Cummings' Jobs Advert
Discussion
DeepEnd said:
“seen nothing to suggest any form of selectivity based on race”
Really? That is squinting pretty bloody hard. And you wonder why you are drawing all this comment? Not just me, is it? What does that tell you?
Is it? Or are you conflating two separate views and making 5?Really? That is squinting pretty bloody hard. And you wonder why you are drawing all this comment? Not just me, is it? What does that tell you?
Are you a mind reader?
Sway said:
DeepEnd said:
“seen nothing to suggest any form of selectivity based on race”
Really? That is squinting pretty bloody hard. And you wonder why you are drawing all this comment? Not just me, is it? What does that tell you?
Is it? Or are you conflating two separate views and making 5?Really? That is squinting pretty bloody hard. And you wonder why you are drawing all this comment? Not just me, is it? What does that tell you?
Are you a mind reader?
You’ve replied to many posts that say exactly that.
andy_s said:
turbobloke said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Sabinsky said:
One way to get around the problems of unplanned pregnancies creating a permanent underclass would be to legally enforce universal uptake of long-term contraception at the onset of puberty. Vaccination laws give it a precedent, I would argue.
Personally I'd read that as going a little further than "supports contraception".DeepEnd said:
Sway said:
DeepEnd said:
“seen nothing to suggest any form of selectivity based on race”
Really? That is squinting pretty bloody hard. And you wonder why you are drawing all this comment? Not just me, is it? What does that tell you?
Is it? Or are you conflating two separate views and making 5?Really? That is squinting pretty bloody hard. And you wonder why you are drawing all this comment? Not just me, is it? What does that tell you?
Are you a mind reader?
You’ve replied to many posts that say exactly that.
That does not mean that separate concepts regarding avoiding teenage pregnancies are linked to his views on race.
Countdown said:
Apologies - this is completely O/T but hy would being a medical professional make them good at budget management? ....
It doesn't necessarily. But my view is that they are likely to be better placed to determine which services are best to be focused on. Unencumbered by political bs.They don't need to be accountants or business mgmt graduates. They can have people working with them for that.
I also suspect that as with most careers, there are professionals who are absolute experts in their fields and then those who are less expert, but better at the other aspects of the job (e.g. like determining how to work out which services should be best focused on given the available funding).
turbobloke said:
That form of totalitarianism (universal enforcement under the law) in that particular context doesn't resemble the best of ideas in my view. There's a reasonable argument that the main feature of an underclass is long-term unemployment. This depends on numerous factors well beyond unplanned pregnancy, as does long-term single parenthood.
Ideas/thoughts don't have to be top drawer in and of themselves to lead to better outcomes overall.Let's say you/Cummings has a dozen people in a room to discuss the "There's a reasonable argument that the main feature of an underclass is long-term unemployment" angle. It's likely very safe to assume we would all want to repair that situation...including those in that situation.
People throwing "out there" ideas around could lead to the rest of the group starting to think more laterally than the same old stodgy thinking. It would be interesting to see what thinking has ever been done on this before, as the situation on benefits seems to have deteriorated...as with many policy areas it feels (to me at least) that these things have been constantly put in the "can't touch it"/"too tricky" box for a couple of decades.
It's that which needs to change IMO. And I think we're at the point where anything should be able to be tabled and bounced around (as long as that is done properly). We should judge our govt on the outcome, not the method (IMO - I appreciate that ship may have sailed a long time ago now. If so, we are screwed).
Sway said:
Again, a massive leap from what I've actually put...
Do you think it's a good idea for teenagers to become parents?
This is what you wrote Do you think it's a good idea for teenagers to become parents?
Sway said:
The outcome is clear - no babies.
Whether it's chosen or not (and I note you ignore the example I gave where the State 'takes control'), that is the outcome.
So exactly what you said. Consent or not, same outcome. Whether it's chosen or not (and I note you ignore the example I gave where the State 'takes control'), that is the outcome.
Which is concerning because consent is quite important. To me anyway.
I am all for teenagers being able to make informed choices about contraception and have access to it. I am not in favour and would not defend, or draw a parallel as you did, between teenagers making that informed choice and the state being able to legally force contraception on women for an undetermined length of time - perhaps life.
gregs656 said:
Sway said:
Again, a massive leap from what I've actually put...
Do you think it's a good idea for teenagers to become parents?
This is what you wrote Do you think it's a good idea for teenagers to become parents?
Sway said:
The outcome is clear - no babies.
Whether it's chosen or not (and I note you ignore the example I gave where the State 'takes control'), that is the outcome.
So exactly what you said. Consent or not, same outcome. Whether it's chosen or not (and I note you ignore the example I gave where the State 'takes control'), that is the outcome.
Which is concerning because consent is quite important. To me anyway.
I am all for teenagers being able to make informed choices about contraception and have access to it. I am not in favour and would not defend, or draw a parallel as you did, between teenagers making that informed choice and the state being able to legally force contraception on women for an undetermined length of time - perhaps life.
On that, I'm done. If you're just going to go the route of loaded statements and emotional interpretation of fairly clear words, it's not worth trying to discuss with you.
