FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > What makes you annoyed?
What makes you annoyed?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not strictly political but the cutting down of the tree in the news today. Pretty indicative of the senseless acts in society today. For some reason that really annoyed me today. " Exactly. 16 year old arrested. What will annoy me next is that he will get away with a small slap on the wrist. Also the National Parks Authority "believe that the tree was deliberately felled". Are they just stupid? You can see the chainsaw marks on the stump. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politically - working class tories. Though the media play a huge role in shaping their views. Same with brexiters who deny abject reality. People who think driving trains is easy and overpaid, with gold plated pensions and great conditions - why haven’t you applied for a job, then? Racists. No lower form of life. People who don’t like peanut butter. They need their hard-drives checked. " What about PB with marmite? Best discovery of the 21st century. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politically - working class tories. Though the media play a huge role in shaping their views. Same with brexiters who deny abject reality. People who think driving trains is easy and overpaid, with gold plated pensions and great conditions - why haven’t you applied for a job, then? Racists. No lower form of life. People who don’t like peanut butter. They need their hard-drives checked. What about PB with marmite? Best discovery of the 21st century." You sick sick boy. That is just plain wrong! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politically - working class tories. Though the media play a huge role in shaping their views. Same with brexiters who deny abject reality. People who think driving trains is easy and overpaid, with gold plated pensions and great conditions - why haven’t you applied for a job, then? Racists. No lower form of life. People who don’t like peanut butter. They need their hard-drives checked. What about PB with marmite? Best discovery of the 21st century. You sick sick boy. That is just plain wrong!" That's what I thought before I tried it!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politically - working class tories. Though the media play a huge role in shaping their views. Same with brexiters who deny abject reality. People who think driving trains is easy and overpaid, with gold plated pensions and great conditions - why haven’t you applied for a job, then? Racists. No lower form of life. People who don’t like peanut butter. They need their hard-drives checked. " Time I got my hard drive checked then as love peanuts but hate peanut butter. I can't explain why as it baffles me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politically - working class tories. Though the media play a huge role in shaping their views. Same with brexiters who deny abject reality. People who think driving trains is easy and overpaid, with gold plated pensions and great conditions - why haven’t you applied for a job, then? Racists. No lower form of life. People who don’t like peanut butter. They need their hard-drives checked. What about PB with marmite? Best discovery of the 21st century. You sick sick boy. That is just plain wrong! That's what I thought before I tried it! "Peanut butter is nice (Almond butter even nicer) but Marmite is the food of the Devil!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discussion being shut down or attempted to be shut down because one side does not want the others views heard. Insults thrown for simply having a different point of view " Are you really serious? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politically - working class tories. Though the media play a huge role in shaping their views. Same with brexiters who deny abject reality. People who think driving trains is easy and overpaid, with gold plated pensions and great conditions - why haven’t you applied for a job, then? Racists. No lower form of life. People who don’t like peanut butter. They need their hard-drives checked. " How do (some) Brexiteers deny abject reality? I wanna know if I do  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's really petty but newsreaders and weather presenters dressing casually while doing their job." I'm with you on this one. I get particularly annoyed with female newsreaders that dress to emphasise their cleavage. If you want to be taken seriously, damn well dress like you're serious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politically - working class tories. Though the media play a huge role in shaping their views. Same with brexiters who deny abject reality. People who think driving trains is easy and overpaid, with gold plated pensions and great conditions - why haven’t you applied for a job, then? Racists. No lower form of life. People who don’t like peanut butter. They need their hard-drives checked. What about PB with marmite? Best discovery of the 21st century. You sick sick boy. That is just plain wrong! That's what I thought before I tried it!
Peanut butter is nice (Almond butter even nicer) but Marmite is the food of the Devil!!!!"I found almond butter to be extremely dry tasting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Drivers who don’t seem to know how to use a roundabout. Cyclists riding side-by-side rather than in single file. Teenage boys with trouser halfway down their arse." Cyclists are allowed to now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"List C celebrities who have no reason to be famous. The people who use my driveway to park up before going to the shop on the corner. Russell Brand... he always annoyed me. Custard doughnuts.....just plainly wrong on all levels. " Do you mean Z listers? Virtual reality "stars"? Or kids of stars? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Russell Brand... he always annoyed me. Custard doughnuts.....just plainly wrong on all levels. " Hard agree on both. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"List C celebrities who have no reason to be famous. The people who use my driveway to park up before going to the shop on the corner. Russell Brand... he always annoyed me. Custard doughnuts.....just plainly wrong on all levels. " Why stop at custard doughnuts...I hate all doughnuts so... people in the office who bring in a selection box from Krispy Kremes...fuck off I hate them! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"List C celebrities who have no reason to be famous. The people who use my driveway to park up before going to the shop on the corner. Russell Brand... he always annoyed me. Custard doughnuts.....just plainly wrong on all levels. Why stop at custard doughnuts...I hate all doughnuts so... people in the office who bring in a selection box from Krispy Kremes...fuck off I hate them!" There's a place in Fleet St that does £5 doughnuts. I was given the last one in a box. I was wary of it because it had dry roasted peanuts on it. It was filled with some kind of cranberry jam. Nope | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politically - working class tories. Though the media play a huge role in shaping their views. Same with brexiters who deny abject reality. People who think driving trains is easy and overpaid, with gold plated pensions and great conditions - why haven’t you applied for a job, then? Racists. No lower form of life. People who don’t like peanut butter. They need their hard-drives checked. How do (some) Brexiteers deny abject reality? I wanna know if I do "In short - those who either deny that Brexit has had a negative impact, or those who accept the negative impact but say ‘We always knew it would be difficult’ - we all heard the claims in 2016 about ‘no possible downsides’  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"List C celebrities who have no reason to be famous. The people who use my driveway to park up before going to the shop on the corner. Russell Brand... he always annoyed me. Custard doughnuts.....just plainly wrong on all levels. Why stop at custard doughnuts...I hate all doughnuts so... people in the office who bring in a selection box from Krispy Kremes...fuck off I hate them!" Other doughnuts are lovely. Just the custard ones can be fired into the sun. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh, I have another annoyance: People who can’t except other points of view" I exampled this above for you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discussion being shut down or attempted to be shut down because one side does not want the others views heard. Insults thrown for simply having a different point of view Are you really serious?" Yes. The question asks what makes people annoyed so can only give my personal view | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh, I have another annoyance: People who can’t except other points of view"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"List C celebrities who have no reason to be famous. The people who use my driveway to park up before going to the shop on the corner. Russell Brand... he always annoyed me. Custard doughnuts.....just plainly wrong on all levels. Why stop at custard doughnuts...I hate all doughnuts so... people in the office who bring in a selection box from Krispy Kremes...fuck off I hate them! There's a place in Fleet St that does £5 doughnuts. I was given the last one in a box. I was wary of it because it had dry roasted peanuts on it. It was filled with some kind of cranberry jam. Nope" What sick fuck makes that?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh, I have another annoyance: People who can’t except other points of view" I can get the annoyance if they can’t accept it but except? Hmmmm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"List C celebrities who have no reason to be famous. The people who use my driveway to park up before going to the shop on the corner. Russell Brand... he always annoyed me. Custard doughnuts.....just plainly wrong on all levels. Why stop at custard doughnuts...I hate all doughnuts so... people in the office who bring in a selection box from Krispy Kremes...fuck off I hate them! Other doughnuts are lovely. Just the custard ones can be fired into the sun. " You know I can except [sic] people on here having political differences and having heated discussions but I am seeing a totally different side to people in this thread! Doughnuts!! Peanut butter and marmite!!!!! WTAF sick MFs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh, I have another annoyance: People who can’t except other points of view" Now this on the face of it is perfectly acceptable, I’m sure we’d all agree - But to what end? Should we accept the views of someone who is overtly racist? Should we accept an anti-Semite’s opinion? Should we accept a flat-earther’s POV? Not all points of view are valid nor worthy of acceptance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh, I have another annoyance: People who can’t except other points of view Now this on the face of it is perfectly acceptable, I’m sure we’d all agree - But to what end? Should we accept the views of someone who is overtly racist? Should we accept an anti-Semite’s opinion? Should we accept a flat-earther’s POV? Not all points of view are valid nor worthy of acceptance. " Acceptance of a point of view is irrelevant, it's the shuting shouting stifling down of the point of view dependant on the political doctrine the opinionated are under of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh, I have another annoyance: People who can’t except other points of view Now this on the face of it is perfectly acceptable, I’m sure we’d all agree - But to what end? Should we accept the views of someone who is overtly racist? Should we accept an anti-Semite’s opinion? Should we accept a flat-earther’s POV? Not all points of view are valid nor worthy of acceptance. Acceptance of a point of view is irrelevant, it's the shuting shouting stifling down of the point of view dependant on the political doctrine the opinionated are under of course." Such as saying people are "complaining about brexit" when they are expressing legitimate critisism? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"List C celebrities who have no reason to be famous. The people who use my driveway to park up before going to the shop on the corner. Russell Brand... he always annoyed me. Custard doughnuts.....just plainly wrong on all levels. Why stop at custard doughnuts...I hate all doughnuts so... people in the office who bring in a selection box from Krispy Kremes...fuck off I hate them! Other doughnuts are lovely. Just the custard ones can be fired into the sun. You know I can except [sic] people on here having political differences and having heated discussions but I am seeing a totally different side to people in this thread! Doughnuts!! Peanut butter and marmite!!!!! WTAF sick MFs "Some of us on this site are deviants! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh, I have another annoyance: People who can’t except other points of view Now this on the face of it is perfectly acceptable, I’m sure we’d all agree - But to what end? Should we accept the views of someone who is overtly racist? Should we accept an anti-Semite’s opinion? Should we accept a flat-earther’s POV? Not all points of view are valid nor worthy of acceptance. Acceptance of a point of view is irrelevant, it's the shuting shouting stifling down of the point of view dependant on the political doctrine the opinionated are under of course." I’ll happily shout down and stifle racists, thanks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ll happily shout down and stifle racists, thanks." Then you're part of the problem. Shouting down and stifling racists isn't going to change their opinions and make the world a better place. It's not a constructive way to approach a problem. I'm always confused by people that claim to be accepting and inclusive, but who show such anger and hatred when confronted with someone that doesn't agree with them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ll happily shout down and stifle racists, thanks. Then you're part of the problem. Shouting down and stifling racists isn't going to change their opinions and make the world a better place. It's not a constructive way to approach a problem. I'm always confused by people that claim to be accepting and inclusive, but who show such anger and hatred when confronted with someone that doesn't agree with them." There's something to be said for making safe spaces for racists smaller and smaller. Letting them know their abhorrent views aren't welcome anywhere. The old "doesn't agree with them" argument doesn't fit here. That works when you're talking about your favourite music, or which is the best way to solve a problem. Of course all views, in those kind of scenarios should be listened to. When it comes to race hate, why should we tolerate those people? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For no reason other than the politics forum has got a bit dull lately. What in the world/UK really pisses you off? NOT talking about behaviours on here in the Fab forums. Talking about out there in the real world! (We have a thread on what we like in these forums). Come on, have a moan. Most of us are middle aged(ish) so love a bit of a moan!!!" People, in general, make me annoyed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politically - working class tories. Though the media play a huge role in shaping their views. Same with brexiters who deny abject reality. People who think driving trains is easy and overpaid, with gold plated pensions and great conditions - why haven’t you applied for a job, then? Racists. No lower form of life. People who don’t like peanut butter. They need their hard-drives checked. How do (some) Brexiteers deny abject reality? I wanna know if I do
In short - those who either deny that Brexit has had a negative impact, or those who accept the negative impact but say ‘We always knew it would be difficult’ - we all heard the claims in 2016 about ‘no possible downsides’ "Implementing change takes time and money, and, isn't without problems but then I'm a realist. If the govt had had a brexit strategy I'm sure the negative impact would have been less. THAT cannot be proved either way. Just seems a logical thought as Brexit wouldn't have taken so damn long. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ll happily shout down and stifle racists, thanks. Then you're part of the problem. Shouting down and stifling racists isn't going to change their opinions and make the world a better place. It's not a constructive way to approach a problem. I'm always confused by people that claim to be accepting and inclusive, but who show such anger and hatred when confronted with someone that doesn't agree with them." One of the things I find is the difference between accepting another point of view and accepting others have the right to have a different point of view. The other problem is determining what is racist. Many are obvious but others not as much. The Liz Webster thread is an example where posters do not agree if her comments were racist or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ll happily shout down and stifle racists, thanks." "Then you're part of the problem. Shouting down and stifling racists isn't going to change their opinions and make the world a better place. It's not a constructive way to approach a problem. I'm always confused by people that claim to be accepting and inclusive, but who show such anger and hatred when confronted with someone that doesn't agree with them." "There's something to be said for making safe spaces for racists smaller and smaller. Letting them know their abhorrent views aren't welcome anywhere." I can agree with that. Calmly explaining that their views are no longer acceptable, and trying to persuade them to change is what we should all be doing. Challenging it whenever it comes up is the way to let people know that they are in the minority. But 'shouting down and stifling' doesn't achieve anything. It's a child's way of dealing with disagreement, shouting at the other person to cover up what they're saying, calling them names to make yourself feel better, and eventually clamping your hands over your ears and chanting "I'm not listening". "The old "doesn't agree with them" argument doesn't fit here." It really does. You're condemning people not because of their actions, but because of the way they think. "When it comes to race hate, why should we tolerate those people?" And there's that word again. You won't tolerate their existence. How is that attitude any different to their intolerance of skin colour? I know your answer, you'll say that it's acceptable because you're right and they're wrong. The same argument that religious people have been using for years to justify killing those they don't agree with. If you want to change racist people you have to engage with them and lead them to discover how wrong they are. Calling them a poo-head and saying that you're not talking to them any more isn't going to have any effect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh, I have another annoyance: People who can’t except other points of view I can get the annoyance if they can’t accept it but except? Hmmmm "Oh dear, that is a bit of a shocker. Must try harder  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everything makes me annoyed. I am just utterly disappointed by the way the world has turned out. When I was a kid, it was promised that everything would be brilliant by now! We were supposed to have sent people to Mars 25 years ago, nuclear power was going to give us electricity so cheap that they wouldn't bother metering it, there would be global peace and enough food for everyone. And flying cars. Where the hell is my flying car? The world has turned out crap, and I'm annoyed at it all. "To be fair there was supposed to be a moonbase hurtling through space encountering alien species (but ignoring the laws of physics) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who isolate words in a sentence/paragraph in a debate. People who twist things. See examples everywhere including this thread. " Hmmm what do YOU mean when you say ISOLATE? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everything makes me annoyed. I am just utterly disappointed by the way the world has turned out. When I was a kid, it was promised that everything would be brilliant by now! We were supposed to have sent people to Mars 25 years ago, nuclear power was going to give us electricity so cheap that they wouldn't bother metering it, there would be global peace and enough food for everyone. And flying cars. Where the hell is my flying car? The world has turned out crap, and I'm annoyed at it all.
