Ginger_Warrior

I call it a principle, you know, human compassion and all. I guess that's really what this whole debate boils down to. You either buy into society helping the needy, through actions or taxation, or you don't.

Do you know how many people in Israel died in the days following the renunciation of the cease fire? Was it anywhere near 320, 30 of whom children, as is the current UN estimate? Hamas should not have launched those rockets. There are peaceful ways to a solution. I cannot possibly see any way the scale of the Israeli response is justified. Point being?

Oh, how nice of you. Given it was their land in the first place until Europe got a guilt trip over the Holocaust.

And I suppose capitalism is any different? Just because something isn't forced through the barrel of a gun doesn't mean it isn't forced nonetheless. I don't recall ever having any power over the lack of regulation in the banking system, and to add insult to injury, I'm gonna have to bail the banks out through tax. Some choice to live outside of capitalism there. You are using the downsides of government intervention as an argument AGAINST capitalism? No, my point was fairly clear. Whether or not you choose to address it is your choice though. As far as government intervention goes, the government should have stepped in far earlier than it did with Northern Rock, and ended the ludicrous practice of giving money to people who cannot realistically afford to repay it, just to get them on the 'property ladder'. Only, if any one dared try to suggest that in Parliament, people such as yourself would whine because it's an infringement of free market economics, and those oh poor shareholders would lose out. If it was a government owned bank, I wouldn't mind paying tax payers money to keep it running. The fact these banks are privately owned and I'm paying to keep them up is unacceptable to me.

And I suppose capitalism is any different? Just because something isn't forced through the barrel of a gun doesn't mean it isn't forced nonetheless. I don't recall ever having any power over the lack of regulation in the banking system, and to add insult to injury, I'm gonna have to bail the banks out through tax. Some choice to live outside of capitalism there.

Hamas were firing rockets into land which was previously Palestine's until Israel decided it was Israel's, and marched their armies into it. Since then, Israel has constantly pushed the issue, constantly seeking to portray all countries around it as hostile terrorist breeding hives that need cleaning with the US's aid. They're playing on the world's smallest violin. I'm not an anti-Semite. Israel's response to these attacks are completely disproportionate, counter productive, and have only one purpose in mind: making sure its current government gets reelected so it can continue its Zionist agenda.

And what exactly are the Israelis doing, if not actively spreading terror across the Gaza strip, much like it's never stopped doing for the last forty years?

warri0r, let's end this debate. We both agree communism is not a viable form of economics. Sorry, I wasn't aware ceasing to be an idealist was a needed condition to growing up. Jesus, it's what your whole country's ethos is based on. Did you honestly just use that logic? Doctors are in demand because unfortunately most people will suffer from disease. Doctors are low in numbers because there aren't enough university places to meet with supply; it remains true only 1 out of 10 applicants will receive a place in through UCAS. There are more than enough students in both of our countries who want to be doctors - the situation you described simply does not exist. You also failed to answer my point - how does simply being a doctor entitle you automatically to excessively high wages compared to the rest of society? Not what I said, nor what I support. But whatever. You mean, like, a nurse, who also needs a degree to work these days? How much do they start earning on average for not dropping out of high school, pulling their way through uni and working emotionally intense shifts? £19K, before tax: Nice strawman. What that little rant had to do with the people I was referring to (i.e., those who do not go to university [due to a lack of ability, funds or wanting to]) I have not the slightest clue. You (again) failed to address another key point I made; you need to get into university first, and private tuition gives an advantage in that respect. Nope, Libertarian socialism doesn't even work on paper.

Not I. If only you could know how gay my taste in music is. Oh wait, you can: [hide=]1)Kaiser Chiefs 2)The Killers 3)Lostprophets 4)Editors 5)Arctic Monkeys 6)Franz Ferdinand 7)Oasis 8)Green Day 9)The Ting Tings 10)Razorlight[/hide]

Words can't really describe how angry I was when I heard of this. It's genocide. Not on a Hitler-scale, but nonetheless, I cannot think of any other appropriate noun.

Yeah, give it a good go. Not only will it make you personally happier, it'll allow some breathing space between you and him, and that's really a must for any marriage. Plus it opens the door to potential clients for the business. ;) Also, invest more money into things to do at home. DVDs; music; whatever. I've survived six months doing practically nothing thanks to my iPod, rugby and gaming. Thing is... I'm out of money now. It had to end eventually. :( As far as chewing your arm off goes, I'm no accountant, but now's a bad time to set up a jewelry shop (if that's what you're planning on). There's rumours here one of the UK's well known jewelry chains is in trouble and may have to call in administrators thanks to the recession. Timing sucks.

[hide=I really ramble epically when I'm tired and I've had a day, don't I?] I remember you saying this about a year ago. That he wasn't putting in enough effort into the relationship and as a result you were getting pretty bored and felt unwanted. If you feel that way it's better to confront him about it, and see if he makes any effort to change, rather than letting those emotions fall by the wayside and hope the problem goes away. If he doesn't change, then yeah, that's really his own problem. I'm looking for a motive there as to why anyone would be that cautious about their finances. Credit crunch? Yeah, but thousands of Aussie dollars seems excessive when prices are so low in stores. Maybe he's just a cautious person by nature? Hmm.. but why would he restrict your money flow even if he is, especially when you're climbing walls in boredom because of it? You're right to be confused, it makes no sense to me either. The only thing I can think of is this, and I'm sorry for bringing it up here (I'm presuming it's OK since you've spoke about it here before): Is he being overly cautious because of your history of OCD? Does he feel as though giving you that money would be a ticket to the slippery slope of gambling again? Again, it's worth confronting him about it, if only to reestablish some sort of trust between the two of you when it comes to money. If not, do as you say. Get a job to relieve the boredom, store it in your own private account. I mean, don't take this the wrong way, but you can't sit at home for the next three years bringing up whats-his-name. You will wanna get your career back up and running, and if needs must and all he's doing is sitting around the house 6 days a week then better sooner than never. You need escapism, and you need money to do it. At the end of the day he's no right to prevent you from getting money really when the only reason you're incapable of earning some dough for yourself is the fact you're raising his child. I don't blame you. Way to tell a partner you don't trust 'em. If it's a joint account, you both should have access to it. If he wants a private account, he should go get himself one. It's totally unacceptable to set up a joint account, expect both partners to pay into it and then only have one person knowing the codes. Oh God, sort that out before anything lol! Tip.It and a fiancé is hardly an alternative to a social life, no matter what the General Board thinks. Jesus, cheap ones cost like... £20? I think that's about AUS$35. Doesn't matter. It's avoidance. It's like he doesn't want to confront the issue even though there's absolutely nothing wrong with the finances. There must be something deeper wrong with him when it comes to money. Nope. Him forcing control by dependence, even if he doesn't mean to create that situation purposefully, is not your fault. ;)[/hide]Simply put, I think there is something wrong with him. Clearly he either doesn't understand where you're coming from, or he does and doesn't care because something else is influencing his judgement. [*:2bz7hwf0]1) Being a member of a joint account and not having access to that account is quite patently ridiculous, even if you're not currently putting anything into the kitty. You're a mother bringing up a three month (I think) old baby. I dunno about social security in Australia but I'm presuming you also have some sort of child benefits payed into that account too, which makes it even more stupid that you can't get free access to it as the mother. You need that money for him and you. It's clear you're not with him to make off with his moolah, so there's no reason for you not having access to the account - before you even think of getting married, that needs sorting ASAP. [*:2bz7hwf0]2) From where I'm sitting, something's on his mind when it comes to you and money; or you and spending time away from the baby. If it's the former, then that's a trust issue which needs addressing, starting with him spitting it out what exactly his problem is. If it's the latter, then he seems to be living in Victorian times. I certainly wasn't watched 24/7 as a baby of two students in Liverpool, and it certainly wasn't my Mum doing all the work with me while my Dad went out. You ain't doing anything wrong. You've put your career on hold so you can raise your baby. If he takes issue to you having any form of escapism, even if it's to look after your own health, then that really is his problem, no one else's.

15 Man I'd do anything to go back to high school again. Without sounding arrogant, the work was too easy for me, so that was no problem. On the other hand, it was like having entertainment on tap during breaks and the like. Exploring emotions you've never experienced before, always having friends around you... great. :

Be happy with what you got , did you actually asked for something specific? [/hide] Yep. Here's how it went down. In September, I ask my parents if I can buy an Ipod Touch with my own money. They say no, and say that they'd give it to me for Christmas. Then in December, they say there isn't enough money to buy me one, so I figure, no big deal I'll buy one myself next year. All good, right? Wrong. They bought my sister one for Christmas, and she's a year younger than me. Like I said, life sucks. Oh Jesus, dying of cholera just doesn't compare. I got GH4, Animal Crossing: CF, the QI Book of General Ignorance, a scarf and some Lynx smelly... stuff. And a tenner from my uncle. Given he almost died this year, that was quite nice to receive.

Ginger Warrior will take a lesser part of my life, so I'll be restricting the amount of time I spend on here. Don't all cheer at once, now. Liam will work on being less anti-social and less socially anxious. I might keep a diary too. I'm just nervous about my brother finding it (like the bastard did last time).

You missed the point where I said I don't support communism. Reread my last post about responsibility. Besides, I want to be a doctor. Whether I'm payed £18K or £80K, I really couldn't care less. That's not why I want to be one.

I've not had a mother for 9 years. I went on holiday with my family and another couple with an 18 month old baby. I fed her, give her her bottle and took care of her no problem. It's instinctive, trust me.

How many of you like metal now, used to listen to pop music as kids? Be honest now. Hannah Montana does actually have some talent (i.e. she can sing and write songs). The Jonas Brothers? Oh God. If they had zits instead of (fake) tans nobody would care. They're talentless with good looks.

