Class

Former Member

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
What i took offence at was


Circumstances can sudenly change overnight for some people.....like it did for me.
Just because I have or had no money does not give anyone the right to make out i am stoopid.

Have you looked at what I actually said? As opposed to an edited quote?

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Whilst im on people like yourself may be very well educated......I dont know but put you in a job where you worked 12 hours solid, doing grafting hard work and you couldnt hack it.

So this is ok is it? You can say that we couldn't 'hack' the job your dad did, but we can't make more than reasonably accurate generalisations on class.

Former Member

Originally posted by eternalsunshine
Yeah.. but that's the nature of capitalism is it not?

Whilst most people agonise over what class they are, and fall further and further in debt, the ruling class sit there getting even wealthier, and the gap grows even wider.

Which is awfully handy for the few at the top.

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Have you looked at what I actually said? As opposed to an edited quote?

Ooh yes, here it is, in full .........

it depends on how you grew up, it's self-perpetuating. Take lower/working class. You don't have much money, you live in a crap area of town, you go to a bad school, your parents probably aren't very bright and neither are you. So you the patern continues, you don't have much money because you weren't very bright, went to a bad school and your kids aren't so bright either. To the way of talking comes from learning language from people who aren't clever, and going to a school where no-one expects you to be clever, or can be bothered to encourage intelligence, so you never get clever, and neither do your kids. It's also part of attitude, you recognise the tough position your parents were/are in, and respect their efforts (perhaps) and so don't want to show them up by being 'better'.

Similar with middle class, you live in a nicer area of town, where the nice schools are, your parents are nice enough and are probably of average/high intelligence, and so are you. So the pattern continues, you have an average amount of money because you were intelligent enough to get a goodish job, you're quite clever and so are your kids. You parents want you to do better, and encourage good grades, and your school expects there to be the odd child with a mark of excellence, and encourages them, as they do with your kids.

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Have you looked at what I actually said? As opposed to an edited quote?

Yes, this is the bit I quoted initially

it depends on how you grew up, it's self-perpetuating. Take lower/working class. You don't have much money, you live in a crap area of town, you go to a bad school, your parents probably aren't very bright and neither are you. So you the patern continues, you don't have much money because you weren't very bright, went to a bad school and your kids aren't so bright either. To the way of talking comes from learning language from people who aren't clever, and going to a school where no-one expects you to be clever, or can be bothered to encourage intelligence, so you never get clever, and neither do your kids. It's also part of attitude, you recognise the tough position your parents were/are in, and respect their efforts (perhaps) and so don't want to show them up by being 'better'.

whats all this about money and being bright ? I could live in the most run down place of town through no fault of my own but have a brilliant education and just because I was unfortunate not to be born into money and have had not had to have 'mummy and daddy' paying for everything for me does not make me in your words 'not very bright'. Just because some people are unfortunate to not go to a very good school does not mean they are not going to get anywhere in life, its all about what your parents teach you.

Also this is starting to sound like 'them' and 'us' which is why there is such a divide. We are who we are, but please dont think that because someone is not wealthy and they end up in a rough area of town then that automatically makes them less intelligent than yourself.

Yes, I maybe did go of on one last night and my wording about 'hard graft' was not written as well as it could have been.

Former Member

It's called a generalisation (n a principle or statement based on specific instances but applied generally; )

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
It's called a generalisation (n a principle or statement based on specific instances but applied generally; )

Oh well, of course its okay to say working class people are thick if its a generalisation

:rolleyes:

Former Member

Originally posted by freethepeeps
Oh well, of course its okay to say working class people are thick if its a generalisation

:rolleyes:

exactly what I am thinking.

Former Member

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
exactly what I am thinking.

So you can make a generalisation about the working capability of someone who is supposedly middle class, but I can't make generalisations, really really broad generalisations, about both classes?

Would you like to pick up specific points? Because if you think about it critically, in the main, both statements are true. There are people from working class backgrounds who are clearly above average intelligence and perform very well, and there are people from middle class backgrounds who are clearly thick as shit. There are people from both classes who fail to perform academically, but if you put them in charge of a practical problem they'd lead the field.

Exactly what is it that you have a problem with Becky?

Former Member

Look, lets be a little blunt about this.

We all agree that breeding is important, right, you can see it in horses, etc. etc.

So, although its an unpaletable idea this also works for humans.

Those at the bottom of society are normally the product of those who have been there for generations.

So, if one can accept that people are born smarter than others, should this not lead us to believe that smartness is genetic. Thus are we not led to the conclusion that those at the bottom start with a 'muddier' genetic pool shall we say.

This is of course not to suggest that all lower class people are thick, they clearly are not. But statistically it is more likely.

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85

Exactly what is it that you have a problem with Becky?

My problem is that the way you are now speaking is that its ok to call someone as thick as shit because of where they grew up etc. Class does not come into it with regards to intelligence, you really are losing the plot now.


Regarding what i said about working if you read my post this morning properly I did actually admit it wasnt as well written as it could have been. If I had used different wording then it wouldnt have come across as bad as it did, but remember it was late last night when i wrote that reply.

Former Member

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
My problem is that the way you are now speaking is that its ok to call someone as thick as shit because of where they grew up etc. Class does not come into it with regards to intelligence, you really are losing the plot now.

Even though it patently does. You can think whatever you like, as unpopular and controversial as it is, it remains true, that some people are born less intelligent than others.

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Even though it patently does. You can think whatever you like, as unpopular and controversial as it is, it remains true, that some people are born less intelligent than others.

Exactly what I said, you cant excape your genes. This obviously isnt directly linked to class per say, which is why I mentioned those at the bottom of society rather than bring the complex issues of social strata into it.

Former Member

Originally posted by bongbudda
Look, lets be a little blunt about this.