To be fair there was supposed to be a moonbase hurtling through space encountering alien species (but ignoring the laws of physics)"I share the frustration I did manage to get a mini to fly briefly going over a hump back bridge but otherwise its been a bit disappointing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everything makes me annoyed. I am just utterly disappointed by the way the world has turned out. When I was a kid, it was promised that everything would be brilliant by now! We were supposed to have sent people to Mars 25 years ago, nuclear power was going to give us electricity so cheap that they wouldn't bother metering it, there would be global peace and enough food for everyone. And flying cars. Where the hell is my flying car? The world has turned out crap, and I'm annoyed at it all. "Flying cars are very much in making. There are many companies in the US which are working on it. Two of them(Joby and Archer aviation) have been already far ahead when it comes to regulatory approval. Joby plans to get flying taxis available by 2025 as they have already started testing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to change racist people you have to engage with them and lead them to discover how wrong they are. Calling them a poo-head and saying that you're not talking to them any more isn't going to have any effect." I would have thought calling anyone a “poo-head” would result in laughter all around diffusing a situation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everything makes me annoyed. I am just utterly disappointed by the way the world has turned out. When I was a kid, it was promised that everything would be brilliant by now! We were supposed to have sent people to Mars 25 years ago, nuclear power was going to give us electricity so cheap that they wouldn't bother metering it, there would be global peace and enough food for everyone. And flying cars. Where the hell is my flying car? The world has turned out crap, and I'm annoyed at it all.
Flying cars are very much in making. There are many companies in the US which are working on it. Two of them(Joby and Archer aviation) have been already far ahead when it comes to regulatory approval. Joby plans to get flying taxis available by 2025 as they have already started testing."What could possibly go wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who isolate words in a sentence/paragraph in a debate. People who twist things. See examples everywhere including this thread. Hmmm what do YOU mean when you say ISOLATE? "I can see what you did there. I gotta say though, pretty shit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who isolate words in a sentence/paragraph in a debate. People who twist things. See examples everywhere including this thread. Hmmm what do YOU mean when you say ISOLATE?
I can see what you did there. I gotta say though, pretty shit "Awww Feisty I thought that was a good’an | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who isolate words in a sentence/paragraph in a debate. People who twist things. See examples everywhere including this thread. Hmmm what do YOU mean when you say ISOLATE?
I can see what you did there. I gotta say though, pretty shit
Awww Feisty I thought that was a good’an "Was it yourself who mentioned spelling? It's good'un  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who isolate words in a sentence/paragraph in a debate. People who twist things. See examples everywhere including this thread. Hmmm what do YOU mean when you say ISOLATE?
I can see what you did there. I gotta say though, pretty shit
Awww Feisty I thought that was a good’an
Was it yourself who mentioned spelling?
It's good'un "It was deliberate I tell you, deliberate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I get annoyed at how much help I need on a self service checkout. Put a bag on the side to scan you product in, malfunction, need a person. Alcohol, need a person, tag, need a person and so on. Nearly self service. While I'm at it... When they move product you always buy to another part of the supermarket, in the hope that you stumble on new a product range to buy. This results in me frantically searching known aisles, questioning my sanity and worrying about the early signs of dementia. " Fuck yes! Bloody marketing people changing shop layouts as they know you have a pre-planned route through the shop in your head. 10mins in and out, job done! But no these bastards fuck with your head! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And flying cars. Where the hell is my flying car? The world has turned out crap, and I'm annoyed at it all. "Google the "areomobile". If your wrong about flying cars what else have you got wrong ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who isolate words in a sentence/paragraph in a debate. People who twist things. See examples everywhere including this thread. Hmmm what do YOU mean when you say ISOLATE?
I can see what you did there. I gotta say though, pretty shit
Awww Feisty I thought that was a good’an
Was it yourself who mentioned spelling?
It's good'un
It was deliberate I tell you, deliberate "I get annoyed at not being able to react to forum posts without taking up a slot in the meagre 176 were allowed  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I get annoyed at how much help I need on a self service checkout. Put a bag on the side to scan you product in, malfunction, need a person. Alcohol, need a person, tag, need a person and so on. Nearly self service. While I'm at it... When they move product you always buy to another part of the supermarket, in the hope that you stumble on new a product range to buy. This results in me frantically searching known aisles, questioning my sanity and worrying about the early signs of dementia. " Re. Self service They make me do all my transactions myself and then the cheeky sos and so's want to check my receipt  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And flying cars. Where the hell is my flying car? The world has turned out crap, and I'm annoyed at it all." "Google the "areomobile". If your wrong about flying cars what else have you got wrong ?" But when you search for "areomobile", one of the first words you see is 'prototype'. There are dozens of flying cars companies about, but none of them has been certified, which means you can't actually buy one yet. The OP is not wrong about flying cars. BTW: If you really do want a flying car, the PAL-V is the most advanced in the regulatory process, and one of the most practical. But you can't buy and fly one yet. ps. "Areomobile" is a terrible name for a flying car. Everyone is going to read it as "aeromobile", and then get confused when they can't find it on Google. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ll happily shout down and stifle racists, thanks. Then you're part of the problem. Shouting down and stifling racists isn't going to change their opinions and make the world a better place. It's not a constructive way to approach a problem. I'm always confused by people that claim to be accepting and inclusive, but who show such anger and hatred when confronted with someone that doesn't agree with them. There's something to be said for making safe spaces for racists smaller and smaller. Letting them know their abhorrent views aren't welcome anywhere. I can agree with that. Calmly explaining that their views are no longer acceptable, and trying to persuade them to change is what we should all be doing. Challenging it whenever it comes up is the way to let people know that they are in the minority. But 'shouting down and stifling' doesn't achieve anything. It's a child's way of dealing with disagreement, shouting at the other person to cover up what they're saying, calling them names to make yourself feel better, and eventually clamping your hands over your ears and chanting "I'm not listening"." Fair enough " The old "doesn't agree with them" argument doesn't fit here. It really does. You're condemning people not because of their actions, but because of the way they think. " Yeah, if they think they are superior to other humans based on their ethnicity, then for sure I am going to condemn them. Who wouldn't? Why wouldn't we condemn racists? " When it comes to race hate, why should we tolerate those people? And there's that word again. You won't tolerate their existence. How is that attitude any different to their intolerance of skin colour? " The difference is people don't choose their skin colour, ethnicity is not an indicator of someone's character. Being a racist is an indicator of someone's character. There is a difference between being tolerant of people who look different, and people who hate others based on their skin colour. " I know your answer, you'll say that it's acceptable because you're right and they're wrong. The same argument that religious people have been using for years to justify killing those they don't agree with. " No, that's not my answer. See above. " If you want to change racist people you have to engage with them and lead them to discover how wrong they are. Calling them a poo-head and saying that you're not talking to them any more isn't going to have any effect." Here's an example. In the past football grounds were safe spaces for racists, their racist chants and actions were welcome. Making football grounds not welcoming for black people. This is has now changed, football grounds are no longer welcoming to racists who want to sing racist chants and throw bananas at blacl players. But they are now welcoming places for non white people. What's your view on that? I would suggest this has a positive impact, changes the behaviour of young and impressionable people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ll happily shout down and stifle racists, thanks. Then you're part of the problem. Shouting down and stifling racists isn't going to change their opinions and make the world a better place. It's not a constructive way to approach a problem. I'm always confused by people that claim to be accepting and inclusive, but who show such anger and hatred when confronted with someone that doesn't agree with them. There's something to be said for making safe spaces for racists smaller and smaller. Letting them know their abhorrent views aren't welcome anywhere. I can agree with that. Calmly explaining that their views are no longer acceptable, and trying to persuade them to change is what we should all be doing. Challenging it whenever it comes up is the way to let people know that they are in the minority. But 'shouting down and stifling' doesn't achieve anything. It's a child's way of dealing with disagreement, shouting at the other person to cover up what they're saying, calling them names to make yourself feel better, and eventually clamping your hands over your ears and chanting "I'm not listening". Fair enough The old "doesn't agree with them" argument doesn't fit here. It really does. You're condemning people not because of their actions, but because of the way they think. Yeah, if they think they are superior to other humans based on their ethnicity, then for sure I am going to condemn them. Who wouldn't? Why wouldn't we condemn racists? When it comes to race hate, why should we tolerate those people? And there's that word again. You won't tolerate their existence. How is that attitude any different to their intolerance of skin colour? The difference is people don't choose their skin colour, ethnicity is not an indicator of someone's character. Being a racist is an indicator of someone's character. There is a difference between being tolerant of people who look different, and people who hate others based on their skin colour. I know your answer, you'll say that it's acceptable because you're right and they're wrong. The same argument that religious people have been using for years to justify killing those they don't agree with. No, that's not my answer. See above. If you want to change racist people you have to engage with them and lead them to discover how wrong they are. Calling them a poo-head and saying that you're not talking to them any more isn't going to have any effect. Here's an example. In the past football grounds were safe spaces for racists, their racist chants and actions were welcome. Making football grounds not welcoming for black people. This is has now changed, football grounds are no longer welcoming to racists who want to sing racist chants and throw bananas at blacl players. But they are now welcoming places for non white people. What's your view on that? I would suggest this has a positive impact, changes the behaviour of young and impressionable people." Sorry part of this made no sense. Let me try typing it again. --- There is a difference between being intolerant of people who look different, and being intolerant of those who hate others based on their skin colour. There are sensible limits to tolerance. IE I wouldn't tolerate being punched in the face at work by a colleague, or someone being racist in a public space. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to change racist people you have to engage with them and lead them to discover how wrong they are. Calling them a poo-head and saying that you're not talking to them any more isn't going to have any effect." You’re smart enough to know that not all racists (or bigots, or other scumbag types) can be rehabilitated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm always confused by people that claim to be accepting and inclusive, but who show such anger and hatred when confronted with someone that doesn't agree with them." ‘Someone that doesn’t agree with them’ is not the same as a racist. Disagreement and debate on society, politics, myriad other subjects is good. It broadens the mind and opens one up to other points of view - that’s all good, and should be welcomed. Some topics however are not worthy of engagement - and acknowledging the views of a racist as anything other than abhorrent is to validate them. And I won’t do that. Same with flat earthers, Covid deniers et al | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The difference is people don't choose their skin colour, ethnicity is not an indicator of someone's character. Being a racist is an indicator of someone's character." I'm going to disagree. I don't believe anyone chooses to be a racist. They end up that way because they are taught to be, or because of lack of knowledge. I believe that racism can be eliminated just by education. "Here's an example. In the past football grounds were safe spaces for racists, their racist chants and actions were welcome. Making football grounds not welcoming for black people. This is has now changed, football grounds are no longer welcoming to racists who want to sing racist chants and throw bananas at blacl players. But they are now welcoming places for non white people. What's your view on that? I would suggest this has a positive impact, changes the behaviour of young and impressionable people." I've never been interested in football, so I'll have to take your word for what it was like then, and how it is now. This is clearly a good thing. Setting an example to others by challenging anyone that displays racism is what we should all be doing. But how was it done? Was it by educating everyone, and making it clear that racist actions were not acceptable? If so, then great, the racists have been turned into nicer people. But if it was achieved by simply banning anyone that used the wrong word, then we've not achieved much. Yes, the stadium is now a nicer place to be, but all those racists still exist outside the fence, and now they're angrier. That's not a good result for the country. As I say, I have no interest in football, so I genuinely don't know how it was achieved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is a difference between being intolerant of people who look different, and being intolerant of those who hate others based on their skin colour." What is the difference? Why is it acceptable to have one intolerance, but not the other? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The difference is people don't choose their skin colour, ethnicity is not an indicator of someone's character. Being a racist is an indicator of someone's character. I'm going to disagree. I don't believe anyone chooses to be a racist. They end up that way because they are taught to be, or because of lack of knowledge. I believe that racism can be eliminated just by education. Here's an example. In the past football grounds were safe spaces for racists, their racist chants and actions were welcome. Making football grounds not welcoming for black people. This is has now changed, football grounds are no longer welcoming to racists who want to sing racist chants and throw bananas at blacl players. But they are now welcoming places for non white people. What's your view on that? I would suggest this has a positive impact, changes the behaviour of young and impressionable people. I've never been interested in football, so I'll have to take your word for what it was like then, and how it is now. This is clearly a good thing. Setting an example to others by challenging anyone that displays racism is what we should all be doing. But how was it done? Was it by educating everyone, and making it clear that racist actions were not acceptable? If so, then great, the racists have been turned into nicer people. But if it was achieved by simply banning anyone that used the wrong word, then we've not achieved much. Yes, the stadium is now a nicer place to be, but all those racists still exist outside the fence, and now they're angrier. That's not a good result for the country. As I say, I have no interest in football, so I genuinely don't know how it was achieved." It was achieved in multiple ways, campaigns etc. But basically it came down to banning people from the grounds who sang racist chants and who threw bananas at black players etc, until the behaviour stopped (although it still occasionally happens). You don't agree someone chooses to be racist. Fine. I'd argue they have more control over it that say a person has over their skin colour. And furthermore that having different skin colour isn't a bad thing, isn't something you should judge a person's character on. Where as being a racist is bad thing and is something you can judge a person's character on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You’re smart enough to know that not all racists (or bigots, or other scumbag types) can be rehabilitated." Agreed. In any area there are some that can never be changed, and we need to learn to live with that BTW: You do know what 'bigot' means don't you? It means 'intolerant of the views of others'. You have shown over many posts that you are intolerant of lots of other people's views. I wouldn't stoop to calling you a "scumbag type" because of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is a difference between being intolerant of people who look different, and being intolerant of those who hate others based on their skin colour. What is the difference? Why is it acceptable to have one intolerance, but not the other?" One is being tolerant of people for arbitrary physic features. One is being tolerant of intolerance of people for arbitrary physical features. IE being tolerant of intolerance is actually helping to promote intolerance. I'll give it to you, this is hard to articulate. There's a whole book on the subject out there. Ha. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you want to change racist people you have to engage with them and lead them to discover how wrong they are. Calling them a poo-head and saying that you're not talking to them any more isn't going to have any effect. You’re smart enough to know that not all racists (or bigots, or other scumbag types) can be rehabilitated." I think this is the type of thing that's being talked about here. Shouting, swearing and generally using unsavoury language towards anyone you don't agree with does nothing to actually help and my belief is it makes it worse. All you do is push those people towards others who think the same way as them, that then leads to the culture wars we see today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You’re smart enough to know that not all racists (or bigots, or other scumbag types) can be rehabilitated. Agreed. In any area there are some that can never be changed, and we need to learn to live with that BTW: You do know what 'bigot' means don't you? It means 'intolerant of the views of others'. You have shown over many posts that you are intolerant of lots of other people's views. I wouldn't stoop to calling you a "scumbag type" because of it." I’m intolerant of racists, homophobes etc, yes. Proudly so. Don’t confuse political debate with intolerance - I dislike tories for example, and i’ll argue with their views, but that’s not intolerance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Oh noez! You said something mean, that men's you at evil and literally Hitler! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. " Cancel culture isn’t really a thing - at least not by those who shout it the loudest. TLDR: If you release a book, host a podcast or go on a talk show to cry about how you’ve been ‘cancelled’, you’ve not been cancelled. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wel I quite like custard doughnuts. In fact I would love one right now "OMG another deviant | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate." That’s enough of that we don’t want those views in here! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who don’t fold over the end of the sellotape! " People who fold over the end of the sellotape. Get a dispenser man. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who don’t fold over the end of the sellotape! People who fold over the end of the sellotape. Get a dispenser man. " Oooh get you posh boy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 22/09/23 18:00:57]" And then never post a replacement comment! WTF were you going to say...???????? I really want to know now! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's really petty but newsreaders and weather presenters dressing casually while doing their job. I'm with you on this one. I get particularly annoyed with female newsreaders that dress to emphasise their cleavage. If you want to be taken seriously, damn well dress like you're serious." The Taliban know how to deal with these sort of woman. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor." Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People blindly following political parties " I dont think people do blindly follow, the mad 20 MPH limit seems to be changing a lot of peoples minds here in Wales | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People blindly following political parties I dont think people do blindly follow, the mad 20 MPH limit seems to be changing a lot of peoples minds here in Wales " That's one policy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People blindly following political parties" "I dont think people do blindly follow, the mad 20 MPH limit seems to be changing a lot of peoples minds here in Wales" "That's one policy" Yes, and it's a policy that lots of people are getting very angry about. I've certainly heard people saying that they aren't going to be voting Labour next time, just over this one single issue. So I agree with _9al, people here in Wales seem to have stopped blindly following. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People blindly following political parties I dont think people do blindly follow, the mad 20 MPH limit seems to be changing a lot of peoples minds here in Wales That's one policy Yes, and it's a policy that lots of people are getting very angry about. I've certainly heard people saying that they aren't going to be voting Labour next time, just over this one single issue. So I agree with _9al, people here in Wales seem to have stopped blindly following." Are people really that angry about a 10 mph difference in some urban areas? Most of where I live is 20mph, and haven't heard a single person complaining. Seems like a arbitrary thing to get pissed off about when there are real problems going on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ll happily shout down and stifle racists, thanks. Then you're part of the problem. Shouting down and stifling racists isn't going to change their opinions and make the world a better place. It's not a constructive way to approach a problem. I'm always confused by people that claim to be accepting and inclusive, but who show such anger and hatred when confronted with someone that doesn't agree with them. There's something to be said for making safe spaces for racists smaller and smaller. Letting them know their abhorrent views aren't welcome anywhere. The old "doesn't agree with them" argument doesn't fit here. That works when you're talking about your favourite music, or which is the best way to solve a problem. Of course all views, in those kind of scenarios should be listened to. When it comes to race hate, why should we tolerate those people? " Perhaps we should just send them to Rwanda? I mean it probably would have about as much effect as pretending they are not there or ignoring them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People blindly following political parties I dont think people do blindly follow, the mad 20 MPH limit seems to be changing a lot of peoples minds here in Wales That's one policy Yes, and it's a policy that lots of people are getting very angry about. I've certainly heard people saying that they aren't going to be voting Labour next time, just over this one single issue. So I agree with _9al, people here in Wales seem to have stopped blindly following. Are people really that angry about a 10 mph difference in some urban areas? Most of where I live is 20mph, and haven't heard a single person complaining. Seems like a arbitrary thing to get pissed off about when there are real problems going on." I don’t get it, but I live in an area where you’re lucky to get to 30mph at the best of times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People blindly following political parties I dont think people do blindly follow, the mad 20 MPH limit seems to be changing a lot of peoples minds here in Wales That's one policy Yes, and it's a policy that lots of people are getting very angry about. I've certainly heard people saying that they aren't going to be voting Labour next time, just over this one single issue. So I agree with _9al, people here in Wales seem to have stopped blindly following. Are people really that angry about a 10 mph difference in some urban areas? Most of where I live is 20mph, and haven't heard a single person complaining. Seems like an arbitrary thing to get pissed off about when there are real problems going on." Funny but here in Bristol lots of residential roads are now 20mph and after a few years of this most drivers are driving at 25mph rather than the 35mph they used to so it’s definitely a safer place to walk or cycle apart from the fucking scooters whose riders have no road sense at all….bastards | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are people really that angry about a 10 mph difference in some urban areas? Most of where I live is 20mph, and haven't heard a single person complaining. Seems like a arbitrary thing to get pissed off about when there are real problems going on." You need to live here to see the problem. In the valleys there is a motorway at the bottom, and a dual carriageway at the top, and almost all of the roads in between are small residential roads. My journey to work starts with a 12 mile trip down to the motorway. It used to take me about 30 minutes, and now it takes 45. I'm all in favour of 20mph speed limits where there are dangers, but applying it as a blanket restriction is annoying and pointless. It doesn't help that when the First Minister was asked how many lives would be saved, he said that he didn't have the figures, but that we should stop complaining as it's "only an extra minute on your journey". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firearms regulations could be getting a tweak, you might need a licence per firearm instead of per person. Another form in generating cash." Seems fair enough to me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firearms regulations could be getting a tweak, you might need a licence per firearm instead of per person. Another form in generating cash. Seems fair enough to me" Why | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firearms regulations could be getting a tweak, you might need a licence per firearm instead of per person. Another form in generating cash." Seems ok to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firearms regulations could be getting a tweak, you might need a licence per firearm instead of per person. Another form in generating cash. Seems fair enough to me Why" It's a form to prevent the masses of lemmings to confirm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firearms regulations could be getting a tweak, you might need a licence per firearm instead of per person. Another form in generating cash. Seems fair enough to me Why It's a form to prevent the masses of lemmings to confirm." After our last school shooting in 1996, we successfully took sensible actions to prevent more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firearms regulations could be getting a tweak, you might need a licence per firearm instead of per person. Another form in generating cash. Seems fair enough to me Why" Well I see it as a bit like car tax in that it should be the individual items that are taxed rather than the owner of the collection. Now I know that is probably unfair in some ways as it is a burden on people who are not that wealthy but here in the UK gun ownership is relatively rare so it is unlikely to affect many people. I get that it would be a non starter in the USA as the place is awash with munitions but here it doesn’t seem like such a bad idea. I have a friend who shoots and he disagrees with the idea btw | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firearms regulations could be getting a tweak, you might need a licence per firearm instead of per person. Another form in generating cash. Seems fair enough to me Why It's a form to prevent the masses of lemmings to confirm. After our last school shooting in 1996, we successfully took sensible actions to prevent more. " How is knife assaults doing again ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firearms regulations could be getting a tweak, you might need a licence per firearm instead of per person. Another form in generating cash. Seems fair enough to me Why It's a form to prevent the masses of lemmings to confirm. After our last school shooting in 1996, we successfully took sensible actions to prevent more. How is knife assaults doing again ? " Better yet guns. How is restrictions working? You have a ban on guns. Like our major cities how is that ban accomplishing anything? Grant it I'll give you the accomplishment of law abiding citizens not owning. Yet your criminals do. So why can't the law abiding ones have the same? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firearms regulations could be getting a tweak, you might need a licence per firearm instead of per person. Another form in generating cash. Seems fair enough to me Why It's a form to prevent the masses of lemmings to confirm. After our last school shooting in 1996, we successfully took sensible actions to prevent more. How is knife assaults doing again ? " Better than the USA. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firearms regulations could be getting a tweak, you might need a licence per firearm instead of per person. Another form in generating cash. Seems fair enough to me Why It's a form to prevent the masses of lemmings to confirm. After our last school shooting in 1996, we successfully took sensible actions to prevent more. How is knife assaults doing again ? Better yet guns. How is restrictions working? You have a ban on guns. Like our major cities how is that ban accomplishing anything? Grant it I'll give you the accomplishment of law abiding citizens not owning. Yet your criminals do. So why can't the law abiding ones have the same? " So a quick google says that in 2023 the USA had 22 times as many homicides involving firearms as the European Union area in total. Enough said! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firearms regulations could be getting a tweak, you might need a licence per firearm instead of per person. Another form in generating cash. Seems fair enough to me Why It's a form to prevent the masses of lemmings to confirm. After our last school shooting in 1996, we successfully took sensible actions to prevent more. How is knife assaults doing again ? " Some data on knife crime USA vs U.K. https://homesteadauthority.com/knife-crime-statistics-uk-vs-us/?utm_content=cmp-true | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firearms regulations could be getting a tweak, you might need a licence per firearm instead of per person. Another form in generating cash. Seems fair enough to me Why It's a form to prevent the masses of lemmings to confirm. After our last school shooting in 1996, we successfully took sensible actions to prevent more. How is knife assaults doing again ? Some data on knife crime USA vs U.K. https://homesteadauthority.com/knife-crime-statistics-uk-vs-us/?utm_content=cmp-true " https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity." Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. " Why do parents move to areas with better schools? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firearms regulations could be getting a tweak, you might need a licence per firearm instead of per person. Another form in generating cash. Seems fair enough to me Why It's a form to prevent the masses of lemmings to confirm. After our last school shooting in 1996, we successfully took sensible actions to prevent more. How is knife assaults doing again ? Some data on knife crime USA vs U.K. https://homesteadauthority.com/knife-crime-statistics-uk-vs-us/?utm_content=cmp-true https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/ " So given that you brought up knife crime in the U.K, now you want to change the argument because knife crime in the USA is at least as bad or worse? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People blindly following political parties I dont think people do blindly follow, the mad 20 MPH limit seems to be changing a lot of peoples minds here in Wales " Most town roads now, the reality is you don't get over 20mph. Talking to some of my Welsh colleagues last week they where putting the speed limit back up to 30mph on certain roads. To me 20mph makes sense however I see Sunack is now politicing car driving. Between that and rolling back commitments to Net0. I really do think the tories are going for the "fuck everyone else I'll do what I want" vote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What gets me these days is that cyclists have more rights on the road than cars. Cars pay tax and have number plates. Bicycles should be licensed and he as accountable as cars " What gets me is this crappy old argument being rolled out like it’s something new | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What gets me these days is that cyclists have more rights on the road than cars. Cars pay tax and have number plates. Bicycles should be licensed and he as accountable as cars " Do they have more rights than cars? That seems made up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What gets me these days is that cyclists have more rights on the road than cars. Cars pay tax and have number plates. Bicycles should be licensed and he as accountable as cars What gets me is this crappy old argument being rolled out like it’s something new "Not sure about cycles having more rights than cars. But we do have a problem of cyclists being less accountable. I personally know of two people who had to visit hospitals because of cyclists who believe that traffic signals aren't applicable to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What gets me these days is that cyclists have more rights on the road than cars. Cars pay tax and have number plates. Bicycles should be licensed and he as accountable as cars Do they have more rights than cars? That seems made up." GAMA (Grumpy And Middle Aged) here... not sure on the “rights” thing but agree that insurance should be mandatory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What gets me these days is that cyclists have more rights on the road than cars. Cars pay tax and have number plates. Bicycles should be licensed and he as accountable as cars " How do you licence a 6 year old on a bike? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What gets me these days is that cyclists have more rights on the road than cars. Cars pay tax and have number plates. Bicycles should be licensed and he as accountable as cars Do they have more rights than cars? That seems made up. GAMA (Grumpy And Middle Aged) here... not sure on the “rights” thing but agree that insurance should be mandatory." Even for kids on BMX's? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What gets me these days is that cyclists have more rights on the road than cars. Cars pay tax and have number plates. Bicycles should be licensed and he as accountable as cars How do you licence a 6 year old on a bike?" Add it to the price of the bike? The 6 year old isn't going to be paying for it out of their wages, most don't earn enough, lazy age. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firearms regulations could be getting a tweak, you might need a licence per firearm instead of per person. Another form in generating cash. Seems fair enough to me Why Well I see it as a bit like car tax in that it should be the individual items that are taxed rather than the owner of the collection. Now I know that is probably unfair in some ways as it is a burden on people who are not that wealthy but here in the UK gun ownership is relatively rare so it is unlikely to affect many people. I get that it would be a non starter in the USA as the place is awash with munitions but here it doesn’t seem like such a bad idea. I have a friend who shoots and he disagrees with the idea btw" Looking at a FAC or Shotgun cert as a tax is not really the point. You would need a different levy for that. A FAC is medical checks, reason to own, background checks, storage checks, transporting checks and so on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others." "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio." Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. " That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility." Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. " Tell me what you think I'm missing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing?" It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. " And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple "It is that simple. Everything you have mentioned are nothing but excuses for parental failings. Not sure about 'child cough', never heard of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple "And actually THE (original) point was the poster considered advantages and concessions were unfair. I stated "for parity" and then had to expound on that. Being mistakenly called out for missing the point, missed the point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple
And actually THE (original) point was the poster considered advantages and concessions were unfair. I stated "for parity" and then had to expound on that. Being mistakenly called out for missing the point, missed the point "You chose to isolate words, don't then complain if we stick to those words | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple
It is that simple. Everything you have mentioned are nothing but excuses for parental failings. Not sure about 'child cough', never heard of it."Child a***e... cannot be mentioned here. People here never heard of cycle of deprivation? Are you all in your little middle class bubbles? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We know that wealth, location, contacts etc improve a child’s chances of success. That’s utterly unarguable. We can argue that every child starts with a base-level, sure. But that base level is the lowest common denominator. e.g. The worst school in the county. It’s ludicrous to pretend that every child has an equal opportunity for success, there are myriad factors at play here. " You'll get ignored | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We know that wealth, location, contacts etc improve a child’s chances of success. That’s utterly unarguable. We can argue that every child starts with a base-level, sure. But that base level is the lowest common denominator. e.g. The worst school in the county. It’s ludicrous to pretend that every child has an equal opportunity for success, there are myriad factors at play here. " Missing the posters point too I see. I can actually say that with confidence being that the poster of that statement agreed with me. This will forever be the problem as long as you're looking to blame someone or something | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple
It is that simple. Everything you have mentioned are nothing but excuses for parental failings. Not sure about 'child cough', never heard of it.
Child a***e... cannot be mentioned here.
People here never heard of cycle of deprivation? Are you all in your little middle class bubbles?"How was I supposed to know that's what you meant. I know, rather than explain just insult, that'll help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple
And actually THE (original) point was the poster considered advantages and concessions were unfair. I stated "for parity" and then had to expound on that. Being mistakenly called out for missing the point, missed the point
You chose to isolate words, don't then complain if we stick to those words "What are you on about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We know that wealth, location, contacts etc improve a child’s chances of success. That’s utterly unarguable. We can argue that every child starts with a base-level, sure. But that base level is the lowest common denominator. e.g. The worst school in the county. It’s ludicrous to pretend that every child has an equal opportunity for success, there are myriad factors at play here. Missing the posters point too I see. I can actually say that with confidence being that the poster of that statement agreed with me. This will forever be the problem as long as you're looking to blame someone or something "Just easier to blame the parents than society. I see. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple
And actually THE (original) point was the poster considered advantages and concessions were unfair. I stated "for parity" and then had to expound on that. Being mistakenly called out for missing the point, missed the point
You chose to isolate words, don't then complain if we stick to those words
What are you on about?"You don't remember saying this? "Everyone has the same chances in life" The poster was simply speaking about everyone having the right to free schooling and being taught from one national curriculum. Fuck me, this place is hard work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We know that wealth, location, contacts etc improve a child’s chances of success. That’s utterly unarguable. We can argue that every child starts with a base-level, sure. But that base level is the lowest common denominator. e.g. The worst school in the county. It’s ludicrous to pretend that every child has an equal opportunity for success, there are myriad factors at play here. Missing the posters point too I see. I can actually say that with confidence being that the poster of that statement agreed with me. This will forever be the problem as long as you're looking to blame someone or something
Just easier to blame the parents than society. I see."Yes it damn well is. We're all adults and all capable of making choices which put our children first. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple "So you advocate discriminating against my child, who is diligent and hard working, to give her place at a top university to someone else based purely on some random checklist of perceived disadvantage? Policies at many top universities (including Oxford and Cambridge) will give significantly lower offers to children who live in "deprived" postcodes. Some of these are not far from here, so the children will have gone to the same school and therefore received the same education. Other pretty random criteria also result in similar lower offers, including "neither parent went to university", free school meals etc. What is the point in working hard to get on when, if you don't do anything, you are given an advantage? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple
It is that simple. Everything you have mentioned are nothing but excuses for parental failings. Not sure about 'child cough', never heard of it.
Child a***e... cannot be mentioned here.
People here never heard of cycle of deprivation? Are you all in your little middle class bubbles?
How was I supposed to know that's what you meant.
I know, rather than explain just insult, that'll help. "How is that insulting? If you don't know what goes on in society outside your own little world/bubble/community and think that's the yardstick that everyone lives by. Then I am implying you lack knowledge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We know that wealth, location, contacts etc improve a child’s chances of success. That’s utterly unarguable. We can argue that every child starts with a base-level, sure. But that base level is the lowest common denominator. e.g. The worst school in the county. It’s ludicrous to pretend that every child has an equal opportunity for success, there are myriad factors at play here. " Good parenting and a determination to make the most of what you have, grabbing opportunities as they come, is often the recipe to becoming successful. The issue here is excuses for under achieving are pushed forward and it makes giving up, not bothering, and failure acceptable. This trend started many years ago, when it became the norm for awarding everyone a medal in a school race, as an example. Dumbing down removes the award deserved to those that try. We will end up with a nation of under achievers and be happy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple
It is that simple. Everything you have mentioned are nothing but excuses for parental failings. Not sure about 'child cough', never heard of it.
Child a***e... cannot be mentioned here.
People here never heard of cycle of deprivation? Are you all in your little middle class bubbles?
How was I supposed to know that's what you meant.
I know, rather than explain just insult, that'll help.
How is that insulting? If you don't know what goes on in society outside your own little world/bubble/community and think that's the yardstick that everyone lives by. Then I am implying you lack knowledge."You know absolutely nothing about me or my background bur choose to use 'little middle class bubble' as an insult. All because I disagree with you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple
And actually THE (original) point was the poster considered advantages and concessions were unfair. I stated "for parity" and then had to expound on that. Being mistakenly called out for missing the point, missed the point
You chose to isolate words, don't then complain if we stick to those words
What are you on about?
You don't remember saying this?
"Everyone has the same chances in life"
The poster was simply speaking about everyone having the right to free schooling and being taught from one national curriculum.
Fuck me, this place is hard work."That's not isolating words per se, that is requoting a sentence. A sentence I wanted to comment on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We know that wealth, location, contacts etc improve a child’s chances of success. That’s utterly unarguable. We can argue that every child starts with a base-level, sure. But that base level is the lowest common denominator. e.g. The worst school in the county. It’s ludicrous to pretend that every child has an equal opportunity for success, there are myriad factors at play here. Missing the posters point too I see. I can actually say that with confidence being that the poster of that statement agreed with me. This will forever be the problem as long as you're looking to blame someone or something
Just easier to blame the parents than society. I see.
Yes it damn well is. We're all adults and all capable of making choices which put our children first."I was going to comment but it's not worth it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple
And actually THE (original) point was the poster considered advantages and concessions were unfair. I stated "for parity" and then had to expound on that. Being mistakenly called out for missing the point, missed the point
You chose to isolate words, don't then complain if we stick to those words
What are you on about?
You don't remember saying this?
"Everyone has the same chances in life"
The poster was simply speaking about everyone having the right to free schooling and being taught from one national curriculum.
Fuck me, this place is hard work.
That's not isolating words per se, that is requoting a sentence. A sentence I wanted to comment on.
"And that's what we have spoken on. That one sentence and you missing the point of it. Pretty sure the poster had confirmed what they meant by it. Sometimes, just sometimes, it would be good to listen to explanations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple
So you advocate discriminating against my child, who is diligent and hard working, to give her place at a top university to someone else based purely on some random checklist of perceived disadvantage?
Policies at many top universities (including Oxford and Cambridge) will give significantly lower offers to children who live in "deprived" postcodes. Some of these are not far from here, so the children will have gone to the same school and therefore received the same education.
Other pretty random criteria also result in similar lower offers, including "neither parent went to university", free school meals etc.
What is the point in working hard to get on when, if you don't do anything, you are given an advantage?"I do not know the inner workings of gaining uni places (I got mine on merit alone). However there will be research into giving places to achieve parity. And the place is not hers unless she gets it. Bitter pill, yes. But coming from the bottom of the heap, dragging myself up purely on academic attainment to finally get a life I deserve (in my fifties), I don't see the harm in there being help for others to achieve that in their late teens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We know that wealth, location, contacts etc improve a child’s chances of success. That’s utterly unarguable. We can argue that every child starts with a base-level, sure. But that base level is the lowest common denominator. e.g. The worst school in the county. It’s ludicrous to pretend that every child has an equal opportunity for success, there are myriad factors at play here. Good parenting and a determination to make the most of what you have, grabbing opportunities as they come, is often the recipe to becoming successful. The issue here is excuses for under achieving are pushed forward and it makes giving up, not bothering, and failure acceptable. This trend started many years ago, when it became the norm for awarding everyone a medal in a school race, as an example. Dumbing down removes the award deserved to those that try. We will end up with a nation of under achievers and be happy" It's about removing barriers that some have to help them achieve. It's about balancing things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple
It is that simple. Everything you have mentioned are nothing but excuses for parental failings. Not sure about 'child cough', never heard of it.
Child a***e... cannot be mentioned here.
People here never heard of cycle of deprivation? Are you all in your little middle class bubbles?
How was I supposed to know that's what you meant.
I know, rather than explain just insult, that'll help.
How is that insulting? If you don't know what goes on in society outside your own little world/bubble/community and think that's the yardstick that everyone lives by. Then I am implying you lack knowledge.
You know absolutely nothing about me or my background bur choose to use 'little middle class bubble' as an insult. All because I disagree with you "So you don't accept my explanation, oh well cannot do that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple
It is that simple. Everything you have mentioned are nothing but excuses for parental failings. Not sure about 'child cough', never heard of it.
Child a***e... cannot be mentioned here.
People here never heard of cycle of deprivation? Are you all in your little middle class bubbles?
How was I supposed to know that's what you meant.
I know, rather than explain just insult, that'll help.
How is that insulting? If you don't know what goes on in society outside your own little world/bubble/community and think that's the yardstick that everyone lives by. Then I am implying you lack knowledge.
You know absolutely nothing about me or my background bur choose to use 'little middle class bubble' as an insult. All because I disagree with you
So you don't accept my explanation, oh well cannot do that."What explanation did you offer? That's there's much more to it than simple? I do accept that, read back and you'll see | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple
And actually THE (original) point was the poster considered advantages and concessions were unfair. I stated "for parity" and then had to expound on that. Being mistakenly called out for missing the point, missed the point
You chose to isolate words, don't then complain if we stick to those words
What are you on about?
You don't remember saying this?
"Everyone has the same chances in life"
The poster was simply speaking about everyone having the right to free schooling and being taught from one national curriculum.
Fuck me, this place is hard work.
That's not isolating words per se, that is requoting a sentence. A sentence I wanted to comment on.
And that's what we have spoken on. That one sentence and you missing the point of it. Pretty sure the poster had confirmed what they meant by it.
Sometimes, just sometimes, it would be good to listen to explanations. "Right back at you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple
It is that simple. Everything you have mentioned are nothing but excuses for parental failings. Not sure about 'child cough', never heard of it.
Child a***e... cannot be mentioned here.
People here never heard of cycle of deprivation? Are you all in your little middle class bubbles?
How was I supposed to know that's what you meant.
I know, rather than explain just insult, that'll help.
How is that insulting? If you don't know what goes on in society outside your own little world/bubble/community and think that's the yardstick that everyone lives by. Then I am implying you lack knowledge.
You know absolutely nothing about me or my background bur choose to use 'little middle class bubble' as an insult. All because I disagree with you
So you don't accept my explanation, oh well cannot do that.
What explanation did you offer?
That's there's much more to it than simple?
I do accept that, read back and you'll see "Oh the explanation you offer for 'little middle class bubble', no I don't accept it, we both know you were using it as an insult. Let's not pretend otherwise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We know that wealth, location, contacts etc improve a child’s chances of success. That’s utterly unarguable. We can argue that every child starts with a base-level, sure. But that base level is the lowest common denominator. e.g. The worst school in the county. It’s ludicrous to pretend that every child has an equal opportunity for success, there are myriad factors at play here. Good parenting and a determination to make the most of what you have, grabbing opportunities as they come, is often the recipe to becoming successful. The issue here is excuses for under achieving are pushed forward and it makes giving up, not bothering, and failure acceptable. This trend started many years ago, when it became the norm for awarding everyone a medal in a school race, as an example. Dumbing down removes the award deserved to those that try. We will end up with a nation of under achievers and be happy It's about removing barriers that some have to help them achieve. It's about balancing things." The single and highest barrier for a child to achieve and be the best they can be in school, is poor parenting. Teaching your child that study, doing the right things and achieving are above, tic tok, and pressures from other children to be the opposite. This is not new, it has been a thing for ever, however now we are accepting failure as a success. No hard conversations shall be had with bad parents, it is easier to let the children live with no boundaries and slip backwards in their education than challenge the parent to up their fucking game. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple
It is that simple. Everything you have mentioned are nothing but excuses for parental failings. Not sure about 'child cough', never heard of it.
Child a***e... cannot be mentioned here.
People here never heard of cycle of deprivation? Are you all in your little middle class bubbles?
How was I supposed to know that's what you meant.
I know, rather than explain just insult, that'll help.
How is that insulting? If you don't know what goes on in society outside your own little world/bubble/community and think that's the yardstick that everyone lives by. Then I am implying you lack knowledge.
You know absolutely nothing about me or my background bur choose to use 'little middle class bubble' as an insult. All because I disagree with you
So you don't accept my explanation, oh well cannot do that.
What explanation did you offer?
That's there's much more to it than simple?
I do accept that, read back and you'll see "Explaining the middle class bubbles comment. You're right, this place is bloody hard. As for "simple", I didn't need to give further explanation. I had already given examples as to why education is not the only factor in opportunity. Just think for a moment, why do some children get free meals, or why breakfast clubs were started. Why is there a bed charity? Undernourished children won't be able to learn properly. Sleep deprived children won't be able to learn properly. Why do some children get 1-1 support in schools? Their needs are that either they'll cause disruption to their peers or they need that support to help them integrate (they would have gone to special schools in the past). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cancel culture really annoys me as it stifles debate. Confusing racism with legitimate views on issues such as immigration, then refusing to believe that there is a difference is also very prevalent, and annoying. The unfairness of giving people advantage or concessions based on their race, background or where they live is also poor. Sometimes giving people advantage or concessions is for parity. Parity for what? Some imaginary current or historic disadvantage? Some statistical target? Some notion that quotas of people in particular professions is a good thing? Everyone has the same chances in life. School is compulsory, and schools teach the National Curriculum. What people do with that is what determines outcome. Giving lower university offers (for example) to those living in certain postcodes, or who have free school meals etc. even though they went to the same school as others who don't get the concession is not fair or right. Nor is setting up training centres for specific groups, to the exclusion of others. "Everyone has the same chances in life"... really? So inequalities don't exist then? Rightio. Definitely not everyone but the vast majority in this country get the same schooling which was, I think, the point trying to be made. That in itself is debatable but definitely not my point. What about poverty, substance misuse, child cough, intercity gangs, health inequalities, poor nutrition... ? Education attainment is about much more than education opportunity/accessibility. Of course it's debatable but I think you're missing the point. Tell me what you think I'm missing? It was a very simple point that school in this country is free for all children. They all teach from the national curriculum. It is then up to children and parents to make the most of that. Of course, there are wider debates but it really was as simple as that. And I got that very simple point and pointed out it wasn't THAT simple
So you advocate discriminating against my child, who is diligent and hard working, to give her place at a top university to someone else based purely on some random checklist of perceived disadvantage?
Policies at many top universities (including Oxford and Cambridge) will give significantly lower offers to children who live in "deprived" postcodes. Some of these are not far from here, so the children will have gone to the same school and therefore received the same education.
Other pretty random criteria also result in similar lower offers, including "neither parent went to university", free school meals etc.
What is the point in working hard to get on when, if you don't do anything, you are given an advantage?
I do not know the inner workings of gaining uni places (I got mine on merit alone). However there will be research into giving places to achieve parity. And the place is not hers unless she gets it.
Bitter pill, yes. But coming from the bottom of the heap, dragging myself up purely on academic attainment to finally get a life I deserve (in my fifties), I don't see the harm in there being help for others to achieve that in their late teens."Parity with what? Some statistical exercise that says people from "deprived" postcodes are under represented? Everyone should get to where they go on merit alone. There should not be any discrimination or bias of any kind. The term "positive discrimination" is one of the worst oxymorons invented. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
The thread certainly didn’t turn out quite as expected.
Another annoyance = threads not going how they were intended | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
