Russell Brand vs. Paxman!

[Something completely different]

So much better than having to read all that mindless diatribe you usually write, even if it is less varied.

[downbeatplumb]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/robin-lu..._hp_ref=uk

Apathy is cowardice. It's a way of saying "I take no responsibility for what happens in my country." I can understand people being reluctant to vote because they feel a sense of disgust, but the rational reaction to that is not apathy, but to find candidates -- or become a candidate -- in whom one is more prepared to have faith.

[Napoléon]

Lol that article is the most biased crap I've taken the time to read.

He opens with "I think perhaps the best way to describe the actor, comedian and writer Russell Brand is as "a Halloween-haired, Sachsgate-enacting, estuary-whining, glitter-lacquered, priapic berk... a tree-hugging, Hindu-tattooed, veggie meditator.""

Really?

[downbeatplumb]

Lol that article is the most biased crap I've taken the time to read.

He opens with "I think perhaps the best way to describe the actor, comedian and writer Russell Brand is as "a Halloween-haired, Sachsgate-enacting, estuary-whining, glitter-lacquered, priapic berk... a tree-hugging, Hindu-tattooed, veggie meditator.""

Really?

To be fair, that was how Brand described himself.

[Napoléon]

To be fair, that was how Brand described himself.

Still attacking the character of the man making the points rather than the points he makes.

IMO I know voting does make a difference in some circumstances. But that's besides the point of why I refuse to vote. And it's precisely what I think your article seems to miss. Again, it's accusing someone like me of apathy out of not voting. Going so far as to call me a coward. Absolute bullshit.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

No it would not be a statement, it would be being to lazy to get up and move your ass to the ballot box.

Maybe you should read that again. I didn't say not voting was a statement. I said that drawing a swastika or smearing shite on your ballot would be puerile.

It is nothing but an arrogant snobish snorting of "I am better than the rest of society". Whilest in fact you are simply leting others make your decision for you.

I so glad you explained that to me. And here I was, thinking that it was because I didn't want to vote for someone that I didn't want to be elected. Thank you for enlightening me. Next election, I'll be sure to march down to the polling station, draw fascist symbols all over my ballot, vote for which ever random tosspot strikes my fancy and then take a shit on it. Safe in the knowledge that I'm doing the mature, intellectual option prescribed by you.

Oh yes, you goverment is flawed, which does not mean that every single fucking goverment on this globe is flawed.

I'll happily admit that I'm not aware of every single political system. Do you have an example of a flawless system of government?

Flawlessness is a concept for fascist, marxists, the religious and other utopians. I reject the concept of flawlessnes in politics and made that clear in my previous reply here. Do I really need to repeat myself!?

Congratulations. You've managed to start an argument with yourself. Either that or you created the single worst strawman argument I've encountered. Either way, it's awe inspiring. You sir, are a shining beacon of hope to us all. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Didn`t I just explain to you that expert opinion can vary on an issue and that therefor there is never one single true way of solving a problem?

[sarcasm]You mean different people can have different opinions? Tell us more, oh great guru!
[/sarcasm]

Strangely, I am actually familiar with this concept. Do you not think that maybe an expert would have a greater understanding of the complexities involved in a particular issue than a layman? At no point have I suggested that political issues simplified to a single, infallible resolution. It precisely because such complexities exist that I think those decisions should be made by those best qualified to do so.

Would it? I don't see why.

It would, since it eliminates the process of debate and relies entirely on the single opinion of one expert.

What on earth makes you think that a system in which goverment positions are allocated on a meritocratic basis would necessitate such a ridiculously simple implementation?

Which means precisely fuck all.

No. It means everything!

Why? They have limited political influence and almost no actual political power

[Kayenneh]

In Sweden there is such a possibility and I have used it on at least two elections, where I felt neither party was deserving of my vote. This is a better alternative than to not vote at all I think.

Yeah, we have the same possibility here in Finland.

[Something completely different]

Maybe you should read that again. I didn't say not voting was a statement. said that drawing a swastika or smearing shite on your ballot would be puerile.

I

Even a child would have noticed that the swastiker and shit example was an exaduration of the possibilities one has concerning what to write on a ballot.

I so glad you explained that to me. And here I was, thinking that it was because I didn't want to vote for someone that I didn't want to be elected. Thank you for enlightening me. Next election, I'll be sure to march down to the polling station, draw fascist symbols all over my ballot, vote for which ever random tosspot strikes my fancy and then take a shit on it. Safe in the knowledge that I'm doing the mature, intellectual option prescribed by you.

You are such a talented master of sarcasm.

Congratulations. You've managed to start an argument with yourself. Either that or you created the single worst strawman argument I've encountered. Either way, it's awe inspiring. You sir, are a shining beacon of hope to us all. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

What strawman? You keep posting about flawlessnes in politics as if it were what you wanted to achieve or if it wwas in fact a possible alternative.

So grab your supposed strawman and shove it back up your ass.

[sarcasm]You mean different people can have different opinions? Tell us more, oh great guru!
[/sarcasm]

Strangely, I am actually familiar with this concept. Do you not think that maybe an expert would have a greater understanding of the complexities involved in a particular issue than a layman? At no point have I suggested that political issues simplified to a single, infallible resolution. It precisely because such complexities exist that I think those decisions should be made by those best qualified to do so.

And what are those qualifications?

What on earth makes you think that a system in which goverment positions are allocated on a meritocratic basis would necessitate such a ridiculously simple implementation?

Because your system requires ignorance towards the opinions of the non experts thereby infringing their rights.

Why? They have limited political influence and almost no actual political power

They have all the influence. They draw the borders between right and wrong and between what is possible and not.

Maybe not in yourcountry, but certainly in ever yother civilised place.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Even a child would have noticed that the swastiker and shit example was an exaduration of the possibilities one has concerning what to write on a ballot.

I did manage to pick up on that, yes. Once again, you said that in a response to claim I didn't make.

Congratulations. You've managed to start an argument with yourself. Either that or you created the single worst strawman argument I've encountered. Either way, it's awe inspiring. You sir, are a shining beacon of hope to us all. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

What strawman? You keep posting about flawlessnes in politics as if it were what you wanted to achieve or if it wwas in fact a possible alternative.

No, I did not. Not once. What I did do, however, was ask you for an example of a flawless government in response to this comment:

Oh yes, you goverment is flawed, which does not mean that every single fucking goverment on this globe is flawed.

(emphasis added)

Once again, you are arguing against a claim I did not make. The straw man is yours. Unless of course, you really are arguing against yourself?

Strangely, I am actually familiar with this concept. Do you not think that maybe an expert would have a greater understanding of the complexities involved in a particular issue than a layman? At no point have I suggested that political issues simplified to a single, infallible resolution. It precisely because such complexities exist that I think those decisions should be made by those best qualified to do so.

And what are those qualifications?

How about being among the best in the respective field, rather than being the winner of an over-blown popularity contest?

What on earth makes you think that a system in which goverment positions are allocated on a meritocratic basis would necessitate such a ridiculously simple implementation?

Because your system requires ignorance towards the opinions of the non experts thereby infringing their rights.

Ahem

Fuck what the people want.

But seriously, this would in no way need be the case. There are different types of democracy, after all.

They have all the influence. They draw the borders between right and wrong and between what is possible and not.

Maybe not in yourcountry, but certainly in ever yother civilised place.

Are you serious? I think you might be exaggerating things somewhat.

[Something completely different]

I did manage to pick up on that, yes.

No, I did not. Not once. What I did do, however, was ask you for an example of a flawless government in response to this comment:

Oh yes, you goverment is flawed, which does not mean that every single fucking goverment on this globe is flawed.

(emphasis added)

Once again, you are arguing against a claim I did not make. The straw man is yours. Unless of course, you really are arguing against yourself?

Are you serious? Only because I call one goverment flawed this does not mean that I know of a governement with no flaws?

Who exactly is dancing arround with a fucking strawman here?

How about being among the best in the respective field, rather than being the winner of an over-blown popularity contest?

And what qualifies one for ebing the best in an erea like finance and economics?

Fuck what the people want.

But seriously, this would in no way need be the case. There are different types of democracy, after all.

Dont misinterpret what I write!!!!!!!!!!

A governemt need elites, but those elites must be elected! If you didnt get that message out of my original post than annoy someone else!

Are you serious? I think you might be exaggerating things somewhat.

No I am not. Writen, changeable laws iare one of the many things that seperate the civilised world from savages.