually going up the scale, there would be a situation where it is correct to exterminate certain people that have a low or negative value..

For example, exterminate all homeless, disabled, prisoners and mental people

If you believe people are not equal then you should have no problem deciding who lives or dies..

Also, bare in mind, calculating someones "value" is also a matter of perspective/opinion everyone else thinks certain people are worth less, if you agree that people are not equal you must agree that all opinions are valid?

No, I wouldn't agree with that, but then I'm not a sociopath.

Beerguzzler · 21 Mar 2010 at 13:07

There is this system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRS_social_grade

platinum87 · 21 Mar 2010 at 13:10

Dolph said:
No, I wouldn't agree with that, but then I'm not a sociopath.

Well congrats on your epic contradiction

Dolph said:
but allocation of limited resources and discrimination based on ability or ability value.

platinum87 said:
You must agree, that eventually going up the scale, there would be a situation where it is correct to exterminate certain people that have a low or negative value.

So basically you have 1billion people, but only 500million can survive

Obviously they are not going to be happy to just commit suicide, and thus you must kill them..

If people are "equal", then you would randomly pick 500million to die

Slam62 · 21 Mar 2010 at 13:10

Dolph said:
No, I wouldn't agree with that, but then I'm not a sociopath.

but all right wingers are :confused:

Dolph · 21 Mar 2010 at 13:11

platinum87 said:
Well congrats on your epic contradiction

Not really. You talked specifically about executing people who you deem less worthy. That's adding a whole new dimension to the argument that I do not agree with.

Dolph · 21 Mar 2010 at 13:13

Slam62 said:
but all right wingers are

Erm... what?

The most obvious example of sociopathy in government belongs to Stalin, who was most certainly not a right winger...

platinum87 · 21 Mar 2010 at 13:18

Dolph said:
Not really. You talked specifically about executing people who you deem less worthy. That's adding a whole new dimension to the argument that I do not agree with.

What i do, is take the argument to the extreme, thus making everything extremely simple, read my complete post, there are two options for this imaginary situation

1) randomly kill half the population

2) choose who lives and who dies based on there value/abilities, you get to pick

PermaBanned · 21 Mar 2010 at 13:25

Dolph said:
Erm... what?

The most obvious example of sociopathy in government belongs to Stalin, who was most certainly not a right winger...

I think they were trying to say that all right wingers are sociopaths, but not all sociopaths are right wingers.

Dolph · 21 Mar 2010 at 13:26

platinum87 said:
What i do, is take the argument to the extreme, thus making everything extremely simple, read my complete post, there are two options for this imaginary situation

1) randomly kill half the population

2) choose who lives and who dies based on there value/abilities, you get to pick

There's a name for that particular argument strategy.

reductio ad ridiculum

It's a fallacious form of argument, although you appear to be using it in a very odd way to support your viewpoint :confused:

Dolph · 21 Mar 2010 at 13:27

Superewza said:
I think they were trying to say that all right wingers are sociopaths, but not all sociopaths are right wingers.

How is that any more valid?

platinum87 · 21 Mar 2010 at 13:32

Dolph said:
There's a name for that particular argument strategy.

reductio ad ridiculum

It's a fallacious form of argument, although you appear to be using it in a very odd way to support your viewpoint

But you didnt answer

If you kill them randomly then you think all people are equal or should be treated equally

If you choose who you kill, then you admit some people are worth more than others, and that those people worth less should be killed instead of the others..

Considering what you have said so far, you must choose option 2, if you choose option 1, then you dont think as clear as you think you do!

And no thats not what im doing

definition from wiki link you gave

This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense.

Im not mocking your argument, and im attempting to get a logical reaction, not emotional one... Im trying to highlight the logical conclusion of this theory when taken to the extreme.

The aim is that i dont belive you, i know you will quit when i take it to the extreme because deep down you dont believe what you say... or i could be wrong?

Dolph · 21 Mar 2010 at 13:36

platinum87 said:
But you didnt answer

If you kill them randomly then you think all people are equal or should be treated equally

If you choose who you kill, then you admit some people are worth more than others, and that those people should be killed instead of the others..

Considering what you have said so far, you must choose option 2, if you choose option 1, then you dont think as clear as you think you do!

But that argument is ridiculous, the situation would never arise. Your determination that the deaths must be active, rather than consequential (eg you choose to kill people, rather than choose who to save) brings it further to ridicule.

Demanding an answer to such an irrelevant question just to prove a point is the very essence of the reduction to the ridiculous fallacy.

Amp34 · 21 Mar 2010 at 14:29

Dolph said:
There's a name for that particular argument strategy.

reductio ad ridiculum

It's a fallacious form of argument, although you appear to be using it in a very odd way to support your viewpoint

Actually, there is a situation like this in place. Nuclear war...

When the first bomb is launched who is going to be allowed into the bunker? Bloke that works in a vauxhall factory or the prime minister/generals/scientists?

So it's not quite as rediculus as it may seem and actually shows that the class system has definately changed in the last 100 years. There is still the "who you are and who you know", but most class system now is based on your "worth to society". That means someone born in a housing estate could easily be picked over someone who went to public school and lived in a castle their entire life.

Dolph · 21 Mar 2010 at 14:38

Amp34 said:
Actually, there is a situation like this in place. Nuclear war...

When the first bomb is launched who is going to be allowed into the bunker? Bloke that works in a vauxhall factory or the prime minister/generals/scientists?

So it's not quite as rediculus as it may seem and actually shows that the class system has definately changed in the last 100 years. There is still the "who you are and who you know", but most class system now is based on your "worth to society". That means someone born in a housing estate could easily be picked over someone who went to public school and lived in a castle their entire life.

That's still not quite the same as what Platinum proposed though, for the reason I already outlined (his example requires a decision about who will die, rather than who will live, and requires the active termination of those who will die.)

RDM · 21 Mar 2010 at 14:47

Slam62 said:
but all right wingers are

It seems you don't really know what a sociopath is. Also your use of the term "right wing" is pretty pointless these days considering the most right wing party in the UK (the BNP) is also one of the most socialist.

PermaBanned · 21 Mar 2010 at 14:50

RDM said:
It seems you don't really know what a sociopath is. Also your use of the term "right wing" is pretty pointless these days considering the most right wing party in the UK (the BNP) is also one of the most socialist.

Haha, good one

BF-Bert · 21 Mar 2010 at 14:51

The class system in the UK has always been such a complex and contrived system that nobody really knows how it works....... so what do you believe marks someone as working, middle or upper class?