Murph7355 said:
Ideas/thoughts don't have to be top drawer in and of themselves to lead to better outcomes overall.
Let's say you/Cummings has a dozen people in a room to discuss the "There's a reasonable argument that the main feature of an underclass is long-term unemployment" angle. It's likely very safe to assume we would all want to repair that situation...including those in that situation.
People throwing "out there" ideas around could lead to the rest of the group starting to think more laterally than the same old stodgy thinking. It would be interesting to see what thinking has ever been done on this before, as the situation on benefits seems to have deteriorated...as with many policy areas it feels (to me at least) that these things have been constantly put in the "can't touch it"/"too tricky" box for a couple of decades.
It's that which needs to change IMO. And I think we're at the point where anything should be able to be tabled and bounced around (as long as that is done properly). We should judge our govt on the outcome, not the method (IMO - I appreciate that ship may have sailed a long time ago now. If so, we are screwed).
There's nothing wrong with ideas being tabled, whoever they're from, there's also nothing wrong with some people considering that some of those ideas have a firmer basis than others, and that the less well-founded ideas are very worthy of critique. Let's say you/Cummings has a dozen people in a room to discuss the "There's a reasonable argument that the main feature of an underclass is long-term unemployment" angle. It's likely very safe to assume we would all want to repair that situation...including those in that situation.
People throwing "out there" ideas around could lead to the rest of the group starting to think more laterally than the same old stodgy thinking. It would be interesting to see what thinking has ever been done on this before, as the situation on benefits seems to have deteriorated...as with many policy areas it feels (to me at least) that these things have been constantly put in the "can't touch it"/"too tricky" box for a couple of decades.
It's that which needs to change IMO. And I think we're at the point where anything should be able to be tabled and bounced around (as long as that is done properly). We should judge our govt on the outcome, not the method (IMO - I appreciate that ship may have sailed a long time ago now. If so, we are screwed).
Sway said:
gregs656 said:
Sway said:
Again, a massive leap from what I've actually put...
Do you think it's a good idea for teenagers to become parents?
This is what you wrote Do you think it's a good idea for teenagers to become parents?
Sway said:
The outcome is clear - no babies.
Whether it's chosen or not (and I note you ignore the example I gave where the State 'takes control'), that is the outcome.
So exactly what you said. Consent or not, same outcome. Whether it's chosen or not (and I note you ignore the example I gave where the State 'takes control'), that is the outcome.
Which is concerning because consent is quite important. To me anyway.
I am all for teenagers being able to make informed choices about contraception and have access to it. I am not in favour and would not defend, or draw a parallel as you did, between teenagers making that informed choice and the state being able to legally force contraception on women for an undetermined length of time - perhaps life.
On that, I'm done. If you're just going to go the route of loaded statements and emotional interpretation of fairly clear words, it's not worth trying to discuss with you.
That, IMO, is far more worrying than some middle ranking think tanker once posting something maybe objectionable on Social Media.
We seem to be failing to see the wood for the trees. And most of that seems a sole result of an intense dislike of the current PM and an inability to stop taking everything absolutely literally (compounded when context is deliberately left behind).
Hey ho. Batten down the hatches as there is precisely zero chance of rifts ever being repaired here, or frankly for any kind of sensible discourse on the massive social issues that have been brewing in this country for decades.
Murph7355 said:
an intense dislike of the current PM
True. Johnson has shown himself incapable of telling the truth at any point in his career; he’s the very definition of ambition wrapped in skin.
Which means that his ideas will be more closely examined for accuracy and truth, that he will be under very close scrutiny and accordingly so will his advisers.
He’s shown no signs of trying to unite the country that he’s helped to inflame through his many lies, so can you really be surprised that there are many who are incandescently angry with him and his coterie.
If he proves me wrong over the next almost-5 years I’ll be happy to admit as much.
Murph7355 said:
This whole thread is a result of the same thing happening at large.
That, IMO, is far more worrying than some middle ranking think tanker once posting something maybe objectionable on Social Media.
We seem to be failing to see the wood for the trees. And most of that seems a sole result of an intense dislike of the current PM and an inability to stop taking everything absolutely literally (compounded when context is deliberately left behind).
Hey ho. Batten down the hatches as there is precisely zero chance of rifts ever being repaired here, or frankly for any kind of sensible discourse on the massive social issues that have been brewing in this country for decades.
I think you have to take the "intense dislike of the current PM" as something where some people will see through a political lens rather than just asking whether an opinion or view is a pleasant one.That, IMO, is far more worrying than some middle ranking think tanker once posting something maybe objectionable on Social Media.
We seem to be failing to see the wood for the trees. And most of that seems a sole result of an intense dislike of the current PM and an inability to stop taking everything absolutely literally (compounded when context is deliberately left behind).
Hey ho. Batten down the hatches as there is precisely zero chance of rifts ever being repaired here, or frankly for any kind of sensible discourse on the massive social issues that have been brewing in this country for decades.
It's as easy to say that if this chap worked for Corbyn and expressed the views he did that we might see a different response from some of those suggesting he should be listened to.
For some people we're both right as the colour of the rosette seems to play a part with these things.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff