|
On May 02 2012 20:48 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 20:44 Nyarly wrote:On May 02 2012 20:42 Geiko wrote:So what's funny ? Unless you think "beau" and "laid" only refer to physical attributes in French, I don't see the "humour". But please, do explain  Okey you clearly misunderstood me. I find THIS funny : This is just sad and wrong : Sorry I misunderstood you. Mea culpa. So what is sad and wrong about it then ? (for non french speakers, this is a journalist taking a quote from sarkozy, and blowing it out of proportions, the quote is "« Je veux une école qui apprendra aux enfants la différence entre le bien et le mal, le beau et le laid. » "I want a school system which will teach children the difference between good and evil, between what is beautiful and what is ugly")
It's not a quote, it's in his program for the educational system. He sent that to every french teacher.
So you say it's not sad and wrong ?
Define what's beautiful and what's ugly. Define what's good and what's evil please.
Imo nothing is ugly. Things are ugly to some people and beautiful to some others.
Good and bad ? Same thing. Most of the time, heroes are terrorrists before they are declared as heroes. It's always a question of opinions.
|
On May 03 2012 01:28 TanTzoR wrote: At least this thread shows that us, French, are most likely the most "politisé" country in the world :D Waiting for the debate this evening but we can already know what to expect, Sarkozy overly agressive, and Hollande overly defensive
People thought Sarkozy would be aggressive in the 2007 debate but he surprised everybody by being very relaxed and just letting Royal lose her calm. I think though this time around, he's going to have to show a little more aggression to get Hollande out of the confort zone he is so used to since the beginning of the campaign. Really looking forward to this.
|
On May 03 2012 01:18 DOUDOU wrote:
well, yes, your ignorance of genetic is far more entertaining than the pointless debates you're all having
also, the future of france doesn't rely on the coming election, whoever gets elected, the same people will benefit, everything is just for the show
Les chiens ne font pas des chats.
As for your second sentence (? hard to know with the lack of punctuation), it just serves to underline that you're fully ignorant of what you're talking about. Shoo now, capslock-boy.
|
On May 03 2012 01:28 Nyarly wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 20:48 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 20:44 Nyarly wrote:On May 02 2012 20:42 Geiko wrote:So what's funny ? Unless you think "beau" and "laid" only refer to physical attributes in French, I don't see the "humour". But please, do explain Okey you clearly misunderstood me. I find THIS funny : This is just sad and wrong : Sorry I misunderstood you. Mea culpa. So what is sad and wrong about it then ? (for non french speakers, this is a journalist taking a quote from sarkozy, and blowing it out of proportions, the quote is "« Je veux une école qui apprendra aux enfants la différence entre le bien et le mal, le beau et le laid. » "I want a school system which will teach children the difference between good and evil, between what is beautiful and what is ugly") It's not a quote, it's in his program for the educational system. He sent that to every french teacher. So you say it's not sad and wrong ? Define what's beautiful and what's ugly. Define what's good and what's evil please. Imo nothing is ugly. Things are ugly to some people and beautiful to some others. Good and bad ? Same thing. Most of the time, heroes are terrorrists before they are declared as heroes. It's always a question of opinions.
Good, bad, beautiful and ugly are all relative to our country's culture and history. There are no objective good or bad in the world, but France has important values that it wishes to teach to its children.
As said before in the thread, Egalité des droits/ des chances, liberté d'expression... Whether we like it or not, we also have "judeo chretienne" values that have deep roots in our cultures.
To give some trivial examples, for someone helping an elderly benevolantly we would say "c'est une belle action". For someone refusing to give his seat to an elederly in the bus, we would say "c'est moche comme comportement".
I think you are confused because you're not going past the esthetic definition for "beautiful" and "ugly". But back to the subject, I really don't see anything shocking in what Sarkozy said here.
|
On May 02 2012 22:10 Kerm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 21:55 lain2501 wrote:
Whoever is elected, they have no power on central banks. Banks are the one that decide our life. I can't believe so much people have faith in voting. When I see on tv all those ignorant kids manifesting in the street. EVERY TIME it's the same shit, a damn fuckin circus all over the country. Talking talking talking, nobody as the fuckin solution coze it's not their job to find a solution anyway.
let's be responsible with our actions, instead of voting hoping somebody can make our life better, we should all work together our way out of the monetary system. There are many candidates that want to bring down the power of banks you despise so much. The solution is not stopping voting, but rather voting for the good person, and convincing people around you to do the same.Not voting is letting other decide for you.
I wish you were right. But I'm convinced that you didn't understand the system, it's not about the person, it's about who controls what...A president simply can't control banks. He can't even decide on the interest rate for Christ sake lol :/ But really it's the best that i can afford as an explanation because i have dealt hundred of times with that topic, when ppl have faith in a system, they won't change their opinion until their world collapse. But if you give time in investigating properly, i am sure you can come to the same conclusion as mine, or at least, understanding that a politician can't do much that isn't already in the belief system of the monetary institution, which is by default, DOOMED.
|
On May 03 2012 01:31 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 01:28 TanTzoR wrote: At least this thread shows that us, French, are most likely the most "politisé" country in the world :D Waiting for the debate this evening but we can already know what to expect, Sarkozy overly agressive, and Hollande overly defensive People thought Sarkozy would be aggressive in the 2007 debate but he surprised everybody by being very relaxed and just letting Royal lose her calm. I think though this time around, he's going to have to show a little more aggression to get Hollande out of the confort zone he is so used to since the beginning of the campaign. Really looking forward to this.
Well, Sarkozy had already won in 2007 before the debate. This time it's the over way around, and Sarkozy knows he is way better than Hollande in debates. It's his last chance.
|
On May 03 2012 01:28 TanTzoR wrote:Waiting for the debate this evening but we can already know what to expect, Sarkozy overly agressive, and Hollande overly defensive
i would have said: there will be no debate, no ideas, just two people assaulting each others
hollande will attack sarkozy on his "bilan présidentiel"
sarkozy will attack hollande on his lack of any experience in government
they will comment on the opponent's program instead of developing their own
On May 03 2012 01:36 lain2501 wrote:
I wish you were right. But I'm convinced that you didn't understand the system, it's not about the person, it's about who controls what...A president simply can't control banks. He can't even decide on the interest rate for Christ sake lol :/ But really it's the best that i can afford as an explanation because i have dealt hundred of times with that topic, when ppl have faith in a system, they won't change their opinion until their world collapse. But if you give time in investigating properly, i am sure you can come to the same conclusion as mine, or at least, understanding that a politician can't do much that isn't already in the belief system of the monetary institution, which is by default, DOOMED.
hey! nice! someone clever
|
On May 03 2012 01:28 TanTzoR wrote: At least this thread shows that us, French, are most likely the most "politisé" country in the world :D Waiting for the debate this evening but we can already know what to expect, Sarkozy overly agressive, and Hollande overly defensive
We can safely say that debates haven't changed anything in the past. The one who was ahead in the polls always won, and the debate never changed anything significantly.
The only exception is 2007: Segolène Royal had lost a couple of points with the debate, and then had regained them during the three days that did separate the debate and the election.
But keep in mind that Royal was an awful speaker and can't debate for shit, while Hollande is actually very good at it. Maybe not as good as Sarkozy, but I can't see him getting smashed like Royal has been.
source for my claims:
http://sondages.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/05/02/les-debats-televises-de-lentre-deux-tours-ont-peu-deffet/
|
On May 03 2012 01:33 Microchaton wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 01:18 DOUDOU wrote:
well, yes, your ignorance of genetic is far more entertaining than the pointless debates you're all having
also, the future of france doesn't rely on the coming election, whoever gets elected, the same people will benefit, everything is just for the show Les chiens ne font pas des chats. As for your second sentence (? hard to know with the lack of punctuation), it just serves to underline that you're fully ignorant of what you're talking about. Shoo now, capslock-boy.
So you are saying that social hierarchy should reproduce itself, and that it's good that rich kids become rich and poor kids stay poor?
Well, that's an interesting point of view. The opposite of everything French Republic has tried to do for the past 200 years
|
On May 03 2012 01:36 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 01:28 Nyarly wrote:On May 02 2012 20:48 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 20:44 Nyarly wrote:On May 02 2012 20:42 Geiko wrote:So what's funny ? Unless you think "beau" and "laid" only refer to physical attributes in French, I don't see the "humour". But please, do explain Okey you clearly misunderstood me. I find THIS funny : This is just sad and wrong : Sorry I misunderstood you. Mea culpa. So what is sad and wrong about it then ? (for non french speakers, this is a journalist taking a quote from sarkozy, and blowing it out of proportions, the quote is "« Je veux une école qui apprendra aux enfants la différence entre le bien et le mal, le beau et le laid. » "I want a school system which will teach children the difference between good and evil, between what is beautiful and what is ugly") It's not a quote, it's in his program for the educational system. He sent that to every french teacher. So you say it's not sad and wrong ? Define what's beautiful and what's ugly. Define what's good and what's evil please. Imo nothing is ugly. Things are ugly to some people and beautiful to some others. Good and bad ? Same thing. Most of the time, heroes are terrorrists before they are declared as heroes. It's always a question of opinions. Good, bad, beautiful and ugly are all relative to our country's culture and history. There are no objective good or bad in the world, but France has important values that it wishes to teach to its children. As said before in the thread, Egalité des droits/ des chances, liberté d'expression... Whether we like it or not, we also have "judeo chretienne" values that have deep roots in our cultures. To give some trivial examples, for someone helping an elderly benevolantly we would say "c'est une belle action". For someone refusing to give his seat to an elederly in the bus, we would say "c'est moche comme comportement". I think you are confused because you're not going past the esthetic definition for "beautiful" and "ugly". But back to the subject, I really don't see anything shocking in what Sarkozy said here.
