|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
8th August 2019, 03:46 AM | #1 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
|
New survey reveals (young) brits are idiots
UK survey of 5000 people reveals:
“People of every age group, ethnicity and social backgrounds say they would “rather live in a society that focuses on giving people more security” than one that “focuses on giving people more freedom”. In total, 65% of respondents favoured security, compared to 35% who chose society based on freedom. “ “61% of people believe that “on the whole, jobs and wages have been made worse by technological change”.” “Younger voters are most authoritarian. Among 25-34 year olds, 36% support army rule; 66% favour strongman leaders; and 26% believe democracy is a bad way to run the country. “ “Older voters are considerably more democratic. Among over-75 year olds, just 3% of over-75s believe democracy is bad. Among 65-74 year olds, fewer than half (48%) support strongman leaders and just one in ten (10%) people support army rule. “ https://www.ukonward.com/thepoliticsofbelonging/ |
8th August 2019, 03:55 AM | #2 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
|
We don't have the question but this was probably interpreted as "more security than we have today and keep the freedoms intact" vs "more freedom than we have today and keep the security intact" more often than not. Heck if it was phrased like that I might choose more security. I currently can't think of another freedom I'd like to have, but I'm not perfectly happy with my security situation, although I have no reason to complain there either. If it was an either/or between those two I'd have a choice that brings me nothing vs one that brings me something I don't particularily want or need, but still has a value greater than zero. I'm not willing to sacrifice much in the way of freedom in exchange for security, but if the choice is more of one of those at no cost to the other, I'd currently pick security.
Quote:
Quote:
In short it shows about 24% and up to 35% of youngsters are indeed morons. That's quite close to what the IQ curve predicts, probably because many of them think army rule is "cool". Morons. One thing they didn't quote is that 84% of youngsters and 76% of old people think it's a good idea to have experts, not government, call the shots. That one sounds great until you ask the question "who decides who's an expert?". Most people probably don't realize that issue with technocracy. https://www.ukonward.com/wp-content/...g-Deck-v.4.pdf McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
8th August 2019, 05:15 AM | #3 |
should be banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 19,364
|
Seems to me the views are considered and arguable.
In dismissing the views as idiotic it leads me to believe that your position is the one which lacks intellectual application. |
8th August 2019, 05:43 AM | #4 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
|
|
8th August 2019, 07:13 AM | #5 |
should be banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 19,364
|
The majority don't think army rule is a good idea, Army rule was the least popular of the 4 hypothetical non specific options.
The majority believe in democracy despite the fact we in the UK, and the US for that matter, do not have what many would consider a democracy. In the US you have a constitutional republic, similarly in the UK a minority of voters can produce a parliamentary majority. I say in context of the questions not an unreasonable response. |
8th August 2019, 12:59 PM | #6 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
|
Well, Brixit shows what happens when you have "direct, pure democracy".
Direct Democracies have a nasty habit of self destructing. And yeah, someone willing to give up liberty for security (which probably would not be that secure anyway) is if not an idiot,incredibly ignorant. |
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. |
|
8th August 2019, 01:33 PM | #7 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,856
|
The 'technology' one may be more a result of the fact we now have one of the largest gaps between rich and poor in our democratic history. People may just be drawing a correlation between that and technological advance. After all, I remember the predictions when I was a kid that such advances would mean much shorter working hours and higher standard of living when actually we're all working longer hours for proportionally lower wages whilst the bosses cream off bigger profits and buy another yacht - that's if automation has left us a job. Damn, I sound like a communist and I'm very far from being that.
|
8th August 2019, 11:33 PM | #8 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
|
It was similar to that during each of the revolutions - industrial, agricultural and everything in between. Those that could reap the benefits of new technology greatly prospered, the ones who didn't stagnated or ended up worse off. Our era is unprecendented in that we're living in the fourth revolution (the information revolution) in just two hundred years. It just so happens the previous revolution (scientific-technical) produced results that were much more suitable to advance egalitarian societies than they were get rich quick schemes and the society got used to that.
According to the largest comprahensive study so far there were ten technological revolutions in the past 4000 years - five in the first 3500 of that era and five since, four of which took place in the last 200 years. It's no wonder society is finding it ever harder to adapt. The numbers may be disputed, but the message is true: technology is advancing far more rapidly than ever and the fortunes change at a pace unparalleled in history. Vast changes like these benefit some but harm others. People who percieve they got harmed long for the "good old days" (which often weren't) and give answers such as those. McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
9th August 2019, 12:52 AM | #9 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5,229
|
|
9th August 2019, 03:17 AM | #10 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 8,324
|
Anyone not willing to trade liberty for security is a nutbag. Laws against murder are trading liberty for security.
|
11th August 2019, 12:02 AM | #11 |
Girl
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 19,046
|
This liberty for security thing is a false compromise anyway. One is not trading liberty in for security, one is simply restoring the liberty to it's rightful owners, who are a minority of rich and powerful white blokes.
Getting everyone else to agree to that (rather than just the rich powerful white blokes) is usually optional but great distribution if you can swing it. |
12th August 2019, 01:47 AM | #12 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
12th August 2019, 04:11 AM | #13 |
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 46,328
|
|
__________________
We do these things not because they are easy, but because we thought they were going to be easy. Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. “Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos |
|
15th August 2019, 04:36 AM | #14 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
That's a grossly oversimplified battlecry.
I gladly give up my liberty to drive where I want for the security of knowing we're all following the same rules on the road. It means I, and others, are less likely to die. Do you think I'm foolish to give up this liberty? That we should all drive where we like and hang the consequences? |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
15th August 2019, 04:44 AM | #15 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
|
What’s the Latin for “argument by taking things to the extreme”? Reductio absurdam?
It’s like someone saying “going to the doctor more frequently will help you live longer” and 3point14 countering with “but if you go to the doctor ALL THE TIME then you won’t have time for anything else and will starve, Nyah Nyah!” |
15th August 2019, 04:47 AM | #16 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
15th August 2019, 04:49 AM | #17 |
Pi
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 21,797
|
Did you read the post I was responding to? I responded with exactly the same level of subtlety as the mental battlecry that prompted my response.
When something is so absolute (as the post was) then of course the rebuttal is a little ridiculous.
Quote:
Yes. Exactly. There's no subtlety, no appreciation for the real world. Exactly like the false 'liberty or security' dichotomy I was responding to. The world is subtle, bull **** battlecries are useless. It seems you've entirely grasped my point by accident. My work here is done. |
__________________
Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted] |
|
15th August 2019, 04:55 AM | #18 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
|
|
15th August 2019, 05:01 AM | #19 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
|
|
15th August 2019, 05:17 AM | #20 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
Perhaps he shouldn't have said it in so one-sided a form. After all, Franklin's original quote is, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Note the qualifiers; Franklin was clearly not saying that liberty outweighs security in all cases, but pointing out the imbalance between rewards and losses in one very specific case. Yet it's very commonly misquoted, by omitting the qualifiers, to try to imply exactly the former. In real life, everyone strikes a balance between acceptable levels of liberty and of security, and it's those who elevate the former to a higher category than the latter who are truly idiotic - and, in effect, committing the very error Franklin was warning against, just in the opposite direction.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
15th August 2019, 05:34 AM | #23 |
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 46,328
|
|
__________________
We do these things not because they are easy, but because we thought they were going to be easy. Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. “Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos |
|
15th August 2019, 05:39 AM | #24 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
|
|
15th August 2019, 05:46 AM | #25 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
15th August 2019, 06:29 AM | #27 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
|
|
16th August 2019, 01:07 AM | #28 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5,229
|
|
16th August 2019, 04:04 AM | #29 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
|
|
16th August 2019, 07:22 PM | #30 |
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 46,328
|
|
__________________
We do these things not because they are easy, but because we thought they were going to be easy. Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. “Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos |
|
17th August 2019, 02:07 AM | #31 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
And some countries have a hell of a lot of history to cover.
|
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
19th August 2019, 01:18 AM | #33 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5,229
|
|
22nd August 2019, 01:07 PM | #34 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,415
|
|
28th August 2019, 03:57 AM | #35 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 3,937
|
Is that really true? Maybe the gap from the richest individual to the poorest individual has widened but I think, in terms of the things we can afford, most of us are richer than our ancestors of even thirty years ago.
Quote:
Quote:
There was a time in Britain where the bosses could afford quite large private armies and the workers had to grind for all the hours that Dog sends in order not to starve to death. There is a tendency to compare ourselves to our contemporaries and get resentful that they are doing better than we are, when we should be comparing ourselves to our peers from the days of yore to see what progress has been made. We resent the boss for having an Aston Martin and ignore the fact that the ordinary family runabout we own is vastly more capable and luxurious than any car built in the 1970's. |
29th August 2019, 07:29 AM | #37 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
|
Regarding the working time directive (WTD), it isn't as effective as you make out. Many people are exempt (small business owners and the like) and there are many employers who insist that employees opt out of the WTD.
It also only relates to each individual employment. I could be holding down three jobs, a 9-5 weekday job, an evening job 2 or three hours a day and a weekend job. In no one job am I working more than 40 hours a week, much less 48, but in total I'm working 70+ hours. If my spouse is doing something similar then, as a couple we could be working well over 100 hours a week whereas back in the 1970s it could have been a single 50 hour a week income. I do agree that overall we have a higher standard of living in the UK than we did, say, 40 of 50 years ago but that's more down to the fact that prices for most things, food, consumer goods, clothes and so on have dropped considerably in real terms. OTOH the one major area of expenditure where this has not happened - housing and that's an area where standard of living has not improved for many. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|