Theresa May

[SWP's back]

What the fuck happened to the Theresa May thread???

You can’t get cross as us going off on a tangent.

It was always going to happen.

 

[malg]

You can’t get cross as us going off on a tangent.

It was always going to happen.

Fair one. Probably more interesting than talking about Theresa May.

 

[FantasyIreland]

You can’t get cross as us going off on a tangent.

Nailed it.

 

[bluethrunthru]

 

[ChicagoBlue]

True.
And the longer you take to reduce the deficit the larger the national debt becomes. So if you promise to do it in five but it takes ten then you have a problem.
Also if you reduce the deficit by focussing your cuts on one particular section of society ( the less well off,disabled etc) whilst at the same time reducing taxes on business then you create problems in society.
So it's not quite as simple as your mathematical model.

It is, but you injected societal issues. I was just talking MATHS.

 

[Fame Monster]

It’s not science. It’s one very much unproven theory and it’s not mainstream.

Not only is it part of science, it is the logical conclusion to fundamental scientific theory. All other scientific theories feed into a theory of everything - the idea that the laws (or a single law) of the universe determine the choices that explain all phenomena in the universe including the choices that humans make (some might say already arguably the logical conclusion to GR). While you might be right to say that it's yet to be 'proven', - and while there are issues with it as @chippyboy already mentioned, that's not to say there won't ever be a theory that unifies QM and GR and that's not to say that many scientific observations or laws already theorised by geneticists, physicists and even behavioural economists don't do a far better job of explaining human behaviour and are much more scientifically valid than the idea of free-will, God or 'hard-work' or anything else it can be called.

 

[Fame Monster]

Surely it's closer to belief in a deity if you think that everything is preordained?

Not really plus the term preordained is suggestive of divine or human motive/free-will, which is the polar opposite of what I am arguing. All religions that believe in deities (as far as I know) believe that humans were endowed with free-will by relevant god/gods, and that evil is sometimes a consequence of free-will hence why they have to follow laws or commandments laid down by gods and/or prophets. Your argument is very similar to a theological one.

 

[SWP's back]

Not only is it part of science, it is the logical conclusion to fundamental scientific theory. All other scientific theories feed into a theory of everything - the idea that the laws (or a single law) of the universe determine the choices that explain all phenomena in the universe including the choices that humans make (some might say already arguably the logical conclusion to GR). While you might be right to say that it's yet to be 'proven', - and while there are issues with it as @chippyboy already mentioned, that's not to say there won't ever be a theory that unifies QM and GR and that's not to say that many scientific observations or laws already theorised by geneticists, physicists and even behavioural economists don't do a far better job of explaining human behaviour and are much more scientifically valid than the idea of free-will, God or 'hard-work' or anything else it can be called.

As I say. It’s one very much unproven theory and it’s not mainstream.

Let’s leave it there.

 

[CityStu]

Not really plus the term preordained is suggestive of divine or human motive/free-will, which is the polar opposite of what I am arguing. All religions that believe in deities (as far as I know) believe that humans were endowed with free-will by relevant god/gods, and that evil is sometimes a consequence of free-will hence why they have to follow laws or commandments laid down by gods and/or prophets. Your argument is very similar to a theological one.

I'm thinking from a more probabilistic point of view. That every event has a chance of happening that is equal to the union of all preceding (relevant) events happening.

 

[Fame Monster]

As I say. It’s one very much unproven theory and it’s not mainstream.

Let’s leave it there.

I would disagree about mainstream but fair enough.

 

[Damocles]

Not only is it part of science, it is the logical conclusion to fundamental scientific theory. All other scientific theories feed into a theory of everything - the idea that the laws (or a single law) of the universe determine the choices that explain all phenomena in the universe including the choices that humans make (some might say already arguably the logical conclusion to GR). While you might be right to say that it's yet to be 'proven', - and while there are issues with it as @chippyboy already mentioned, that's not to say there won't ever be a theory that unifies QM and GR and that's not to say that many scientific observations or laws already theorised by geneticists, physicists and even behavioural economists don't do a far better job of explaining human behaviour and are much more scientifically valid than the idea of free-will, God or 'hard-work' or anything else it can be called.

Logical conclusions and inference are not science nor scientific.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Just because it's not easy to predict interactions doesn't mean they aren't predictable.

True, but many things ARE unpredictable. Like the dice throwing example I gave. Our inability to predict which way a dice will land is NOT down to our equipment and inability to measure or model accurately enough, it's down to an intrinsic property of the universe.

If you don't understand this, then I suggest you do have a read up about quantum mechanics and chaos theory.

