-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Marriage discussion
- Thread starter meridian2
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
EM2
Established Member
But you can't know what the outcome will be when you demonstrate...
Politicians and the political class are very sensitive to their image and losing face through a public climbdown. As such it is rare or unknown for them to admit that policy changes have been directly related to popular protests. However, they know that they derive their authority from quadrennial/quinquennial popularity contests and will often coincidentally 'pause and reflect' on proposed policy shortly after large public demonstrations.
They're also anxious not to show any sign of political weakness and giving in to public pressure. Stop the War protests may have hardened the government's stance by the size and diversity of them.
Nope. BushBlair had decided that war was going to happen, no matter what.
EM2
Established Member
So how should people try and make contributions to society, especially to change those aspects of it that they disagree with?
So the people only have a voice once every five years. Lovely.
NSEFAN
Established Member
Do you seriously expect every disgruntled person to stand for office? It's also not generally possible to vote on particular issues, there's other things to consider like leadership skills. We could all write angry letters to our MPs, but a protest tends to be more direct and get the message across faster, as well as generating publicity over the issue.
We look back on history and see social progress is often made with protests, not polite letters. "May I have better wages, if it's not too much trouble?"
EM2
Established Member
Right. And that would change all the ills of society, many of which you have laid at the doors of non-traditional marriage and single-parent families?
What trends are you talking about?
That's odd, as I know some extremely polite, well behaved, thoughtful, tolerant, enthusiastic youngsters whose parents have broken up. What conclusions should I draw from that?
Trends in family structure, divorce, individualism, recognition for different sexualities, feminism and so on.
Last edited:
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
That the plural of anecdote is not data.
Indeed. You just beat me to making the same point (although I don't think I'd have been as eloquent. I wouldn't have thought there would be any dispute that when marriages break up, the effect on children usually tends to be negative. For something that comes closer to evidence:
AboveLink said:
Of course, that all suggests that there would be long term benefits of making it easier for couples with children to resolve their differences rather than breaking up. It says nothing about the desirability or otherwise of allowing gay marriage.
Last edited:
They were probably middle class and suffered little or no financial disadvantage from the withdrawal of an income. If they were working class perhaps the rest of the family chipped in. If neither, perhaps they were heroic. My concern is for the rest.
Nor should it, they're completely different issues that have been shoehorned into random thread.
EM2
Established Member
Didn't you say this?
and also that people should try and change society by voting out the Government or standing for office?
If one of the key problems to the breakdown of society is the breakup of two parent families, and to change society people should vote out the Government or stand for office, how will that 'method' of changing society stop the breakup of two parent families and thus stop society breaking down?
EM2
Established Member
That's more like what I would expect someone to provide as evidence for their argument.
Interesting to note that crime is not mentioned in the precis provided.
EDIT - in fact, I've just done a text search of the whole document for the words 'criminal' and 'crime' and there are no results.
Last edited:
What a bizarre conflation of two completely different discussions. Why don't you go the whole hog and cut the n't out of hadn't, or simply rearrange my sentences to say something that suits you?
I've covered the breakdown point at length, objective readers can see exactly what I said without surplus inferences, erroneous corollaries, political spin and straw men.
No I didn't say "people should try and change society by voting out the Government or standing for office". The question was about the value of public protests versus the ballot box. Is putting words in other people's mouths your normal method of debate? Shoddy stuff if so, please try and raise your standards above such nonsense.
EM2
Established Member
EM2
Established Member
I don't need to. It is what you wrote. How is linking two theories you've stated about society 'a bizarre conflation'?
EM2
Established Member
No concoction.
You state that a cause of society breakdown is A.
You state that a remedy to help change society is B.
I simply asked how B will eliminate A.
I'll treat you to a close textual reading, if you try such monkey business again prepare to be ignored. I assume you have form for this kind of thing.
"If one of the key problems to the breakdown of society is the breakup of two parent families, and to change society people should vote out the Government or stand for office, how will that 'method' of changing society stop the breakup of two parent families and thus stop society breaking down?" Your words!
"If one of the key problems to the breakdown of society is the breakup of two parent families"
It is, and I've emphasised the "one" aspect at length. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, though so far you've dealt in the language of laboratory science to address social science.
and to change society people should vote out the Government or stand for office
Completely different discussion. Out of the blue for reasons one can only guess at, you introduced public protests deux ex machina. You said do protests work, I asked you to provide evidence because I don't know, and suspect they do not - overtly at least.
how will that 'method' of changing society stop the breakup of two parent families and thus stop society breaking down?"
I mean, like, what? The context of each part of the sentence is so de-contextualised that it contains no discernible logic. This stuff may play well in whatever sixth form debating society you trained it, but even for the internet it's completely nonsensical. It's legalism on drugs and has kicked an interesting discussion into the long grass. I get the feeling you have limitless energy to donate to such convolutions, but I can assure you it subscribes to no rhetorical endeavour outside a Stasi basement.
"If one of the key problems to the breakdown of society is the breakup of two parent families, and to change society people should vote out the Government or stand for office, how will that 'method' of changing society stop the breakup of two parent families and thus stop society breaking down?" Your words!
"If one of the key problems to the breakdown of society is the breakup of two parent families"
It is, and I've emphasised the "one" aspect at length. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, though so far you've dealt in the language of laboratory science to address social science.
and to change society people should vote out the Government or stand for office
Completely different discussion. Out of the blue for reasons one can only guess at, you introduced public protests deux ex machina. You said do protests work, I asked you to provide evidence because I don't know, and suspect they do not - overtly at least.
how will that 'method' of changing society stop the breakup of two parent families and thus stop society breaking down?"
I mean, like, what? The context of each part of the sentence is so de-contextualised that it contains no discernible logic. This stuff may play well in whatever sixth form debating society you trained it, but even for the internet it's completely nonsensical. It's legalism on drugs and has kicked an interesting discussion into the long grass. I get the feeling you have limitless energy to donate to such convolutions, but I can assure you it subscribes to no rhetorical endeavour outside a Stasi basement.
Last edited by a moderator:
EM2
Established Member
So in other words, what you say in every discussion has to be kept completely separate, even though they are all discussing the same thing. Gotcha.
Of course they're different. If in the middle of a debate on cricket you ask if I mind the rain, and I say no it can be very refreshing, and you say, "so you hate cricket?" on the basis cricket isn't played in rain, I could reasonably conclude you were playing a practical joke or weren't playing with a full deck!
If you divert a discussion on marriage into one on the value of public protests, then sew the responses together as though their consequences are concurrent, you're indulging in fallacious logic.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status