BBC (again)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 DanH  SW2 25 May 21 5.00pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Yeah, because that's what the summation of 'advantages' amounts to isn't it. The reality is...in my opinion, if you don't maximise your child's life advantages then you are a poor parent and not doing your job. Personally, while I think your politics are awful, I have no reason to believe that of you. Regardless your claims of 'equality' amounts to virtue signalling when it comes to the real world. Look at your job, your two cars, your location......If you are truly interested in equality why are you living better than the average? Edited by Stirlingsays (25 May 2021 4.29pm) We’ve had this conversation many times and you wilfully choose to misinterpret what I mean by ‘equality’. I don’t believe that everyone should have exactly the same or earn exactly the same or anything like that. I believe in a meritocracy but one in which everyone has the same chance to succeed within it - not purely because of the school you went to, what you look or sound like, or what your background is. I believe you wilfully choose to misrepresent my position because you realise it’s closer to the truth than you’d like to acknowledge, in that there are lots of elements to the existing system in this country that favours some over others purely for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability. Just look at how many PMs and people in Government have come from Eton, for example.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
cryrst  The garden of England 25 May 21 5.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
We’ve had this conversation many times and you wilfully choose to misinterpret what I mean by ‘equality’. I don’t believe that everyone should have exactly the same or earn exactly the same or anything like that. I believe in a meritocracy but one in which everyone has the same chance to succeed within it - not purely because of the school you went to, what you look or sound like, or what your background is. I believe you wilfully choose to misrepresent my position because you realise it’s closer to the truth than you’d like to acknowledge, in that there are lots of elements to the existing system in this country that favours some over others purely for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability. Just look at how many PMs and people in Government have come from Eton, for example. What you sound like is about a natural accent. Accepted by all as you cannot alter that without trying.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| DanH SW2 25 May 21 5.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
What you sound like is about a natural accent. Accepted by all as you cannot alter that without trying. I completely agree. Same with where you were born or what your family tree is - you cannot alter these and had no say in them. Talking in street slang you can help so it is perfectly acceptable to be judged on that. People do still get judged based on what they sound like as well as other things that they cannot help unfortunately. I think you might have inadvertently stumbled across my position on these things
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| JRW2 Dulwich 25 May 21 5.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
We’ve had this conversation many times and you wilfully choose to misinterpret what I mean by ‘equality’. I don’t believe that everyone should have exactly the same or earn exactly the same or anything like that. I believe in a meritocracy but one in which everyone has the same chance to succeed within it - not purely because of the school you went to, what you look or sound like, or what your background is.
I've hitherto stayed out of this apparently unending argument, but I'll now chip in. There will never be equality of opportunity, simply because we humans are all different. We have different aptitudes (or no aptitudes at all), different levels of intelligence, different standards of parental help, different numbers of books in the house, and so on. I recall Roy Hattersley saying decades ago that socialists should aim for equality of opportunity, but as he grew older and wiser, he realised that that was simply unrealistic and that socialists should therefore work towards equality of outcome. Like you, he didn't argue that everyone should earn the same; but he never said what this equality of outcome should mean in practice. It very easy to say what you don't like; far harder to think of anything that will achieve what you want - because it's unachievable.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| DanH SW2 25 May 21 5.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JRW2
I've hitherto stayed out of this apparently unending argument, but I'll now chip in. There will never be equality of opportunity, simply because we humans are all different. We have different aptitudes (or no aptitudes at all), different levels of intelligence, different standards of parental help, different numbers of books in the house, and so on. I recall Roy Hattersley saying decades ago that socialists should aim for equality of opportunity, but as he grew older and wiser, he realised that that was simply unrealistic and that socialists should therefore work towards equality of outcome. Like you, he didn't argue that everyone should earn the same; but he never said what this equality of outcome should mean in practice. It very easy to say what you don't like; far harder to think of anything that will achieve what you want - because it's unachievable. I agree with you say - pure equality of opportunity is impossible but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try and reduce any obvious barriers based on prejudices rather than ability.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 25 May 21 6.33pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
We’ve had this conversation many times and you wilfully choose to misinterpret what I mean by ‘equality’. I don’t believe that everyone should have exactly the same or earn exactly the same or anything like that. I believe in a meritocracy but one in which everyone has the same chance to succeed within it - not purely because of the school you went to, what you look or sound like, or what your background is. I believe you wilfully choose to misrepresent my position because you realise it’s closer to the truth than you’d like to acknowledge, in that there are lots of elements to the existing system in this country that favours some over others purely for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability. Just look at how many PMs and people in Government have come from Eton, for example. Now away from the personal and onto the conceptual.....the conceit of pure unrealistic idealism of course but a conservation I'm happy to have.....though we really should be back onto the BBC. Anyway I say that what you believe in is nice sounding but it's a nonsense (excepting elements around meritocracy) and the 'equality' arguments have been a nonsense since these argument first appeared.....meritocracy being the very opposite of equality.....your ideology seeks to disadvantage some to unfairly raise others over lies about victimhood...and then likes to spin falsehoods on meritocracy. Don't think that it isn't noticeable that when your lifestyle is noticed that you suddenly want to talk about people at Eton. We could have the 'Eton' argument of course, but it's just about scales....you are happy to take your advantages but you have an issue with those with more advantage taking theirs. To me, it's unrealistic...You are essentially complaining about human nature....nature that you yourself partake in.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 25 May 21 6.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
I believe in racial equality; not the tearing down of law or order. Equality has nothing to do with it. It's all about power. We have it, they want it. Exactly what you would expect when you allow migrants to proliferate in your country. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (25 May 2021 6.34pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| DanH SW2 25 May 21 7.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Now away from the personal and onto the conceptual.....the conceit of pure unrealistic idealism of course but a conservation I'm happy to have.....though we really should be back onto the BBC. Anyway I say that what you believe in is nice sounding but it's a nonsense (excepting elements around meritocracy) and the 'equality' arguments have been a nonsense since these argument first appeared.....meritocracy being the very opposite of equality.....your ideology seeks to disadvantage some to unfairly raise others over lies about victimhood...and then likes to spin falsehoods on meritocracy. Don't think that it isn't noticeable that when your lifestyle is noticed that you suddenly want to talk about people at Eton. We could have the 'Eton' argument of course, but it's just about scales....you are happy to take your advantages but you have an issue with those with more advantage taking theirs. To me, it's unrealistic...You are essentially complaining about human nature....nature that you yourself partake in.
I don’t think my lifestyle has anything to do with anything. I also recognise that I have been able to be successful and not be held back at any point by virtue of being a straight, white male and have not experienced any form of discrimination at any point in my life. At least Hrolf is self-aware enough to recognise that he currently has the power by being in the same demographic. I fully believe that anyone who tries to deny that this is not the case is being wilfully blind to what is obvious around them. People see a push towards ‘equality’ and whatever that means to them as a direct attack on their own position of privilege. I have no problem with privilege if earned and deserved, but time and time again you see people in a position of power or wealth not through any real form of talent, but by virtue of nepotism, luck of where they were born and into which family, or other factors which mean that power and privilege stay in the hands of those that hold it. If you were a believer in a true meritocracy you would also want to ensure that the brightest minds were given the best chance to succeed, no matter whether they were raised in a single parent family on a council estate in Croydon or on a country estate in the Cotswolds.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyboy1978 25 May 21 7.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
You really are wilfully obtuse aren’t you. I don’t believe that anyone should be mistreated or be disadvantaged because of where they are from or the colour of their skin. A human being is a human being is a human being - no matter what. Not someone who would actively deport people just because they are not white like PA would. Edited by DanH (25 May 2021 4.01pm) So if black people are mistreating black people by Killing them selves , who should we blame? The white people?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 25 May 21 7.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
I don’t think my lifestyle has anything to do with anything. I also recognise that I have been able to be successful and not be held back at any point by virtue of being a straight, white male and have not experienced any form of discrimination at any point in my life. At least Hrolf is self-aware enough to recognise that he currently has the power by being in the same demographic. I fully believe that anyone who tries to deny that this is not the case is being wilfully blind to what is obvious around them. People see a push towards ‘equality’ and whatever that means to them as a direct attack on their own position of privilege. I have no problem with privilege if earned and deserved, but time and time again you see people in a position of power or wealth not through any real form of talent, but by virtue of nepotism, luck of where they were born and into which family, or other factors which mean that power and privilege stay in the hands of those that hold it. If you were a believer in a true meritocracy you would also want to ensure that the brightest minds were given the best chance to succeed, no matter whether they were raised in a single parent family on a council estate in Croydon or on a country estate in the Cotswolds. Once again, fine words but it's essentially nice sounding ideology over reality. Your beliefs have lowered social cohesion, raised crime rates...and that means more rape and murder and resulted in less social mobility not more. Equality does not exist in nature, now I have some sympathy with your last paragraph, however there are a few things that need to be added to meritocracy. Loyalty also matters within the context of merit....for example, if we want the brightest minds to have the most important jobs then it's no good if that bright mind sells all your company's secrets to the Chinese. So yes, it's extremely important that the guy flying your plane is highly competent at flying planes....yes, it's extremely important that the guy building that bridge or operating on your kidneys has only got to that position on merit. However, it's also true that the motivations and loyalties of the individual in question are also important. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 May 2021 7.27pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 25 May 21 7.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
I have no problem with privilege if earned and deserved, but time and time again you see people in a position of power or wealth not through any real form of talent, but by virtue of nepotism, luck of where they were born and into which family, or other factors which mean that power and privilege stay in the hands of those that hold it.
Corruption is at the core of the entire system there. It would be nice if you could source all your wild assertions Dan ? thanks. Edited by PalazioVecchio (25 May 2021 7.34pm)
Eze Peasy at Anfield.... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyboy1978 25 May 21 7.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
We’ve had this conversation many times and you wilfully choose to misinterpret what I mean by ‘equality’. I don’t believe that everyone should have exactly the same or earn exactly the same or anything like that. I believe in a meritocracy but one in which everyone has the same chance to succeed within it - not purely because of the school you went to, what you look or sound like, or what your background is. I believe you wilfully choose to misrepresent my position because you realise it’s closer to the truth than you’d like to acknowledge, in that there are lots of elements to the existing system in this country that favours some over others purely for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability. Just look at how many PMs and people in Government have come from Eton, for example. What if your back ground is from a culture that does not succeed as often as other cultures. A culture that has failed many generations. Jewish people are known to be successful, they do something right and are a minority. You Dan H love multiculturalism and that everyone is diffrent but won't accept some are more successful than others. Then blame the lead culture. Or do you?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.