Cambridge professor just went full retard ...

by LoveUniHateExams 41 Replies latest social current

• 

  cofty

  I missed the Cofty episode where Dawkins transformed from a wise oracle to being tragically out of touch. What gives? Have Peterson, Harris, Dennett and others suffered a similar fate? - SBF

  It was nice when you were away. Nobody wilfully misrepresenting my views and point-scoring. (actually that's not entirely true but he is history)

  Never in my entire life have I thought of Dawkins as a wise oracle about anything other than evolutionary biology. His ravings about atheism are lightweight. Just for the record Peterson is a vacuous poseur.

  There are no teams SBF. Just because I agree with somebody on one point doesn't mean I admire their opinions on other matters.

  It doesn't surprise me you support giving votes to children.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  There are no teams SBF -

  That is actually an excellent point.

  We humans do unfortunately have tribal tendencies but there are no teams.

  We are individuals.

  I might agree with Sam Harris on one thing and disagree with him on another. I might disagree with Jordan Peterson on one thing and agree on another. I might agree with Jeremy Corbyn on one thing (trying hard to rack my brain ) and disagree on another.
  
  
• 

  Earnest

  I wonder if those who describe Professor Runciman as a retard have bothered to read the article on which the newspaper reports are based.

  He is writing about the threat to representative democracy because many no longer feel they are represented. This includes the poor, the uneducated and the young. He writes about all three, but he is most concerned about the young :
  

  So somehow we live in a world where even though if you're in your 20s politics means that you are losing on all the important practical questions, you’re also meant to be the people who look after the planet, worry about the environment, think about what the world will be like in 50 years time because you're the ones who are going to live in it, and the old people will be dead by then. So it's your job as the person or group of people who are going to live in the future to care about the future whereas the people who aren't going to live into the future can just care about the present. So that would make sense if there were more young people than old people, but if there are more old people than young people, you can't just automatically empower a group of people that you also say don't have an obligation to the future because they're not going to live in it. So something's gone profoundly wrong.

  So what was the reason for Professor Runciman's suggestion?

  It seems like a frivolous suggestion. It is partly frivolous because it's never going to happen in a million years. But as a way of capturing just how structurally unbalanced our democracies have become, seriously, why not?
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  somehow we live in a world where even though if you're in your 20s politics means that you are losing on all the important practical questions - people in their 20s have broadly similar views to older left-wingers, generally speaking.

  For years, the Left has been winning - not only on uni campuses but also in politics - but recently they've started losing (election of Trump; Brexit).

  It's called democracy.
  

  Suck it up.
  

  think about what the world will be like in 50 years time because you're the ones who are going to live in it, and the old people will be dead by then - this is pure hared for the elderly. There's a word for it - gerontophobia.

  Shame on this professor. I stick by my earlier comments - he's a total retard.
  

  Elderly people have paid taxes all their lives, they deserve to vote. Six year olds, never having paid any taxes at all, do not deserve to vote.
  

  It seems like a frivolous suggestion. It is partly frivolous ... But ... seriously, why not? - he said his position seems frivolous but then goes on to say it's serious. So Runciman is actually being serious.

  BTW, having a larger population of elderly people is fine - it's a sign of how good Western medicine is and should be championed.

  It's only a problem to retard Runciman and his comrades because elderly people are voting differently to him, generally speaking.
  
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  So what was the reason for Professor Runciman's suggestion?

  It seems like a frivolous suggestion. It is partly frivolous because it's never going to happen in a million years. But as a way of capturing just how structurally unbalanced our democracies have become, seriously, why not?

  This doesn’t make any sense.

  As a way of capturing just how structurally unbalanced our alcohol consumption has become, why not allow 5 year old children to buy and consume? I mean, it wouldn’t happen in a million years, of course. But just as a way of illustrating that we have a completely underrepresented population when it comes to alcohol consumption, why not?

  We don’t need that illustrated in any way. We don’t need to “capiture” that fact in any way. We know it’s the case, and that is the way it should be ( in both voting any alcohol consumption parody ). They are kids. They don’t vote... they don’t drink.

  Just come clean - we can see through the bull shirt. The younger the person, the less able that person is to make responsible decisions for the future - which is why kids don’t vote. It also happens to be the reason the left wants them to vote.

  This is another permutation of the same crap that followed the Hillary loss: “But But But if we just had a popular vote, she would have won. That’s what we should do!” Except this is: “But But But ... kids are misrepresented and if we give the vote to kids, THEN we get the result we want. That’s what we should do.”
• 

  Earnest

  When Professor Runciman states the obvious, namely that in fifty years time old people will be dead by then and so care more about the present, LUHE describes that as pure hate for the elderly.

  It is not hate, it is stating the obvious. And the repercussions can be seen (in the UK) by the protection of annual increases to pensions for those living in the present while at the same time allowing increases to university fees for those living in the future. Do you think for a moment that would happen if the majority of the electorate were young.

  LUHE : Elderly people have paid taxes all their lives, they deserve to vote. Six year olds, never having paid any taxes at all, do not deserve to vote.

  The right to vote is not determined by whether you pay tax. It is determined by age. Even those who have never paid tax are entitled to vote (in the UK).

  LUHE also completely fails to address the reason for Professor Runciman's proposal which was "as a way of capturing just how structurally unbalanced our democracies have become". Instead he says in his rather vulgar way : "It's called democracy. Suck it up". If he bothered to read the article which he criticises he might comprehend that democracy was based on the premise that there would always be more young (< 40) than old. Due to improvements in medicine and other causes this premise is no longer true. So Professor Runciman is encouraging us to rethink "democracy".

  Professor Runciman : you can't just automatically empower a group of people that you also say don't have an obligation to the future because they're not going to live in it. So something's gone profoundly wrong.
• 

  Earnest

  MeanMrMustard : Just come clean - we can see through the bull shirt (sic).

  What Professor Runciman has done with some success is that he has got people to talk about the subject. I doubt that if he had simply said our democracies have become structurally unbalanced there would be any discussion of it on this board or elsewhere. Hyperbole was often used in the Bible to get people to think.
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  LUHE describes that as pure hate for the elderly - yeah perhaps hate is the wrong word ... disdain for the elderly.

  Runciman is showing clear disdain for the elderly - there, fixed it.

  The right to vote is not determined by whether you pay tax. It is determined by age. Even those who have never paid tax are entitled to vote - yes or no, are six year olds entitled to vote?

  he might comprehend that democracy was based on the premise that there would always be more young (< 40) than old

  1. But people under 40 are allowed to vote.

  2. I don't think that was the premise of democracy. The point of democracy is people are allowed a say in how their country is run, as long as they're responsible and sound of mind. (Six year olds are appropriately excluded.)
  
  
• 

  sparky1

  Reading the article makes me wonder if the good professor has children of his own or has spent any amount of time with children. His idea is absolute rubbish and highly impractical. For those who claim that his statement is just hyperbole, let me quote him from the article: "I would lower the voting age to six, not 16. And I'm serious about that." (bolding mine)
  
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  What Professor Runciman has done with some success is that he has got people to talk about the subject. I doubt that if he had simply said our democracies have become structurally unbalanced there would be any discussion of it on this board or elsewhere. Hyperbole was often used in the Bible to get people to think.

  @Earnest, he is not using hyperbole. It’s not like he is exaggerating the claim that youth are underrepresented (as in, “The youth are not represented at all in this country”). This is a policy suggestion - a proposed course of action. He says it is to draw attention to a problem. It is not. He wants to shift the voter base to younger, less responsible, more pro-government voters. He wants to get the political result he believes in. And if the stupid, dumb old people can’t get with it and vote for what is clearly the best policy, then maybe we aught to get the six year olds to do it.

  And really, what useful discussion has this spurred? The only discussion this seems to have started is on the topic of his apparent mental retardation.