1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sir Menzies Campbell Hypocrisy

Discussion in 'SC Archive' started by Tommy B, Mar 5, 2006.

  1. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jul 24, 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    I call it as I see it.
    I also explained fully why each statement has validity in reference to your post with quotes showing the reasoning.
    More to the point I have not called "YOU" immature or whiny etc. You'er assuming again and inferring again. Please try and find me making such a statement about you and not the content of your post.
     
  2. Arcade Fire

    Banned

    Joined: Jan 26, 2005

    Posts: 5,426

    Location: Cambridge

    That wasn't intended to be a snipe, and I'm not trying to suggest that you're 'thick'. I genuinely thought that what I'd posted was clearly a rhetorical question. In fact, when I said that I thought it was obviously a rhetorical question it was intended to be an apology and a clarification - not an attack.

    Okay?

    The point was to demonstrate that people are not all born equal - some have advantages over others. Being born into a wealthy family is one such advantage. Having parents who encourage you is another. I don't believe that anyone should be punished for something that isn't their fault, and I think that everyone deserves the chance to do as well as they can in life. If giving them that chance means taking something away from people who are born with all the advantages, then so be it.

    I don't agree. Being rich means that your ability to help your children in life is much greater. You can afford more time out to encourage them. You can pay for a better education and a better quality of life. You make it less likely that your children will get involved in crime.


    Are you saying that, for example, going to an expensive public school is not a big advantage?
     
  3. Arcade Fire

    Banned

    Joined: Jan 26, 2005

    Posts: 5,426

    Location: Cambridge

    Nowhere have I used the example of "the idle rich". I've said that being born into a rich family makes it more likely that you will succeed in life. Obviously you still have to put in the work to do well, but the same amount of work from someone who's been to a good school and has rich parents will often translate into a far greater end result than the work from someone who was born into a poor family and attended a rubbish state school.

    Perhaps I am too charitable in assuming that most people who take advantage of the welfare state aren't deliberately abusing it. I don't have any quantifiable evidence to back this view up - indeed, what evidence could there possibly be?

    Just to set the record straight, do you think that most people who are net receivers are "dole scroungers", or do you agree with me when I say that most net receivers are in that situation not through choice, but through lack of options?
     
  4. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jul 24, 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    The item you "quoted" is a simple question, it implies nothing.

    I don't believe that private school is a great advantage, it has multiple disadvantages infact such as very poor family life for boarders.

    If being born equal is a major part of your argument then we aren't all born to the same parents. Some parents are simply better than others. Should we take all kids away from their parents and give them a nationalised upbringing ot ensure equality of opportunity?
     
  5. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jul 24, 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    You stated that not all rich people work for their money. Those are the idle rich. You said they are equal to the numbers of rich who do work. You refused to discount them from your argument but refused to accept dole scroungers into the argument.
    I seem to have to keep reminding you of what you posted.
     
  6. Arcade Fire

    Banned

    Joined: Jan 26, 2005

    Posts: 5,426

    Location: Cambridge

    No, but we should try and help those children who don't have particulary effective parents by, for example, using our tax dollars to make sure that they get a good education regardless of that. In some extreme cases, yes, we should take children away from their parents if their parents are particularly bad. This costs money, and to get this money we need taxation.
     
  7. Arcade Fire

    Banned

    Joined: Jan 26, 2005

    Posts: 5,426

    Location: Cambridge

    Well, that's true, isn't it? There are people who are rich yet haven't worked for it. People whose parents are wealthy enough to leave them a significant chunk of inheritance, and wealthy enough to hire good accounts to get around the inheritance tax.

    Those people aren't central to my argument, however. What is central to my argument is that fact that being born into a rich family makes you more likely to become wealthy yourself - because you get the advantages of a better quality of life, a better education and a large inheritance.

    No I didn't.
     
  8. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jul 24, 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    Yes. You did.

     
  9. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jul 24, 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    Why should we? I am not responsible for the actions of others or for the failure of a system that encourages ineffective people to have children to get a council house.
     
  10. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jul 24, 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    I would prefer that we stopped paying for rubbish people to breed rubbish kids. Rather than encouraging it through some rose tinted social responsibility nonsense tackelt the problem and not the effect.
    People with no work and little prospect would not be so keen to have kids if it wasn't a ticket to a free house.

    I saw an article on 7 single mums at the weekend. All under 17. One said (and I'll quote as accurately as I can from memory)

    "You don't get half the benefits that you get when you're over 16. Once you're 16 you can make yourself homeless and get a flat."

    Why should I pay for these people. Why are you advocating a system that encourages these people?
     
  11. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jul 24, 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    The wealth is NOT any part of it.
    If I gave a significant sum of cash to the dole scroungers scumbags down the road what would they do with it? More SKY TV. More naff holidays. More cheap tat.
    Do you think they would invest in their kids futures? No I don't think so either.

    Wealthy people tend to be the TYPE that push their kids. It is they TYPE of person that they are that made them wealthy. It is not the money that enables the child but the TYPE of parent. Generally that TYPE are wealthy.
     
  12. Arcade Fire

    Banned

    Joined: Jan 26, 2005

    Posts: 5,426

    Location: Cambridge

    I said that one thing was as "equally untrue" as something else was true. That's more of a figure of speech than anything else, and it's certainly very different to saying that two things are equal in number!

    What I said was that while there are people who have worked their way up from nothing to become very rich, there are also many people who haven't had to work their way up from nothing, because they were born into a wealthy family. I emphatically did not say that they haven't worked. That's too big a generalization even for me ;)
     
  13. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jul 24, 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    So are you now discounting those people from your argument that "some people don't deserve thier wealth" in the same way you demand that the dole scorungers are removed?
     
  14. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 2, 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    I agree. There is certainly a large genetic element to all aspects of kid's personalities.