 

[arbabarshad]

True, but many things ARE unpredictable. Like the dice throwing example I gave. Our inability to predict which way a dice will land is NOT down to our equipment and inability to measure or model accurately enough, it's down to an intrinsic property of the universe.

If you don't understand this, then I suggest you do have a read up about quantum mechanics and chaos theory.

I imagine throwing of a dice can be predictable if you were able to measure accurately the weight of the dice, the height and angel it is being thrown from and the friction between the surface of the dice and the surface at which the dice is being thrown at.

 

[Ric]

Jesus wept...

 

[Damocles]

Jesus wept...

Well fumble does keep telling me to vote for them....

Seriously though, May thinks that because we're frustrated with Corbyn and the general state of the Labour Party then we'll vote Tory?

That would be like being annoyed at an ingrown toenail so blowing your leg off with a shotgun.

Our frustration is BECAUSE he can't beat May. Joining her seems a little like going backwards.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Well fumble does keep telling me to vote for them....

Seriously though, May thinks that because we're frustrated with Corbyn and the general state of the Labour Party then we'll vote Tory?

That would be like being annoyed at an ingrown toenail so blowing your leg off with a shotgun.

Our frustration is BECAUSE he can't beat May. Joining her seems a little like going backwards.

I don't keep telling you to vote for them, why would I? You are them, or as good as damn it when you come out with shit like this....

Our frustration is BECAUSE he can't beat May.

Truth is pal, you don't want him to beat May, you'd rather have May and hang on for Umunna or David Miliband next time around, it's not the likes of me that'll ensure never ending Tory rule, it's "BECAUSE he can't be May" Tories like you.

As for?...

Joining her seems a little like going backwards

A little? You quack like a Tory duck, you walk like a Tory duck.....

 

[blueinsa]

I don't keep telling you to vote for them, why would I? You are them, or as good as damn it when you come out with shit like this....



Truth is pal, you don't want him to beat May, you'd rather have May and hang on for Umunna or David Miliband next time around, it's not the likes of me that'll ensure never ending Tory rule, it's "BECAUSE he can't be May" Tories like you.

As for?...



A little? You quack like a Tory duck, you walk like a Tory duck.....

Ah the voice of the inclusive left of the party speaks again..........

 

[The perfect fumble]

Ah the voice of the inclusive left of the party speaks again..........

Inclusive? You're a joke, a poster who says he's a member of the Labour Party who posts....

Joining her seems a little like going backwards

A little? A little?

I thought you were against entryism.

You don't have to be left wing to be appalled by this. This is the damage New Labour has done, soft Tories who feel uncomfortable in "their" party.

 

[urban genie]

She is appealing to the labour voters who would waver between voting tory and new labour.

She is not aiming to pick up real core labour voters, and I expect even most who prefer the new labour model wouldn't vote for her over present Labour unless it was out of spite and don't want the left to win.

This appeal has come about as there is genuine fear within tory HQ that labour can win an electio, add to that that there ar esome tories that really fear their party is dying as they struggle to attract younger members and voters.

Desperation from the woman.

And any labour voter that would consider voting tory needs to get a grip.

Oh and @The perfect fumble stop calling out any dissenters to your view a tory, it doesn't help win the arguement, and gives them a reason to dismiss your points, we already know @Damocles ans & @blueinsa ain't gonna agree with you so better to try and convince them that Labour can win and be good for the nation, same goes other way, seems to be a core 6-8 on here not taking in each sides view anymore just entrenched in theor own pos.ition

 

[The perfect fumble]

She is appealing to the labour voters who would waver between voting tory and new labour.

She is not aiming to pick up real core labour voters, and I expect even most who prefer the new labour model would vote for her over present Labour unless it was out of spite and don't want the left to win.

This appeal has come about as there is genuine fear within tory HQ that labour can win an electio, add to that that there ar esome tories that really fear their party is dying as they struggle to attract younger members and voters.

Desperation from the woman.

And any labour voter that would consider voting tory needs to get a grip.

Precisely. And any Labour Party member, not supporter, but member, who thinks joining her seems a "little like going backwards" is in the wrong party.

The Tory party is dying, figuratively and literally and has little appeal to young voters. The old maxims no longer apply, youthful radicalism dulls to bourgeois conformity as one gets older and more invested, but that model is busted, permanently, and it was the Tories and New Labour that busted it, ladders pulled up, wealth and power concentrated in fewer hands, the post war consensus dead. May's one nation Toryism sounds appealing but is backed up with nothing but empty rhetoric, there is a reason why we are where we are and to change this for the better there needs to be real change, the Tories will never address the power imbalance in society, never, all they stand for is more and more of the same.