We all agree that breeding is important, right, you can see it in horses, etc. etc.

So, although its an unpaletable idea this also works for humans.

Those at the bottom of society are normally the product of those who have been there for generations.

So, if one can accept that people are born smarter than others, should this not lead us to believe that smartness is genetic. Thus are we not led to the conclusion that those at the bottom start with a 'muddier' genetic pool shall we say.

This is of course not to suggest that all lower class people are thick, they clearly are not. But statistically it is more likely.

So you're suggesting that your place in the class system is a determined by your genes?

Nothing to do with the ruling classes at all then?

I'm sure it had more to do with who had the biggest sticks, rather than the biggest brains myself...........

Good grief !!

Former Member

Originally posted by bongbudda
Exactly what I said, you cant excape your genes. This obviously isnt directly linked to class per say, which is why I mentioned those at the bottom of society rather than bring the complex issues of social strata into it.

Though it tends to be true that people who are born clever will earn more and therefore be middle class. People born with less mental ability will earn less and therefore be working class.

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Though it tends to be true that people who are born clever will earn more and therefore be middle class. People born with less mental ability will earn less and therefore be working class.

Thats only really been true over the last 100 years, and thats not really enough time over which to judge the generational changes.

However diet plays an important role I would suspect, early growth plays a huge role and a diet which is unhealthy for a child will mean they wont reach their highest potential.

Former Member

Originally posted by freethepeeps
So you're suggesting that your place in the class system is a determined by your genes?

No, I am suggesting those at the higher strata of society got there because of their abilities, to lead, to fight, to trade, to get rich.

Former Member

There are many factors. One of which is the society implicit in the 'class' you grow up in, again a controversial idea, but working class children aren't necessarily encouraged to excel at anything in the way that middle class children are. For the hot heads out there, this is not always true, be is regardless of point of view, the overlying trend.

Former Member

.

Former Member

Originally posted by bongbudda
No, I am suggesting those at the higher strata of society got there because of their abilities, to lead, to fight, to trade, to get rich.

Really?

So the feudal lords were quick to recognise potential and to invite bright your serfs into the ruling classes were they?

Former Member

Heres an interesting little snippet:

Mr Diamond adds: "In the UK there is still too little upward mobility within labour markets contributing to low overall levels of social mobility. Indeed, relative social mobility has remained unchanged in Britain for the last 100 years".

And apparently persistent poverty is getting worse, as wages are cut, unions crushed and insecure, low paid service jobs replace secure ones.

Seeing poverty as a genetic thing is way off beam and misses the point completely.

Having a cushy lifestyle and being up to your eyeballs in debt isn't really crossing the class divide at all ............

Former Member

Where did I say that poverty was a genetic thing at all?

Lowering wages? Minimum wages have gone up, as a nation we are living longer and earning more. We've never been richer.

Former Member

Originally posted by bongbudda
Where did I say that poverty was a genetic thing at all?

'Statistically it is more likely that people "at the bottom" are thick, because they come from a "muddier gene pool" '

Lowering wages? Minimum wages have gone up, as a nation we are living longer and earning more. We've never been richer. [/B]

Ah well, thanks for that. Ever since 1979 I've had these hallucinations that some awful women called Maggie something or other came into power and atacked the working classes - shut down industries and started a trend which has seen secure long term jobs given first to agency workers, and then shipped to poorer countries, etc, etc, ad naseum

Thank you for setting me straight - it never happened and we are wealthier than ever.........

I am ever so relieved

Former Member

Yeah, because the unions were really helping the workers weren't they.

And British industry could easily have continued the way it was going.

I hope you get banned soon.

Former Member

Originally posted by bongbudda


I hope you get banned soon.

And why would I get banned?

I just went down to the newsagents and the express is claiming that a record number of houses are being repossessed.

That doesn't really fit in "never been richer", does it?

Former Member

Originally posted by freethepeeps
And why would I get banned?

I just went down to the newsagents and the express is claiming that a record number of houses are being repossessed.

That doesn't really fit in "never been richer", does it?

the gap may be growing between rich/poor but we are getting richer as a society in general

Former Member

Originally posted by turlough
the gap may be growing between rich/poor but we are getting richer as a society in general

I'm really not convinced.

Enron was really wealthy, and then one day, poof, it disappeared in a cloud of smoke........

Former Member

Originally posted by freethepeeps
I'm really not convinced.

Enron was really wealthy, and then one day, poof, it disappeared in a cloud of smoke........

ok, lol, seriously though, there's always been corruption in society, we're living longer, we've got better lifestyles and luxuries etc, i know there's still terrible pverty to be seen but there always has been and always will, there's no such thing as a utopia, but in general, society is getting richer, in every sense of the word.

Former Member

Originally posted by freethepeeps
I'm really not convinced.

Enron was really wealthy, and then one day, poof, it disappeared in a cloud of smoke........

No, it wasnt wealthy, it looked wealthy on paper because it was getting loans and then claiming them to be sales. But that really has nothing to do with class.

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
Surplus value, if i understand the Marxist theory correctly states that the workers are effectively exploited by the capitalist employers because they are not rewarded the true value of their labour. Interesting stuff, but I don't see the relevance to the class debate.

How can you not see the relevance? We're talking about class. One of the definitions of class is the economic one - workers and owners of means of production.

How is that not relevant?

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
And there was me thinking you lived in the real world.

BTW, I'm not suggesting (and nor was Fiend) that working class people are stupid and middle class people are intelligent. I'm not suggesting that intelligence is enough to allow someone equal opportunities. I am saying that low intelligence can explain why there is an 'underclass'.

You're totally lacking in any kind of economic or social analysis, which is why I said "oh dear".

0/10, must try harder. :rolleyes: