Wishy washy policing

Chippy_boy said:
Permeation does not mean there's a majority. I simply meant society is riddled with people who are fundamentally not very nice, or at the very least have some pretty unpleasant and selfish traits. And I stand by that assertion and also the assertion that the numbers of such is increasing.
Click to expand...
Which category would you put yourself in?
If you reread your posts as a neutral, which category would you think others might put you in?
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Which category would you put yourself in?
If you reread your posts as a neutral, which category would you think others might put you in?
Click to expand...
There's a HUGE difference between calling someone a **** and actually being one. Yes, I am aggressive of this forum pretty frequently, but 99% of the time it's because someone is being a complete tosser, being aggressive towards me or spouting drivel. In real life I am decent, honest, polite, kind, friendly, generous and well mannered. I am frequently appalled at the piss poor behaviour of others, doing things I would not dream of doing.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Which category would you put yourself in?
If you reread your posts as a neutral, which category would you think others might put you in?
Click to expand...
I suspect like the rest of us he believes he represents the voice of reasonable balanced opinion. We all tend to hold ourselves in high esteem - I think I'm great, and all the folk that think I'm a **** are bonkers ;-)
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I suspect like the rest of us he believes he represents the voice of reasonable balanced opinion. We all tend to hold ourselves in high esteem - I think I'm great, and all the folk that think I'm a **** are bonkers ;-)
Click to expand...
Indeed. I wasn’t trying to call him out. I was merely asking what his own opinion of himself was and how his posts might come across to others.

We are all guilty of overstating our own importance to some degree.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I suspect like the rest of us he believes he represents the voice of reasonable balanced opinion. We all tend to hold ourselves in high esteem - I think I'm great, and all the folk that think I'm a **** are bonkers ;-)
Click to expand...
I'm not bonkers, I've got a letter from my shrink to prove it.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Indeed. I wasn’t trying to call him out. I was merely asking what his own opinion of himself was and how his posts might come across to others.

We are all guilty of overstating our own importance to some degree.
Click to expand...
I'm fully aware of my shortcomings, which are plenty. But - and trying to be as objective as possible here - one of my better attributes is that I think I have a very strong moral compass; a sense of what is right vs what is wrong. That's probably why I get so wound up when I see droves of people doing what I think is wrong. Like breaking the law, for example.
 
Chippy_boy said:
There's a HUGE difference between calling someone a **** and actually being one. Yes, I am aggressive of this forum pretty frequently, but 99% of the time it's because someone is being a complete tosser, being aggressive towards me or spouting drivel. In real life I am decent, honest, polite, kind, friendly, generous and well mannered. I am frequently appalled at the piss poor behaviour of others, doing things I would not dream of doing.
Click to expand...
I like you.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I'm fully aware of my shortcomings, which are plenty. But - and trying to be as objective as possible here - one of my better attributes is that I think I have a very strong moral compass; a sense of what is right vs what is wrong. That's probably why I get so wound up when I see droves of people doing what I think is wrong. Like breaking the law, for example.
Click to expand...
Further proof ;-)
 
Chippy_boy said:
I'm fully aware of my shortcomings, which are plenty. But - and trying to be as objective as possible here - one of my better attributes is that I think I have a very strong moral compass; a sense of what is right vs what is wrong. That's probably why I get so wound up when I see droves of people doing what I think is wrong. Like breaking the law, for example.
Click to expand...
I think you are a decent lad, I accept me and you will never see eye to eye on most things political, it does not mean we cannot be civil. Your moral compass point is one where I would say I believe I also have a very strong moral compass, a sense of what and right and what is wrong.

I think it is wrong that kids are going hungry , that people sleep on streets, disabled people get abused, racists abound and there are lots of other issues that really wind me up.

I think it is appalling that the legislation that has arisen of late exists in a democracy. I totally back 100% everybody's right to protest and I also back the police 100% but feel they are being used as a political tool by the government.

See mate, our moral compasses are very much based on our political, moral and ethical beliefs. Mine just as much as yours and everyone else's.

You called my moral compass bonkers the other day and Fantasy man joined in with the quip about me being ill, so my moral compass is mentally ill and bonkers is it, but yours is fine and rational. Of course not, its what we both believe to be right and proper in the world. Just as you believe in Capitalism and I am an Anti-Capitalist, you have RW beliefs and mine are very much to the left. Neither has total moral authority, neither is totally ethical and neither is 100% politically accurate.

As Trotsky wrote "The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end" The significance of this quote is well worthy of consideration when it comes to moral compasses.
 
abu13 said:
Society is fucked now, seriously there is no way back.

All these politically correct do gooders have fucked us.

The police and teachers have all had their bollocks removed by the powers that be and we now have scum bringing up scum in the home.
Click to expand...
It’s not often that a Tory government that’s been in power for 11 years, and hence is largely responsible for the current state of the country, is referred to as politically correct do gooders.
Not sure I agree.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I'm fully aware of my shortcomings, which are plenty. But - and trying to be as objective as possible here - one of my better attributes is that I think I have a very strong moral compass; a sense of what is right vs what is wrong. That's probably why I get so wound up when I see droves of people doing what I think is wrong. Like breaking the law, for example.
Click to expand...


Legality doesn't make it morally correct.
 
Rascal said:
You called my moral compass bonkers the other day and Fantasy man joined in with the quip about me being ill, so my moral compass is mentally ill and bonkers is it, but yours is fine and rational.
Click to expand...

I never questioned your morals mate. I think some of what your wrote was indeed bonkers however and therefore difficult to reconcile the nonsense written being from someone who themself was not bonkers. But your morals were not in question.

Seems to me you are an idealist, a dreamer. Your vision of a free and decent society where everyone has a nice well paid job and a comfy standard of living, where there are no "poor" people is not a terrible vision, of course not. It's simply (sadly) an unrealistic one. And you fail to consider the negative consequences of the various superficially attractive policies you usually - and rather predictably - espouse. Corbyn is/was much the same IMO. Anti-semitism aside (and it is a big aside) he is/was probably a decent individual with noble ideology, just not realistic. You cannot inexorably take more and more money off the better off because doing so brings its own very negative consequences... which ultimately defeat the very purposes you were trying to serve.

(Queue the less bright "lefties" chipping in with "Ah but Corbyn was going to increase taxes for anyone on less than £80k")

But it silly to imagine - for example - that people such as me who votes Tory because they think the alternative brings a worse set consequences, is therefore in favour "kids going hungry, people sleeping on streets, disabled people getting abused, racists abound". Of course I am not - no-one is.
 
Last edited:
Chippy_boy said:
I never questioned your morals mate. I think some of what your wrote was indeed bonkers however and therefore difficult to reconcile the nonsense written being from someone who themself was not bonkers. But your morals were not in question.

Seems to me you are an idealist, a dreamer. Your vision of a free and decent society where everyone has a nice well paid job and a comfy standard of living, where there are no "poor" people is not a terrible vision, of course not. It's simply (sadly) an unrealistic one. And you fail to consider the negative consequences of the various superficially attractive policies you usually - and rather predictably - espouse. Corbyn is/was much the same IMO. Anti-semitism aside (and it is a big aside) he is/was probably a decent individual with noble ideology, just not realistic. You cannot inexorably take more and more money off the better off because doing so brings its own very negative consequences... which ultimately defeat the very purposes you were trying to serve.

(Queue the less bright "lefties" chipping in with "Ah but Corbyn was going to increase taxes for anyone on less than £80k")

But it silly to imagine - for example - that people such as me who votes Tory because they think the alternative brings a worse set consequences, is therefore in favour "kids going hungry, people sleeping on streets, disabled people getting abused, racists abound". Of course I am not - no-one is.
Click to expand...
What the left (or certainly the hard-left) want is to level society by bringing it down upon itself. This isn't about helping hungry kids, it's about eliminating an economic system and section of society that has done very well for itself.

The reason the Tories get in every time is not because people vote to starve kids but rather because the only other alternative for them personally results in ruin. The fact is rich business owners aren't going to stay here whilst their wealth and assets are stripped away from them, they'll just bugger off and take that business elsewhere. The socialists in all of this will say good riddance which is funny because their goes their meal tickets.

That can only mean one thing which is private investment will collapse, unemployment will sky-rocket and taxation and penalties will have to be imposed on the huge majority in the middle of society who work and do okay.

Society will still have starving children but it'll also have a big hole in it's budget alongside mass unemployment (which probably means even more starving children). So what is the solution to this? Nationalisation, state handouts and from there you develop a systemic form of dependency on the state which of course requires regulatory state control and enforcement. And there we have the full imposition of the socialist ideology.
 
inbetween said:
What the left (or certainly the hard-left) want is to level society by bringing it down upon itself. This isn't about helping hungry kids, it's about eliminating an economic system and section of society that has done very well for itself.

The reason the Tories get in every time is not because people vote to starve kids but rather because the only other alternative for them personally results in ruin. The fact is rich business owners aren't going to stay here whilst their wealth and assets are stripped away from them, they'll just bugger off and take that business elsewhere. The socialists in all of this will say good riddance which is funny because their goes their meal tickets.

That can only mean one thing which is private investment will collapse, unemployment will sky-rocket and taxation and penalties will have to be imposed on the huge majority in the middle of society who work and do okay.

Society will still have starving children but it'll also have a big hole in it's budget alongside mass unemployment (which probably means even more starving children). So what is the solution to this? Nationalisation, state handouts and from there you develop a systemic form of dependency on the state which of course requires regulatory state control and enforcement. And there we have the full imposition of the socialist ideology.
Click to expand...
If I could give this 1,000 likes I would. Absolutely spot on.

The fact that after 100 years of trying, there have been no successful hard left societies/economies, you would have thought would have been enough attempts for everyone to realise that whether noble in principle (or not) it just does not work.

And it is not remotely difficult to understand why it doesn't. By way of example, sales people get commission and bonuses because companies realise that adding incentives such as that are good motivators. People will go the extra mile, try that little bit harder, when there's a carrot dangled tantalisingly close. It's basic human nature. It's in all of us.

If you start rewarding (or at least compensating) those who have not gained through their own efforts, and start penalising those who have, then the whole risk/effort/reward equation is screwed. Lazy people become more lazy and hard-working people become less "driven" and work less hard.

This is so bloody obvious, it's staggering people still don't get it. After 100 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top