So you say because with have catholic roots we should teach catholic stuff in school ? That's exactly what's wrong with this idea. Good and bad evolves, today cloning is supposed to be bad, tomorrow, it might be the best thing in the world. You should teach how to think by yourself, how to know if something is good or bad by yourself, you shoud never say to someone this is good or this is bad, this is beautiful and this is ugly.
I think you're trying to escape the aesthetic part too, because there is one, what's beautiful and ugly if it's not aesthetic ?
|
On May 03 2012 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 01:33 Microchaton wrote:On May 03 2012 01:18 DOUDOU wrote:
well, yes, your ignorance of genetic is far more entertaining than the pointless debates you're all having
also, the future of france doesn't rely on the coming election, whoever gets elected, the same people will benefit, everything is just for the show Les chiens ne font pas des chats. As for your second sentence (? hard to know with the lack of punctuation), it just serves to underline that you're fully ignorant of what you're talking about. Shoo now, capslock-boy. So you are saying that social hierarchy should reproduce itself, and that it's good that rich kids become rich and poor kids stay poor? Well, that's an interesting point of view. The opposite of everything French Republic has tried to do for the past 200 years
How you're reading in the expression "Les chiens ne font pas des chats" anything about social hierarchy reproducing itself is beyond me...
|
On May 03 2012 01:50 Nyarly wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 01:36 Geiko wrote:On May 03 2012 01:28 Nyarly wrote:On May 02 2012 20:48 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 20:44 Nyarly wrote:On May 02 2012 20:42 Geiko wrote:So what's funny ? Unless you think "beau" and "laid" only refer to physical attributes in French, I don't see the "humour". But please, do explain Okey you clearly misunderstood me. I find THIS funny : This is just sad and wrong : Sorry I misunderstood you. Mea culpa. So what is sad and wrong about it then ? (for non french speakers, this is a journalist taking a quote from sarkozy, and blowing it out of proportions, the quote is "« Je veux une école qui apprendra aux enfants la différence entre le bien et le mal, le beau et le laid. » "I want a school system which will teach children the difference between good and evil, between what is beautiful and what is ugly") It's not a quote, it's in his program for the educational system. He sent that to every french teacher. So you say it's not sad and wrong ? Define what's beautiful and what's ugly. Define what's good and what's evil please. Imo nothing is ugly. Things are ugly to some people and beautiful to some others. Good and bad ? Same thing. Most of the time, heroes are terrorrists before they are declared as heroes. It's always a question of opinions. Good, bad, beautiful and ugly are all relative to our country's culture and history. There are no objective good or bad in the world, but France has important values that it wishes to teach to its children. As said before in the thread, Egalité des droits/ des chances, liberté d'expression... Whether we like it or not, we also have "judeo chretienne" values that have deep roots in our cultures. To give some trivial examples, for someone helping an elderly benevolantly we would say "c'est une belle action". For someone refusing to give his seat to an elederly in the bus, we would say "c'est moche comme comportement". I think you are confused because you're not going past the esthetic definition for "beautiful" and "ugly". But back to the subject, I really don't see anything shocking in what Sarkozy said here. So you say because with have catholic roots we should teach catholic stuff in the school ? That's exactly what's wrong with this idea. Good and bad evolves, today cloning is supposed to be bad, tomorrow, it might be the best thing in the world. You should teach how to think by yourself, how to know if something is good or bad, you shoud never say to someone this is good or this is bad, this is beautiful and this is ugly. I think you're trying to escape the aesthetic part too, because there is one, what's beautiful and ugly if it's not aesthetic ?
This is a gross oversimplification. I'm saying we have catholic roots that we cannot deny, and that it is part of our culture as a nation. I'm not saying we should read the Bible to every kid in school. (just so you don't accuse me of evangelism, I'm an atheist). If you don't believe in a Nation's heritage and History and the fact that we have moral codes to pass to our children, then we are clearly not on the same page, and as much as I respect your opinion, I don't share it at all.
I already gave you exemple of beau and moche used in a non aesthetic context. Do you really think that Sarkozy meant to teach kids how to differenciate between an ugly person and a good looking one ?
|
On May 03 2012 00:07 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 23:44 VyingsP wrote:On May 02 2012 23:08 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 23:01 VyingsP wrote:On May 02 2012 22:48 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 22:38 VyingsP wrote:On May 02 2012 22:32 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 22:28 VyingsP wrote:On May 02 2012 22:00 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 21:56 -_-Quails wrote:
[quote]
I have now clarified my meaning in the quoted post. The comparison was one of convenience only. My meaning was that the inheritor has done nothing to deserve riches. Whether or not they inherited money from someone who earned their wealth and created jobs does not have any bearing on whether they themselves have done so. We can also turn this into an ideological debate instead of a political one if you want but I'm not sure that it fits the context of this thread. My question to you is: you inherite your genes from your parents, why shouldn't you inherite money. If you have beautiful parents, you'll most likely end up not too bad looking, did you deserve that ? Inequalities at birth are part of life, trying to reduce them to the extreme like what you are implying only puts more emphasis on the natural inequalities that already exists. Whaaaa, Geiko is back in this thread, and he is in top form ! I would have loved to see him in 1789 explaining to the people in Paris : "Cmon guys ! You don't know it yet but there are genes, and if you are beautiful, your children will most likely be so. So if you can inherit beauty, why wouldn't you inherit the status of your parents ? I mean, life is unfair, right ? Why would you try to change it ? Sure there are those people who are rich because their parents were, but, seriously is that a big deal ? Cmon guys ! And of course there has to be a King ! I mean, he is the son of the King, that's no small feat !" + Show Spoiler +-_- + Show Spoiler +Cmon guys ? Why are you aggressive all of a sudden ? Is that some part of the "pensée unique" ? You are so brainwashed... Nooooo, don't do this ! Noooooooooo Did you read my post about equality of rights ? Transmitting noblesse statutes has nothing to do with giving money you earned to your children. I'd appreciate if we could have a serious discussion without willfully distorting other's words I probably didn't read or understand your post, but how can you say : "Transmitting noblesse statutes has nothing to do with giving money you earned to your children" ? You do realize that in our society money can buy you : health (i hope this one is obvious) rights (a good lawyer can make wonders) social status happiness (with some limitations obviously, but still, no money => unhappiness) So, excuse me but I feel like I was extremely serious, even though I can't help but present it in an ironical form, sorry  Do you therefor not believe in the égalité des droits ? I'll tell you why I believe our system is fine as it is without any more inheritance taxes. My grand parents came to this country with just their luggage. I come from a rather modest household but I have never been prevented from going to school and learning the same things like everybody else. Now I graduated from a school that most people in France would call "l'élite" (with a negative connotation of course) and I owe it all to my hard work and the fact that France gave me that opportunity. Of course some rich sons had access to private teachers, theaters every weekend and a better cultural background, but everyone in France still has the same rights and possibilites as everyone else. I don't see why we would need to confiscate more money from inheritance and I would love for you to tell me how much more you think we need. I do not understand what you mean when you ask "Do you therefor not believe in the égalité des droits ?" but if you think that in our society, everyone has the same chances to achieve success, I respectfully disagree. Concerning the rest of your post, I guess different stories lead to different understandings of our world. I have to congratulate you for your success story, but I am currently graduating from an "elite school", and when I ask people around me about their backgrounds, I see that most of the people come from families that are richer (to say the least) than the average population in France. Of course there are some of those success stories, but to few, and as far as I am concerned, I feel like I managed to get there without much hard work. And to quote Nathalie Arthaud  , I do believe that there are thousands of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in our "cités" (should be suburbs in english), but in the current state of our society, they will never ever think about starting their business, and even less likely is it for them to have the means to do it. So, yeah, I would rather tax very harshly the gifts from parents to their children and give all the children a chance than staying with the current state. We clearly believe in the same things you and I. We believe that inheritance should be taxed because some form of redistribution is needed in order to prevent separation of societies into class and to insure Equality in rights for all. We believe that parents should be able to give some money to their children, because they worked hard to be able to provide a better future for their children. What we do not agree on is "how much" the state should be taking. And I'll agree with you that this is not an easy question. What makes you think inheritance taxes aren't high enough currently ? Aha, now that the preliminaries are set up, we can talk ! What makes me think the taxes aren't high enough ? Actually, there is a misunderstanding here. Taxing people is not a goal. I do believe taxes are needed because there are many services that should be free, because it is linked with human dignity, and fundamentals human rights. More specifically, I do believe that health care, education, justice and security (non exhaustive list) should be free. Now this has to be free for the citizens, but obviously, it has a cost, and this cost should be payed by society, thus taxes. Why do I believe that inheritance tax is one of the fairest ? Because, when you are dead, you do not need your money, and even if you earned it legally, you did not earn it by yourself. You used the education you were provided, you used the national transport infrastructues, you used qualified workforce, you took benefit of everything the society provides (including security, infrastructures...). That is why I do believe, that when you die, the society is much more deserving than your children. Concerning the children, they most likely already benefited from your wealth, meaning that they are probably well educated and in good health. Isn't that already a fantastic start in life ? The rest is up to them, not to you. But I did not really answer your question. Why taxes are not high enough ? Two exemples. In my familly, one of my grandparents pays the ISF, and had 2 appartments in Paris. But with all the possibilities of gift, my parents received one of the appartment with ridiculous fees (less than 20%), and they do not even need it. How crazy is that ? Now for something completely different, take the wealthy families in France. Renault, Bettencourt, Mulliez, Lagardère... Ok, let's give some credit to the founder of each dinasty (there is no other word), he probably had some great ideas, and managed to use the to great success. But let's face it, what did their offspring do ? Not much. Anyone is able to pay some good manager/adviser who will enable you to keep a good amount of wealth. And here I am not even discussing the Renault links with the 3rd reich, and the obvious threat such fortunes pose to democracy. Those two exemples do not have much in common because obviously, the productive assets are not taxed upon succession. But for me it is all part of the same problem : even with all the great progress we achieved from the old regime, there is still a "noblesse" and a "tiers état". And that is not the most fair/efficient way for a society to run. Want to discuss the amount of the tax ? What about 100% over 75 000€ per children ? Note : do not take that amount to seriously, I have no qualification whatsoever to propose a relevant figure. This is just some food for thought. And I can't help but feel sorry when you say that You and I believe in the same things. With what I believe, there is NO WAY IN HELL i'll ever vote for Sarkozy. Edit : omg, dat wall of text... I'm done after this one. Just for fun : http://twitter.com/#!/Arnauld_CT/status/197633157120532480 I do understand where you are coming from, and I respect your opinion on this matter, but I would like to point out what I think is wrong with this line of thought. Regarding free health care, education, etc.. The idea in itself shows that you have a very generous personality and that honors you, however these great principles cannot be applied to real life. Let me give you an example. A couple years back, in my school cafeteria, there was paying meals and free salt and pepper packs as well as free bread loafs. People always took handfuls of salt and pepper and bread, and threw away 75% of what they took. Then the school made everyone pay 5cent for each pack of salt. People weren't even taking salt anymore. This is human nature, this is why currently, nothing is refunded 100% by our social system (with some exceptions). We already have one of the best and most generous medical system and higher education system in the world, why would we need to finance it even more ?
I don't see how your example is relevant. If education and health care are linked to fundamental human rights, it does not matter if some "waste" it. This is not about efficiency and productivity. Now obviously you need to be able to afford it, but France is not like Somalia, and there is well enough wealth around. What you can do is decide what is more fundamental (for example subsidies for Viagra is beyond stupid). Another place to look for is more TVA taxes on products like cigarettes or soda/obesity related food, or more taxes on companies selling them.
And best higher education system? Maybe in grandes ecoles. And what about other education levels? You need to finance the medical system more simply because otherwise it won't be as good as it is anymore.
Regarding inheritance, you say that your money doesn't only belong to you, but also to France because you won it in France. But haven't you already paid taxes for that money ? Why should you pay more taxes when you die ? So if you want to use your money to buy 10 000 000 hamburgers before you die, it's your right, but you can't use that money to give to your children instead ? That doesn't make sense. My line of reasoning is that, you pay 20% of TVA when you buy hamburgers, you should also pay 20% of taxes when you give money to your children. It's just money changing hands.
Lol, to what extremes would you go; just money changing hands...
Paying Mcdonalds and 20% in tax is not the same as paying 100% in tax. McDonald is not responsible for social conditions in France. The free hand of the market has many limits in the real world.
If you are rich, one expectation is that you use this money to be productive, not just buy 10 000000 burgers. There is no indication that your children will not become just part of an extractive elite.
There is also a simple justice argument, if you believe in equality of rights (for example of education), that means trying to remove both unfair disadvantages and advantages. You have to pay for the former with the latter. A right for education is useless if people can't afford it, or education is subpar in some places.
Mr Hollande's new taxes will as always hit the middle class hard when the extremely rich won't even feel a difference. This is why I support Mr Sarkozy's idea of increasing state revenue by increasing the TVA. TVA is paid by everyone (the increase is on non essential products) but especially foreign companies who will need to finance part of it to remain competitive. Mr Hollande's plan is to favor "la croissance", but how can you do that if you create 50 M additional taxes ? Edit: Regarding the immigrants, it's funny to note that The question "are there too many immigrants in France" was asked by journalists to Hollande more then 10 times, and he never gave a single answer to that question
I don't see how TVA taxes can hit the extremely rich as much as the middle class, in fact the middle class is usually more affected by TVA tax. Your 10 000 000 hamburgers example illustrates it. But I don't know what Sarkozy has in mind for "non essential products". Or maybe my definition of middle class is not yours (150 000 a year is middle class for you?)
Also I have not followed the details of their plans, but additional taxes do not necessarily lead to lower growth, if they are correctly aimed and well spent. On the left people would tell you that those 50M in taxes are refunded in the middle class pockets to increase consumption and lead to growth. It is not as simple either. I am afraid there is no definitive answer, the truth is personal preferences and ideologies will motivate the vote here because the topic is so complex, there is no way to honestly be 100% sure of the correct answer.
|
On May 03 2012 01:51 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 01:33 Microchaton wrote:On May 03 2012 01:18 DOUDOU wrote:
well, yes, your ignorance of genetic is far more entertaining than the pointless debates you're all having
also, the future of france doesn't rely on the coming election, whoever gets elected, the same people will benefit, everything is just for the show Les chiens ne font pas des chats. As for your second sentence (? hard to know with the lack of punctuation), it just serves to underline that you're fully ignorant of what you're talking about. Shoo now, capslock-boy. So you are saying that social hierarchy should reproduce itself, and that it's good that rich kids become rich and poor kids stay poor? Well, that's an interesting point of view. The opposite of everything French Republic has tried to do for the past 200 years How you're reading in the expression "Les chiens ne font pas des chats" anything about social hierarchy reproducing itself is beyond me...
Well, we are talking about inheritage aren't we? That's the number one factor to reproduce social hierarchy: wealth of your parents. You guys oppose taxation and redistribution of this random wealth at every generation by making a parallel with genetics and beauty and saying "les chiens ne font pas des chats". Or maybe I misunderstood?
|
It is a bit late in the thread, since the discussion on this topic has been closed few pages ago, but councerning the "violence" of Jean-Luc Mélenchon against the ultra rich people, I think it is appropriate to get someone else's explanation:
"Pour éviter des malentendus possibles, encore un mot. Je n'ai pas peint en rose le capitaliste et le propriétaire foncier. Mais il ne s’agit ici des personnes, qu'autant qu'elles sont la personnification de catégories économiques, les supports d'intérêts et de rapports de classes déterminés. Mon point de vue, d'après lequel le développement de la formation économique de la société est assimilable à la marche de la nature et à son histoire, peut moins que tout autre rendre l'individu responsable de rapports dont il reste socialement la créature, quoi qu'il puisse faire pour s'en dégager."
This is Marx, in the preface from the third French edition of Das Kapital.
|
On May 03 2012 01:56 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 01:50 Nyarly wrote:On May 03 2012 01:36 Geiko wrote:On May 03 2012 01:28 Nyarly wrote:On May 02 2012 20:48 Geiko wrote:On May 02 2012 20:44 Nyarly wrote:On May 02 2012 20:42 Geiko wrote:So what's funny ? Unless you think "beau" and "laid" only refer to physical attributes in French, I don't see the "humour". But please, do explain Okey you clearly misunderstood me. I find THIS funny : This is just sad and wrong : Sorry I misunderstood you. Mea culpa. So what is sad and wrong about it then ? (for non french speakers, this is a journalist taking a quote from sarkozy, and blowing it out of proportions, the quote is "« Je veux une école qui apprendra aux enfants la différence entre le bien et le mal, le beau et le laid. » "I want a school system which will teach children the difference between good and evil, between what is beautiful and what is ugly") It's not a quote, it's in his program for the educational system. He sent that to every french teacher. So you say it's not sad and wrong ? Define what's beautiful and what's ugly. Define what's good and what's evil please. Imo nothing is ugly. Things are ugly to some people and beautiful to some others. Good and bad ? Same thing. Most of the time, heroes are terrorrists before they are declared as heroes. It's always a question of opinions. Good, bad, beautiful and ugly are all relative to our country's culture and history. There are no objective good or bad in the world, but France has important values that it wishes to teach to its children. As said before in the thread, Egalité des droits/ des chances, liberté d'expression... Whether we like it or not, we also have "judeo chretienne" values that have deep roots in our cultures. To give some trivial examples, for someone helping an elderly benevolantly we would say "c'est une belle action". For someone refusing to give his seat to an elederly in the bus, we would say "c'est moche comme comportement". I think you are confused because you're not going past the esthetic definition for "beautiful" and "ugly". But back to the subject, I really don't see anything shocking in what Sarkozy said here. So you say because with have catholic roots we should teach catholic stuff in the school ? That's exactly what's wrong with this idea. Good and bad evolves, today cloning is supposed to be bad, tomorrow, it might be the best thing in the world. You should teach how to think by yourself, how to know if something is good or bad, you shoud never say to someone this is good or this is bad, this is beautiful and this is ugly. I think you're trying to escape the aesthetic part too, because there is one, what's beautiful and ugly if it's not aesthetic ? This is a gross oversimplification. I'm saying we have catholic roots that we cannot deny, and that it is part of our culture as a nation. I'm not saying we should read the Bible to every kid in school. (just so you don't accuse me of evangelism, I'm an atheist). If you don't believe in a Nation's heritage and History and the fact that we have moral codes to pass to our children, then we are clearly not on the same page, and as much as I respect your opinion, I don't share it at all. I already gave you exemple of beau and moche used in a non aesthetic context. Do you really think that Sarkozy meant to teach kids how to differenciate between an ugly person and a good looking one ?
We should teach history, yes, we should teach that we have catholics roots, yes. We should never say that catholic roots is a good thing. We learn about the french revolution, we learn about everything and everytime we have debates. Teachers wants the students to have two opposite sides to defend. That how stuff should be teach. Confronting arguments and letting everyone have an idea about both sides and chose on their own.
the fact that we have moral codes to pass to our children
If we did that, people would be still ofended by girl's clothes today. We would have never been able to hear Rock 'n Roll, Punk, Drum 'n bass, ...
I respect the fact that you can have a different opinion than mine but i won't say that it's a good one to me.
Do you really think that Sarkozy meant to teach kids how to differenciate between an ugly person and a good looking one ?
To be honest, i don't know what's Sarkozy capable of. After this : http://www.didier-bertin.org/pages/fight-against-racism/french-xenophobia-and-europe.html
And all the other stuff, i really wouldn't be surprised at all if he decided to teach that black peoples are ugly and white blue eyed blonde haired people perfect.
Well, maybe a bit, but even if it doesn't do that, teaching what things are supposed to be is not a good thing to me.
Give a fish to a man, he'll eat one day. Teach him how to fish, he'll eat for the rest of his life.
|
On May 03 2012 01:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
. You guys oppose taxation and redistribution of this random wealth at every generation by making a parallel with genetics and beauty and saying "les chiens ne font pas des chats". Or maybe I misunderstood?
Hmm, I was just answering DOUDOU who seemed puzzled at the fact that people tend to indeed look like their parents. All there is to it. You'd rather I said "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree" ?
Lol @ post above : none of your example has anything to do with the kind of morale code that has to be "taught/discussed" between parents/children.
|
On May 03 2012 01:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 01:51 Geiko wrote:On May 03 2012 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 01:33 Microchaton wrote:On May 03 2012 01:18 DOUDOU wrote:
well, yes, your ignorance of genetic is far more entertaining than the pointless debates you're all having
also, the future of france doesn't rely on the coming election, whoever gets elected, the same people will benefit, everything is just for the show Les chiens ne font pas des chats. As for your second sentence (? hard to know with the lack of punctuation), it just serves to underline that you're fully ignorant of what you're talking about. Shoo now, capslock-boy. So you are saying that social hierarchy should reproduce itself, and that it's good that rich kids become rich and poor kids stay poor? Well, that's an interesting point of view. The opposite of everything French Republic has tried to do for the past 200 years How you're reading in the expression "Les chiens ne font pas des chats" anything about social hierarchy reproducing itself is beyond me... Well, we are talking about inheritage aren't we? That's the number one factor to reproduce social hierarchy: wealth of your parents. You guys oppose taxation and redistribution of this random wealth at every generation by making a parallel with genetics and beauty and saying "les chiens ne font pas des chats". Or maybe I misunderstood?
Yes you misunderstood. I'm saying that there are 2 different types of inequalities. Natural inequalities, and societal inequalities.
Natural inequalities are things such as, intelligence, physical appearance, strength etc...
Societal inequalities are things such as money, social class (often linked with money), country etc...
History has shown that if you do not regulate the latter with laws, then it leads to a profoundly unjust civilization where social status is determined by birth and no longer by merit. No one wants this.
However, it is my opinion that trying to erase all the societal inequalities can only lead to exacerbating the natural inequalities even more. And that societal inequalities actually contribute to the overall equality among men as well as diversity etc...
My ideal society is a society where everyone has an equal chance at leading a successful life. That doesn't mean that everyone will be equal in that regards, it means that everyone can achieve their goals if they work hard enough. This is the society based on merit.
Sure it will be harder to get a top notch diploma for someone who is born in "les quartiers du 93" then for someone who is born in Versailles, but it will be possible with enough commitment.
Similarly, to lighten up this discussion with a personal anectdote, I have a good looking friend who just needs to step in a club to have 3 or 4 women literally jump on to him. I need to work like crazy to get a girl to even notice me, but you don't hear me complaining about how unfair that is...
|
On May 03 2012 02:12 Microchaton wrote:
Lol @ post above : none of your example has anything to do with the kind of morale code that has to be "taught/discussed" between parents/children.
Lol @ try to read the posts before.
|
On May 03 2012 02:19 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 01:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 01:51 Geiko wrote:On May 03 2012 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 03 2012 01:33 Microchaton wrote:On May 03 2012 01:18 DOUDOU wrote:
well, yes, your ignorance of genetic is far more entertaining than the pointless debates you're all having
also, the future of france doesn't rely on the coming election, whoever gets elected, the same people will benefit, everything is just for the show Les chiens ne font pas des chats. As for your second sentence (? hard to know with the lack of punctuation), it just serves to underline that you're fully ignorant of what you're talking about. Shoo now, capslock-boy. So you are saying that social hierarchy should reproduce itself, and that it's good that rich kids become rich and poor kids stay poor? Well, that's an interesting point of view. The opposite of everything French Republic has tried to do for the past 200 years How you're reading in the expression "Les chiens ne font pas des chats" anything about social hierarchy reproducing itself is beyond me... Well, we are talking about inheritage aren't we? That's the number one factor to reproduce social hierarchy: wealth of your parents. You guys oppose taxation and redistribution of this random wealth at every generation by making a parallel with genetics and beauty and saying "les chiens ne font pas des chats". Or maybe I misunderstood? Yes you misunderstood. I'm saying that there are 2 different types of inequalities. Natural inequalities, and societal inequalities. Natural inequalities are things such as, intelligence, physical appearance, strength etc... Societal inequalities are things such as money, social class (often linked with money), country etc... History has shown that if you do not regulate the latter with laws, then it leads to a profoundly unjust civilization where social status is determined by birth and no longer by merit. No one wants this. However, it is my opinion that trying to erase all the societal inequalities can only lead to exacerbating the natural inequalities even more. And that societal inequalities actually contribute to the overall equality among men as well as diversity etc... My ideal society is a society where everyone has an equal chance at leading a successful life. That doesn't mean that everyone will be equal in that regards, it means that everyone can achieve their goals if they work hard enough. This is the society based on merit. Sure it will be harder to get a top notch diploma for someone who is born in "les quartiers du 93" then for someone who is born in Versailles, but it will be possible with enough commitment. Similarly, to lighten up this discussion with a personal anectdote, I have a good looking friend who just needs to step in a club to have 3 or 4 women literally jump on to him. I need to work like crazy to get a girl to even notice me, but you don't hear me complaining about how unfair that is...
Yeah well you should want to tax to death inheritage then, since it clearly favors some people based only on where they were born.
Otherwise if it is "harder but possible", you live in a society in which everybody doesn't have the same chances. Simple as that. Chances = how hard it is.
The thing about "history has shown" just demonstrates your ignorance. You want to see a society that doesn't regulate social inequalities? Go to the US. It is one of the country with the most stable intergenerational social hierarchy in the world. You were born poor in the US, you stay poor. Period.
Everything in France is done so that social inequalities are compensated. That's why we have progressive taxes, that's why we have social security, free education, free healthcare. That's why our inequalities, although way too high are not as gigantic than they are in America or in Russia. That's the one thing we can be proud of in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