Almost as funny as the pointless nature of half your posts. To get their job, maybe. That's why the state effectively pays the bills for those students while they're in training. Actually performing the job itself though? I'll confess, being a doctor, or a lawyer, or any other professional job can be incredibly stressful, but does that really justify those people earning up to $150,000+ a year more than the bagger we've been talking about? That bagger still has to undergo training, and can be fired just as easily as anyone else. He still has to follow instructions, and do laborious menial work day-in, day-out. He still has to get up at 7 in the morning to start work at 9, and work 42 hours a week full time. I really cannot see much difference in the actual effort required between the two jobs there. Hence we come to a very sinister conclusion - the only reason they earn that much is because of how reliant we are on them, and thus how much power they hold over us. A problem which recurs everytime contracts are renewed in the NHS. A "little bit"? $150Ks worth of fun? That's some damn expansive whiskey. You also avoid one major flaw in the system of self-perpetuating worth in individuals through universities. Only those with refined ability can access universities, or else the whole system becomes a joke and university becomes nothing more than an extension to basic eduction. Under your system, the rich continue to go to the best universities since they can afford the best tuition, the poor go to worse universities and thus, the gap between rich and poor becomes wider because social mobility stops. There's nothing wrong with rewarding more difficult jobs with higher wages, since they require more responsibility (and that's what wages should be in correlation with), but at least accept that the rich by their very nature already have an advantage in the education system, so giving them yet more advantage with excessively high wages later on in life is unfair.

I thought of one while I was in bed going to sleep (yep, I'm one messed up 18 year old male :P) Nye Bevan. The millions of people in this country that would have gone without basic healthcare if he hadn't got the NHS to work with the support of doctors. Also, his role as Minister of Labour during the War. It remains the case that only one major strike occurred in Britain in the whole War despite the poor working and living conditions of the time. Trade Unionist before his political career with the Labour Party. Great man.

I don't understand. Why should the amount of time one has spent at university have any bearing whatsoever on the amount of money you earn later on in life? As far as I'm aware, people receive wages so they can afford to live. No amount of time spent at university changes the basic social security needs of that person in any way, thus, why it should even be brought up in this debate is beyond me. Secondly, universities are not vocational training centres. Students go to university to expand their area of specialty, and to learn how to study other specialties for themselves. Not so they can land themselves on £30K+ jobs later. If we're using the analogy of a doctor, I'd go as far to argue only going to university to study Medicine in order to earn more than a 'lowly' bagger later on in life is exactly the sort of attitude a doctor should not have, given they'll be forced to treat that bagger in exactly the same way they'd treat a noble in their occupation. If a doctor is only motivated by money, and this is his/her only incentive for putting themselves through ten years of training, and they also look down on others for 'not working as hard as them', they'd make a [bleep] poor doctor anyway. In essence, what this debate between me and you boils down to this: Should people choose your Utopian society where only the few who go to university earn the majority amount of wealth; or my Utopian society where everyone, in theory at least, receives their fair share from society, regardless of how much time they've spent pruning themselves in the ivory towers of university?

This is the error in your reasoning. They don't. The error in your reasoning is misunderstanding the word 'necessity'. Much like how most people will claim having a car is a necessity these days.

Yes. How is that fair? The amount of effort a doctor provides and the need for doctors is incomparable to the need for baggers. Face it, most people won't go through the trouble of going through years of extra learning when they could learn to put things in a bag in 15 minutes. They won't bother. I dislike analogies like this. It's the same flawed logic that accompanies the justification of the bail outs to prevent CEOs from losing out. It places the shop worker as being in a lower level on the social hierarchy as a doctor, and hence, wrongly assumes the doctor deserves a higher wage. The whole point of leftist thinking is this: The doctor is no more necessary to the maintenance of society than the person working at the till in Asda. I agree with that statement, and for three reasons: 1) The bagger is still a human, and thus, has the same basic social security needs as a doctor. Five years at uni does not change this; 2) If the bagger does not earn a decent wage, or does not have access to universal healthcare, the doctor has nobody to treat since the bagger cannot afford the luxury (and yes, it is a luxury) of personal health insurance. 3) How many people can perform a task is wholly irrelevant in an economy which deplores the "supply vs demand" mechanism. Anyone who uses that argument is an idiot - they're analysing Communism by looking at its functioning in a Capitalist economy. At the end of the day, someone still needs to work a till in Asda, or Asda can't sell anything. No one needs a doctor. While I don't support Communism, its underlying reasoning is completely justified to me. Wage should not be relative to how much time one has spent at university.

Hmm... interesting. When I read the title of this thread I expected an instant answer, but nothing came. If there's one lesson I learned from studying History in my A Levels, it's that you can't ever see things through the prism of "great people". You can talk about WWII, and describe it as a battle between Hitler vs Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt, but you'd miss the reality so much it's ridiculous. I've never really thought about individuals like that. I'm gonna have to give a wimpy answer. Anyone who puts the cause of humanity before their own selfish material needs deserves recognition. Ironically, such people seldom receive any, probably because they're not jumping up and down shouting about what they've done.

Exactly. How about banning advertising completely? A subforum seems quite unnecessary. Yeah, It's always the same people posting multiple times in page with the same thing. 80% of the people that post there have their accounts only for that sticky. Right, that follows common sense. You're going to stop accounts made with the sole intention of advertising, stop advertising by banning advertising altogether. Like they read the bloody rules anyway. :roll: