I can hardly believe my ears listening to 'Counterpoint' sometimes. These guys think keeping paedophiles out of a child care centre is running a nanny state.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/

http://suggest.getup.org.au/forums/60819-campaign-ideas/suggestions/1684971-petition-for-abc-to-return-to-its-charter

Grey wrote on Apr 15^th, 2011 at 4:32pm:

I can hardly believe my ears listening to 'Counterpoint' sometimes. These guys think keeping paedophiles out of a child care centre is running a nanny state. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/ http://suggest.getup.org.au/forums/60819-campaign-ideas/suggestions/1684971-petition-for-abc-to-return-to-its-charter

What a moronic petition. Your own composition?

If Abbott is ultra-conservative, who is an acceptable, respected conservative?

Quote:

If Abbott is ultra-conservative, who is an acceptable, respected conservative?

You can't think of one either Soren? No wait P J O'Rourke.

Australian accused of spying for Hamas
By Middle East correspondent Anne Barker

Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:53pm AEST

An Australian man has been arrested in Israel and charged with working as a spy for Hamas.

Eyad Rashid Abu Arga is a Palestinian refugee who grew up on the Arabian Gulf but later moved to Australia and took out Australian citizenship.http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/20/3197237.htm?section=justin

This is why I have turned away from the ABC as a news source - it is for lisping, sashaying Darlinghurst types and middle aged shrill women with silly red glasses and dyed hair.

This fvcker is no Australian. He is an Arab with an unknown place of birth who managed to get an AUstralian passport (to add to his Saudi and Jordanian one) under false pretences (there are thousands like him).

For the ABC to refer to anyone with an Australian passport as an Australian is tendentious, mendacious bullsh1t.

Gee. That did it for you, eh?

Well what 'ave we got 'ere then 'aye? Someone with their Oz flag tucked too tight up ther bum crack I guess...

"This is why I have turned away from the ABC as a news source - it is for lisping,"
I must agree actually. The vocal contrivances of some of the readers is quite startling. Especially the attractive blonde who begins each paragraph with a roaring death rattle sucking of air down her gaping throat. But lisping..  I thinks perhaps you are making a deeper reference...

"sashaying Darlinghurst types"
Haven't been to D'hurst for yonks & I still watch a remnant of ABC News. Now I must say I have a cute walk - all my women tell me so. But sashaying? Nah. Not me. Again, there seems to be an element of personal concern in your presentation here. Is there something you feel you need to express about yourself? Go on. Be brave. We're here to help.

"and middle aged shrill women with silly red glasses and dyed hair."
I see. Then this is all about your mother then?

"This fvcker is no Australian. He is an Arab with an unknown place of birth"
Oh the angst. If you have never tried then you don't know. You ain't gonna get an Oz passport without a known P.O.B. Go on. Tell us what you really mean.

"who managed to get an AUstralian passport (to add to his Saudi and Jordanian one)"
This fair land has recognized dual citizenship for quite some time. Whatz yer problem? Are you suggetsing my US born kids should burn their Oz credentials?

"under false pretences (there are thousands like him)."
Better contact the Dept of Immigration right away if you have something to divulge. Or I suppose just stick around here. We need the giggles.

"For the ABC to refer to anyone with an Australian passport as an Australian is tendentious, mendacious bullsh1t."
Okay. Back on topic. It's all about the ABC then. But a few thoughts on being Australian.. always a good topic between pulls at the pokies. Allow me to summarize how I read your thoughts... To be Australian one must:

• drape their body in what was once a fine flag, trailing it on the ground behind them.
  be deathly afraid of anything that is different.
  refuse to consider that times / places / people / customs change & evolve. Oh yeah, I agree. There are plenty of other cultures that stuff up on this one.
  give credence to the spite of a redhead english born former purveyor of fish while denying the veracity of anyone of Middle Eastern origins.  

cheers Mate.

Big Donger wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 10:48am:

Gee. That did it for you, eh?

Oh yes. It's the small, but numerous little distortions that add up to real harm. They disable plain, frank discussion, which is precisely what they are calculated to do.

Earle Qaeda wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 11:25am:

Well what 'ave we got 'ere then 'aye? Someone with their Oz flag tucked too tight up ther bum crack I guess... "This is why I have turned away from the ABC as a news source - it is for lisping," I must agree actually. The vocal contrivances of some of the readers is quite startling. Especially the attractive blonde who begins each paragraph with a roaring death rattle sucking of air down her gaping throat. But lisping..  I thinks perhaps you are making a deeper reference... "sashaying Darlinghurst types" Haven't been to D'hurst for yonks & I still watch a remnant of ABC News. Now I must say I have a cute walk - all my women tell me so. But sashaying? Nah. Not me. Again, there seems to be an element of personal concern in your presentation here. Is there something you feel you need to express about yourself? Go on. Be brave. We're here to help. "and middle aged shrill women with silly red glasses and dyed hair." I see. Then this is all about your mother then? "This fvcker is no Australian. He is an Arab with an unknown place of birth" Oh the angst. If you have never tried then you don't know. You ain't gonna get an Oz passport without a known P.O.B. Go on. Tell us what you really mean. "who managed to get an AUstralian passport (to add to his Saudi and Jordanian one)" This fair land has recognized dual citizenship for quite some time. Whatz yer problem? Are you suggetsing my US born kids should burn their Oz credentials? "under false pretences (there are thousands like him)." Better contact the Dept of Immigration right away if you have something to divulge. Or I suppose just stick around here. We need the giggles. "For the ABC to refer to anyone with an Australian passport as an Australian is tendentious, mendacious bullsh1t." Okay. Back on topic. It's all about the ABC then. But a few thoughts on being Australian.. always a good topic between pulls at the pokies. Allow me to summarize how I read your thoughts... To be Australian one must: drape their body in what was once a fine flag, trailing it on the ground behind them. be deathly afraid of anything that is different. refuse to consider that times / places / people / customs change & evolve. Oh yeah, I agree. There are plenty of other cultures that stuff up on this one. give credence to the spite of a redhead english born former purveyor of fish while denying the veracity of anyone of Middle Eastern origins.   cheers Mate.

That's an awful lot of waffle in search of a coherent point. To help you focus:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1298419401/49#49

But you may well be so cloth-eared that you do not hear the difference between an 'Australian' and an 'Australian national'.

Soren wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 3:00pm:

Big Donger wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 10:48am: Gee. That did it for you, eh? Oh yes. It's the small, but numerous little distortions that add up to real harm. They disable plain, frank discussion, which is precisely what they are calculated to do.

True, but have you tried calling Alan? You can't get a word in.

I though Mohammed was the last person Alan spoke to (as in 'Alan's at the um.. bar', the cry one hears from the sons of Alan).

Unless you're flattering him.

Earle Qaeda wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 11:25am:

"This fvcker is no Australian. He is an Arab with an unknown place of birth" Oh the angst. If you have never tried then you don't know. You ain't gonna get an Oz passport without a known P.O.B. Go on. Tell us what you really mean.

This bastard probably has a British passport, lives in central London but I wouldn't call him English or even British. Would you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H723__u-7Y

Soren wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 3:34pm:

I though Mohammed was the last person Alan spoke to (as in 'Alan's at the um.. bar', the cry one hears from the sons of Alan).

Oh, Alan's everywhere. I think he has a few things to say about the ABC too.

He may be everywhere but he ain't speaking to nobody no more. It was Mohammed or nobody.

Soren wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 3:38pm:

This bastard probably has a British passport but I wouldn't call him English or even British. Would you?

Definately not. Your Englishman likes to wear a nice tweed jacket or a suit and bowler hat.

How could these so-called journalists not know that?

London is no longer an English city, says John Cleese. Is he right?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100084274/london-is-no-longer-an-english-city-says-john-cleese-is-he-right/

Ken oath he's right.

I'd go as far as to say that the Bank of England is no longer an English bank and the British stock market is no longer a British stock market and the British sausage is no longer a British sausage and the British Empire is no longer British or an empire.

I could go on.

That's an awful lot of waffle in search of a coherent point.
Thank you for confirming that my point was coherent. Most of the waffle came from elementing the original post.

But you may well be so cloth-eared that you do not hear the difference between an 'Australian' and an 'Australian national'.
Cloth-eared? Geez. Haven't heard that pommism since Till Death Us Do Part. Anyways, 'Australian' & 'Australian National'. Whatever are you on about? Both phrases are interchangable. One sounds homey while the other has a nice official cling to it. But if there is more to it I am afraid you failed to elaborate.

But perhaps we are closer on this than either of us would dare to confirm in public. I never took much stock in dual citizenships & jumping flags. Hence I did not pursue a US passport in all those years when I had the opportunity. More's the pity.

Earle Qaeda wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 5:51pm:

[color=#ff0000]. Anyways, 'Australian' & 'Australian National'. Whatever are you on about? Both phrases are interchangable. One sounds homey while the other has a nice official cling to it. But if there is more to it I am afraid you failed to elaborate.

Wrong! An Australian national is someone with an Australian passport. An Australian is someone with an Australian passport who supports European and Amerikan values; and thus, by definition, supports their war against the Boor, Kaiser Wilheim, Johnny Turk, Adolf Hitler, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein, and despicable Muselmans and backward, tinted barbarians everywhere.

Don't forget it.

An Australian national is someone with an Australian passport. An Australian is someone with an Australian passport who supports European and Amerikan values;
Lived there 30 years... only ratbag militiamen  & movie producers spelled it America with a 'K". I am actually glad to come across an Australian (I assume you are) who doesn't dismiss the US out of hand. Thank you for that. Now if you have the patience tell me about European values. I'm wondering why I never learned them in my NSW public school. Was never required to teach them there either. Or are you just trying to avoid saying christian?

and thus, by definition, supports their war against the Boor, Kaiser Wilheim, Johnny Turk, Adolf Hitler, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein, and despicable Muselmans and backward, tinted barbarians everywhere.
Jeez where were you in 1969? Seems sensible to me to support wars by reason of consideration, not accident of birth. But hey I like your Musselman reference [two ess's there I reckon]. I enjoy reading Master & Commander too. Fabulous series.

Don't forget it.
Oh be polite. No finger jabbing or yelling. That's so un-Australian.

Sorry, E.C. You're right. We have manners in this country.

Hence, we despise all despicable Musselmen who come here with the intention of vapourising us and making us have sex with pigs.

We are civilized, after all.

Hence, we despise all despicable Musselmen who come here with the intention of vapourising us and making us have sex with pigs.

We are civilized, after all.

Civilized. Yeah I like that bit too. And actually I also detest anyone who  comes here with vaporization on their mind. But wow, you don't need to be a M'man to carry that thought. Hence it is rather vile of some folx to label 'em all that way. But sex with pigs... some confusion there. Isn't that more a Kiwi or Irish thing? Or maybe specific to seafaring nations? Anyway, don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

EQ

Soren wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 3:56pm:

London is no longer an English city, says John Cleese. Is he right? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100084274/london-is-no-longer-an-english-city-says-john-cleese-is-he-right/ Ken oath he's right.

London never was an 'English' city. Its entire history has been formed and reformed by waves of immigrants. That's what gives it its hybrid vigour. I can understand a mental case like Cleese preferring the sedation of Bath, it's a good place for him to calm down, have a cup of tea and a bex and a good lie down while waiting for god.

Grey wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 9:00am:

Soren wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 3:56pm: London is no longer an English city, says John Cleese. Is he right? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100084274/london-is-no-longer-an-english-city-says-john-cleese-is-he-right/ Ken oath he's right. London never was an 'English' city. Its entire history has been formed and reformed by waves of immigrants. That's what gives it its hybrid vigour. I can understand a mental case like Cleese preferring the sedation of Bath, it's a good place for him to calm down, have a cup of tea and a bex and a good lie down while waiting for god.

The English language itself was formed and reformed by waves of immigrants.

On the original topic, my observation is that the ABC (Radio at least) tends away from the government of the day. When Howard was in power, it was noticeably left-leaning.

On the original topic, my observation is that the ABC (Radio at least) tends away from the government of the day. When Howard was in power, it was noticeably left-leaning.

But that means you are sugesting that the current ALP lot are left wing??? All debate about effectiveness/defectiveness aside. My impression is that Jules policies are so far up the bum of Coalition policies & attitudes that they can see the soles of Bob Menzies' shoes.

It's a feature of Neo Conservatives that they don't care which nest they're raised in. I call 'em cuckoos. Tanner told them from student politics days, 'Gillard is a conservative and a careerist, she'll just use you'. He opposed her selection for a labor seat, he opposed her admittance to the left faction and he opposed her bid for the leadership and he wouldn't serve her for a minute. Smart guy Tanner.

Earle Qaeda wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 5:04pm:

On the original topic, my observation is that the ABC (Radio at least) tends away from the government of the day. When Howard was in power, it was noticeably left-leaning. But that means you are sugesting that the current ALP lot are left wing??? All debate about effectiveness/defectiveness aside. My impression is that Jules policies are so far up the bum of Coalition policies & attitudes that they can see the soles of Bob Menzies' shoes.

No, the whole game of politics has moved to the right. The libertarian/ authoritarian cultural dimension now becomes more important than the old right/ left dimension that everybody pretends is the dominant factor.

I guess I was saying that the ABC has more of a subtle bias towards the opposition rather than the government in power.

I guess I was saying that the ABC has more of a subtle bias towards the opposition rather than the government in power.

Sounds good. Except.. if that's true, why'd they cancel The Sideshow? That despicable act definitely wasn't pandering to the then opposition.

For me the litmus test is late Night Live on RN

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/

John Howard once said, "The ABC needs a sort of RW Phillip Adams" to which Phillip Adams replied, "A RW Phillip Adams would be Phillip Adams." Justifiably IMO as over the years RW people and causes have had their share of space on LNL. But now RN has placed 'Counterpoint'

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/

in a sort of opposition to LNL but objectivity is nowhere to be found on this vehicle of the barking right. A view borne out by a cursory glance at the web sites itineraries

I really like Counterpoint. Sure they just pander to whichever guest they have on, but sometimes I get the impression that the pandering has become more a case of egging on. As far as the guests go, to me it just seems like one whiney sook after another. The guy a couple of weeks ago who was lamenting that "young conservative males" have an extremely tough time getting a leg over these days was a classic.

I also like Late Night Live.

The BBC ABC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.”

" It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation "

Methinks urban is the keyword above. Had to giggle last night watching dear Graham do the weather. You want detail in NSW? You get one detailed overview of Sydney followed by a regional report covering Western Sydney. You want rural drama? Then watch the horrors of ABC as it parades row after row of slicker stereotypes in RM gear. Perhaps Soren is correct about the 'Abnormally large number of young people'. Perhaps it is just naivette.

Yep I have to admit Soren's not far off the truth there.  :) Mind you there's quite a few old foggies too.

Grey wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 10:12am:

Yep I have to admit Soren's not far off the truth there.  :) Mind you there's quite a few old foggies too.

Well Phillip Adams is 72 for one. I always enjoy listening to LNL (I guess I must be a gladdy)

You don't get much more LW than Phillip Adams. He was a member of the Communist Party at one stage. At the same time, he's a multimillionaire and past entrepreneur from his "Life Be in It" campaign.

:) From one Glady to another

http://www.coolmelbourne.org/images/waves-power.jpg

muso wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 10:32am:

Grey wrote on Apr 27th, 2011 at 10:12am: Yep I have to admit Soren's not far off the truth there.  :) Mind you there's quite a few old foggies too. I always enjoy listening to LNL (I guess I must be a gladdy)

I used to listen to him until about 6-7 years ago but can't any more. He reminds me of the Nietzsche quote about people with shortish attention spans whose minds are perpetaully flitting and darting about like "nature's winged insects and honey gatherers of the mind".

And there's Caroline Jones 73 :-)

muso wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 10:32am:

You don't get much more LW than Phillip Adams

This is why the left is buggered the world over - the Philip Adamses are its 'intellectual' voice: multimillionnaire advertiser, film producer and tv critic. Only the semi-educated proles would let such a man usurp their political platform.

The left is buggered the world over because it handed the reins to communists. Philip Adams never made money, he did creative things. You might as well disbar Bob Marley because he got money. I don't think that left and right positions, which are problematic in anycase, have much to do with money. MORE A Question of individualism Versus totalitarianism. I think capitalism has more in common with communism than communism has with Anarchism. As an Anarchist I feel more in common with conservative libertarians like Ayn Rand and PJ O Rourke than with communists.

The semi educated proles are more often than not  to be found amongst the conservative 'aspirational voters'.

http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/598/486/70853194-cartoon-plutocracy.jpg

Anarchism is for teenagers.

Adams is a 'media studies' type, an urban media junkie and advertising copywriter (where he made his fortune). A talker.

Nothing wrong with being a talker, we are all that. To say that Anarchism is for teenagers just reveals your own ignorance. Adams made money in advertising a long time ago. It is what he has done with his money and said and written, the big ideas he has explored since that matter.

Soren wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2011 at 10:52pm:

Australian accused of spying for Hamas By Middle East correspondent Anne Barker Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:53pm AEST An Australian man has been arrested in Israel and charged with working as a spy for Hamas. Eyad Rashid Abu Arga is a Palestinian refugee who grew up on the Arabian Gulf but later moved to Australia and took out Australian citizenship.http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/20/3197237.htm?section=justin This is why I have turned away from the ABC as a news source - it is for lisping, sashaying Darlinghurst types and middle aged shrill women with silly red glasses and dyed hair. This fvcker is no Australian. He is an Arab with an unknown place of birth who managed to get an AUstralian passport (to add to his Saudi and Jordanian one) under false pretences (there are thousands like him). For the ABC to refer to anyone with an Australian passport as an Australian is tendentious, mendacious bullsh1t.

Agence France Presse is not better than the ABC:

Family plead for Australian accused of Hamas ties
(AFP) – 7 hours ago

SYDNEY — The family of an Australian man detained in Israel over alleged links to Hamas has called the charges "preposterous" and urged Canberra to intervene.

The Palestinian-born Eyad Abuarga, an information technology expert, was arrested in March as he tried to enter Israel through Ben Gurion airport and charged with "belonging to an illegal organisation", in this case Hamas.

....

"My husband cannot admit to something he has not done. I am calling on the Australian government to intervene and to do all it possibly can, to return my husband back to his family and homeland, Australia."

SO now Australia is the 'Palestinian homeland'. They don't even want to return to 'Palestine' any more. And what IS his name? Abuarga? A burqa? Abu Arga?

Soren wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

muso wrote on Apr 27th, 2011 at 10:32am: You don't get much more LW than Phillip Adams This is why the left is buggered the world over - the Philip Adamses are its 'intellectual' voice: multimillionnaire advertiser, film producer and tv critic. Only the semi-educated proles would let such a man usurp their political platform.

Oh, yes. The educated proles get their political platform from Today Tonight.

i love today tonight

Honey, I love Chicken Tonight. Go figure.

Cliff Richard wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 6:33pm:

i love today tonight

Really? I thought it would be too left wing for you. Hasn't Fox got something more along your lines? 'Barking at the moon tonight, (with Anne Coulter)'.

Soren are you saying the guy had a fake Australian passport? That can't be right only Mossad use those.

No. I am saying that an Australian passport doesn't make him an Australian.

If I went to an African country, say Somalia or the Congo and got their passport,  I would not then become a Somali or a Conger [ahem]....

Soren wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

No. I am saying that n Australian passport doesn't make him an Australian. If I went to an African country, say Somalia or the Congo and got their passport,  I would not then become a Somali or a Conger [ahem]....

Changing the subject... or maybe not, did you see Australian Story this week Soren? I think you should.


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1307424351/0#0

Grey wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 3:50pm:

The left is buggered the world over because it handed the reins to communists. Philip Adams never made money, he did creative things. You might as well disbar Bob Marley because he got money. I don't think that left and right positions, which are problematic in anycase, have much to do with money. MORE A Question of individualism Versus totalitarianism. I think capitalism has more in common with communism than communism has with Anarchism. As an Anarchist I feel more in common with conservative libertarians like Ayn Rand and PJ O Rourke than with communists.

Exactly. It wasn't that communism took over the left - it was that anarchism was taken over by the right.

Anyway, anarchism never really took off - with the exception of Spain in the civil war and a few Russian utopians. Chomsky is probably the most influential anarchist around these days, but that's about it.

In this country, libertarians were more influential than anarchists. They largely became feminists (Germain Greer) or conservatives (Padraic McGuinness). Some went on to become Greens.

Anarchism could never become a political movement because its central platform is the destruction of the state. Therefore, to achieve any political gains, anarchists can only go one way: freemarket liberal democracy.

A few tried becoming Bolsheviks, but look what happened to them.

Quote:

Anarchism could never become a political movement because its central platform is the destruction of the state.

That's not a common denominator. I don't want the destruction of the state. What I do want is for the state of the state to be changed. I don't want a totalitarian authoritarian state that demands the individual rescinds their sovereignty.

I want the state to organise capital to put work where people want it. I want the state to organise the building of roads and hospitals and other national infrastructure.

I don't want the state to be a slagging contest between two gangs of pigs that eat out of the same trough anyway. I don't want a state that sets the rules of engagement for judging whether Bob raped Sheila. We know Bob and Sheila pretty well around here and can judge what went on a lot better than folk in Canberra. And if Sheila and her Dr decide that she should have a termination we reckon that's her affair and shouldn't be decided on the basis of whether the current ruler is a religious nut or not.

I don't want the state to tell us our Council has to almagate with three others so that we get dissed and they get more money and power. I think that what goes on locally is a local issue and none of canberra's goddamn business.

Grey wrote on Jun 8^th, 2011 at 5:17pm:

Quote: Anarchism could never become a political movement because its central platform is the destruction of the state. That's not a common denominator. I don't want the destruction of the state. What I do want is for the state of the state to be changed. I don't want a totalitarian authoritarian state that demands the individual rescinds their sovereignty. I want the state to organise capital to put work where people want it. I want the state to organise the building of roads and hospitals and other national infrastructure. I don't want the state to be a slagging contest between two gangs of pigs that eat out of the same trough anyway. I don't want a state that sets the rules of engagement for judging whether Bob raped Sheila. We know Bob and Sheila pretty well around here and can judge what went on a lot better than folk in Canberra. And if Sheila and her Dr decide that she should have a termination we reckon that's her affair and shouldn't be decided on the basis of whether the current ruler is a religious nut or not. I don't want the state to tell us our Council has to almagate with three others so that we get dissed and they get more money and power. I think that what goes on locally is a local issue and none of canberra's goddamn business.

SOunds like Nationalsozialismus ohne Führerprinzip.

Huh? Do you have any comprehension skills Soren? Do you read at all.

Grey wrote on Jun 8^th, 2011 at 11:49pm:

Huh? Do you have any comprehension skills Soren? Do you read at all.

You want a strong state to organise people's lives and activities without it having a strong head or leader. This is why anarchism is an adolescent fantasy.

Soren wrote on Jun 10^th, 2011 at 9:39am:

Grey wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 11:49pm: Huh? Do you have any comprehension skills Soren? Do you read at all. You want a strong state to organise people's lives and activities without it having a strong head or leader. This is why anarchism is an adolescent fantasy.

Facillitation of coperation on building a societies infrastructure isn't
"organising people's lives and activities". The idea of 'strong leader' is a primitive one. It stems from the time the biggest thug called himself King.

There is no advantage to be had from making decisions in an undemocratic way and there are advantages to making decisions in a consensual way. For instance wrong decisions can re rectified without an individual suffering loss of face.

Pat Condell nails the stupid mongs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4YMbsEm3ms



"The multiculti leftwing middle class prickocracy!!!"

Perfect.

Soren wrote on Apr 15^th, 2011 at 9:26pm:

Grey wrote on Apr 15th, 2011 at 4:32pm: I can hardly believe my ears listening to 'Counterpoint' sometimes. These guys think keeping paedophiles out of a child care centre is running a nanny state. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/ http://suggest.getup.org.au/forums/60819-campaign-ideas/suggestions/1684971-petition-for-abc-to-return-to-its-charter What a moronic petition. Your own composition? If Abbott is ultra-conservative, who is an acceptable, respected conservative?

Abbott? Ultra conservative? Be real. He doesn't have a stance at all. Remember he's the one who said Medicare is our best friend. That's socialist policy and he eats it up.

His only stance is AGAINST. He has no qualms about hypocrisy, lying or betraying others, ever. He has only one interest. Himself. He is a Catholic after all isn't he? Pragmatism before policy were his words last night, again. No stance, ever as he could get nailed if he took one.

Soren wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

No. I am saying that an Australian passport doesn't make him an Australian. If I went to an African country, say Somalia or the Congo and got their passport,  I would not then become a Somali or a Conger [ahem]....

Ahhh, yes. You would. You would need to be a citizen thus you would be Somalian or whatever. A passport does define your nationality mate. That's what they are for.

Big Donger wrote on Jun 8^th, 2011 at 2:30pm:

Grey wrote on May 25th, 2011 at 3:50pm: The left is buggered the world over because it handed the reins to communists. Philip Adams never made money, he did creative things. You might as well disbar Bob Marley because he got money. I don't think that left and right positions, which are problematic in anycase, have much to do with money. MORE A Question of individualism Versus totalitarianism. I think capitalism has more in common with communism than communism has with Anarchism. As an Anarchist I feel more in common with conservative libertarians like Ayn Rand and PJ O Rourke than with communists. Exactly. It wasn't that communism took over the left - it was that anarchism was taken over by the right. Anyway, anarchism never really took off - with the exception of Spain in the civil war and a few Russian utopians. Chomsky is probably the most influential anarchist around these days, but that's about it. In this country, libertarians were more influential than anarchists. They largely became feminists (Germain Greer) or conservatives (Padraic McGuinness). Some went on to become Greens. Anarchism could never become a political movement because its central platform is the destruction of the state. Therefore, to achieve any political gains, anarchists can only go one way: freemarket liberal democracy. A few tried becoming Bolsheviks, but look what happened to them.

Wake up dude. Left and right disappeared about 40 years ago. In the West anyway. What Party is "left" in your opinion, today?

boogieman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2011 at 12:22pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 7th, 2011 at 3:20pm: No. I am saying that an Australian passport doesn't make him an Australian. If I went to an African country, say Somalia or the Congo and got their passport,  I would not then become a Somali or a Conger [ahem].... Ahhh, yes. You would. You would need to be a citizen thus you would be Somalian or whatever. A passport does define your nationality mate. That's what they are for.

Nonsense.

The passport you hold doesn't in itself indicate the acculturation you received in your formative years. There is a difference between natives and non-natives in every place. Your nationality is not merely about your travel documents.

boogieman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2011 at 12:20pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 15th, 2011 at 9:26pm: Grey wrote on Apr 15th, 2011 at 4:32pm: I can hardly believe my ears listening to 'Counterpoint' sometimes. These guys think keeping paedophiles out of a child care centre is running a nanny state. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/ http://suggest.getup.org.au/forums/60819-campaign-ideas/suggestions/1684971-petition-for-abc-to-return-to-its-charter What a moronic petition. Your own composition? If Abbott is ultra-conservative, who is an acceptable, respected conservative? Abbott? Ultra conservative? Be real.

Read again. I highlighted the important bit.

Hope it helps.

Soren wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 3:00pm:

Big Donger wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 10:48am: Gee. That did it for you, eh? Oh yes. It's the small, but numerous little distortions that add up to real harm. They disable plain, frank discussion, which is precisely what they are calculated to do.

Entirely correct imo, soren.

It is clear that distortions and omissions [of facts] in ABC news and current affairs presentations, can only protect the guilty, and shield the guilty, from scrutiny.

And that is what the leftists and humanists directing the presentation of news and current affairs at the ABC are guilty of.

Preventing real, and open, and informed, community debate on 'contentious' issues.

Particularly, the issue of how ISLAM/moslems are 'interfacing' with Western culture.




AND THE SAME 'ENVIRONMENT' IS SEEN ON MANY ABC [online] PUBLIC FORUMS...
Real debate on many ABC public [online] forums are 'hamstrung', when those who posit a different worldview are nearly always gagged.
My experience is that on ABC public [online] forums, only a worldview which is self-effacing [and critical of Western culture] and which moslem-tolerant, and anti-Israel is welcome.

Only those persons who expresses an opinion which is PC, and non-critical of ISLAM, need to bother to express an opinion on ABC forums.


I will be watching "Q&A Stopping the boats",

This Thur, 9.00 pm

Will anyone in that forum, address the threat which ISLAMIC culture poses to Australia, and all non-moslems.

Why won't ABC news agencies, confront what ISLAMIC religious doctrines clearly promote [i.e. a culture of supremacism, deception, violence against local infidels, to further ISLAM's influence locally] ???

Quote:

It is clear that distortions and omissions [of facts] in... news and current affairs presentations, can only protect the guilty, and shield the guilty, from scrutiny.

Couldn't agree more, like the RW media playing up the whines of mining magnates that tiny insignificant rises in the cost of their product are going to send their indusries to the wall, WHILE THEY THEMSELVES HIKE PRICES IN ONE MOVE MORE THAN 50%! Because they judge the maeket will bear it.

Soren wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

muso wrote on Apr 27th, 2011 at 10:32am: You don't get much more LW than Phillip Adams This is why the left is buggered the world over - the Philip Adamses are its 'intellectual' voice: multimillionnaire advertiser, film producer and tv critic. Only the semi-educated proles would let such a man usurp their political platform.

What really appals me about people today, people who are referred to as 'liberals' [<---- a good example of the absolute perversion of a words' true meaning]...is the intellectual oppression which 'liberals' will engage in, to secure a 'debating ' 'high ground', on any particular issue.

I mean, isn't FREE AND OPEN DEBATE, meant to be, intended to be, a contest of ideas ???

Yet [supposed] liberals today, will always try to secure a 'high ground' in any debate, NOT IN REASONED DEBATE,
but by seeking to gag the expression of any opposing argument.

The majority of 'liberals' and leftists today, are not willing TO DEBATE, others in intellectual argument.

The majority of 'liberals' today seem wholly unwilling to listen to any intellectual argument, which does not align with their own POV.

But rather, the primary aim, the sole aim, of leftists and humanists [within any supposed 'debate'] is to remove anyone from the debate, who does not share their own POV.

That is not debate.

And that form of 'debate', has no intellectual merit, at all.


That form of 'debate' is merely, a form of applied intellectual 'thuggery'.

And such conduct fosters the intellectual and political 'environment' from which actual, worldly tyrants can spring up.




In the world of 'liberals', and political argument today, it is winning the 'prize' [of political power] which is everything.

And the position of 1/ reason, 2/ integrity, and 3/ moral values, count for nothing.




Dictionary;
liberal = =
1 respectful and accepting of behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas. favourable to individual rights and freedoms. Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
2 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.
3 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.
4 (especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed; not strictly literal.
5 given, used, or giving in generous amounts.


Dictionary;
merit = = excellence; worth.

boogieman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2011 at 12:23pm:

Left and right disappeared about 40 years ago. In the West anyway. What Party is "left" in your opinion, today?

Australian Greens
Communist Party of Australia
Democratic Socialist Party
Socialist Alliance
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist Party Australia
Progressive Labour Party

Yadda wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 10:52am:

Soren wrote on May 25th, 2011 at 2:33pm: muso wrote on Apr 27th, 2011 at 10:32am: You don't get much more LW than Phillip Adams This is why the left is buggered the world over - the Philip Adamses are its 'intellectual' voice: multimillionnaire advertiser, film producer and tv critic. Only the semi-educated proles would let such a man usurp their political platform. What really appals me about people today, people who are referred to as 'liberals' [<---- a good example of the absolute perversion of a words' true meaning]...is the intellectual oppression which 'liberals' will engage in, to secure a 'debating ' 'high ground', on any particular issue. I mean, isn't FREE AND OPEN DEBATE, meant to be, intended to be, a contest of ideas ??? Yet [supposed] liberals today, will always try to secure a 'high ground' in any debate, NOT IN REASONED DEBATE, but by seeking to gag the expression of any opposing argument. The majority of 'liberals' and leftists today, are not willing TO DEBATE, others in intellectual argument. The majority of 'liberals' today seem wholly unwilling to listen to any intellectual argument, which does not align with their own POV. But rather, the primary aim, the sole aim, of leftists and humanists [within any supposed 'debate'] is to remove anyone from the debate, who does not share their own POV. That is not debate. And that form of 'debate', has no intellectual merit, at all. That form of 'debate' is merely, a form of applied intellectual 'thuggery'. And such conduct fosters the intellectual and political 'environment' from which actual, worldly tyrants can spring up. In the world of 'liberals', and political argument today, it is winning the 'prize' [of political power] which is everything. And the position of 1/ reason, 2/ integrity, and 3/ moral values, count for nothing. Dictionary; liberal = = 1 respectful and accepting of behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas. favourable to individual rights and freedoms. Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change. 2 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform. 3 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience. 4 (especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed; not strictly literal. 5 given, used, or giving in generous amounts. Dictionary; merit = = excellence; worth.

How does this differ from conservatives in debate, or any other group for that matter?
Every group will push their barrow of what they consider right. This is especially the case when politics is involved. Politics is about winning, it's about crushing your enemy and rubbing their nose in the dirt, not debating, not discussing, not making concessions. You're no different with your religious talk: you want to severely punish those who you believe are wrong (moreso than most on this forum, which is not unusual for religious types).

Is this your best effort of crushing and nose grinding? Must try harder, I'm afraid, very unconvincing.


Or are you not debating?

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 3:14pm:

Is this your best effort of crushing and nose grinding? Must try harder, I'm afraid, very unconvincing. Or are you not debating?

What is your counter-argument? It can't be unconvincing if you don't say why it isn't.

Or maybe you think you're a special little conservative who has the dibs on right and wrong.

You say that every side in a political debate only wants to crush its opponets and grind their noses in the dirt.
You are saying this in a political debate.
By your own reckoning, then, your aim is to crush Yadda and grind his nose in the dirt.
Your effort is feeble for that purpose.
Unless, of course you are NOT debating Yadda.
But what are you doing posting in a political debate.
Just to grind your nose into it: why do I need to spell out your own theory to you?

At this point I should say namaste
but
I won't.
So
there.


nameste
(what the hell)

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 3:29pm:

You say that every side in a political debate only wants to crush its opponets and grind their noses in the dirt. You are saying this in a political debate. By your own reckoning, then, your aim is to crush Yadda and grind his nose in the dirt. Your effort is feeble for that purpose. Unless, of course you are NOT debating Yadda. But what are you doing posting in a political debate. Just to grind your nose into it: why do I need to spell out your own theory to you? At this point I should say namaste but I won't. So there. nameste (what the hell)

If Yadda is honest he'll realize his views are merely one among thousands of views. He thinks he holds the truth and all liberals, atheists, and humanists are wrong and evil. He thinks only he and those who share his views debate properly, while dumb liberals, atheists, and humanists don't debate. This is merely a cunning ploy to claim he's right and the rest are wrong. To be fair to Yadda, though, there's many others who use the same tactics.

Yadda is right. All liberals, athiests and humanists are wrong. However, he is also wrong because Yadda is not right either.

We are all wrong.

Can you be wrong and right at the same time?

I never studied analytic philosophy, but it would seem that you can.

As a continental man, I always thought that we are always wrong, but in this case Yadda could not be right about the atheists, liberals and humanists being wrong, but be wrong too.

As you can see, it is very hard to be right.

Yadda is righteous, by the way, which is not the same as being right. That's something else entirely.

Big Donger wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 5:25pm:

Yadda is right. All liberals, athiests and humanists are wrong. However, he is also wrong because Yadda is not right either. We are all wrong. Can you be wrong and right at the same time? I never studied analytic philosophy, but it would seem that you can. As a continental man, I always thought that we are always wrong, but in this case Yadda could not be right about the atheists, liberals and humanists being wrong, but be wrong too. As you can see, it is very hard to be right. Yadda is righteous, by the way, which is not the same as being right. That's something else entirely.

This is all wrong, of course.

That's right. What to do?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 3:36pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 6th, 2011 at 3:29pm: You say that every side in a political debate only wants to crush its opponets and grind their noses in the dirt. You are saying this in a political debate. By your own reckoning, then, your aim is to crush Yadda and grind his nose in the dirt. Your effort is feeble for that purpose. Unless, of course you are NOT debating Yadda. But what are you doing posting in a political debate. Just to grind your nose into it: why do I need to spell out your own theory to you? At this point I should say namaste but I won't. So there. nameste (what the hell) If Yadda is honest he'll realize his views are merely one among thousands of views.

Do you accept the same for your views - one among thousands, with no particular validity? If so - why hold it?


Or do you think you are right?

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 9:15pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 6th, 2011 at 3:36pm: Soren wrote on Jul 6th, 2011 at 3:29pm: You say that every side in a political debate only wants to crush its opponets and grind their noses in the dirt. You are saying this in a political debate. By your own reckoning, then, your aim is to crush Yadda and grind his nose in the dirt. Your effort is feeble for that purpose. Unless, of course you are NOT debating Yadda. But what are you doing posting in a political debate. Just to grind your nose into it: why do I need to spell out your own theory to you? At this point I should say namaste but I won't. So there. nameste (what the hell) If Yadda is honest he'll realize his views are merely one among thousands of views. Do you accept the same for your views - one among thousands, with no particular validity? If so - why hold it? Or do you think you are right?

He is right - no - wrong!

Really, though, there are not thousands of views. There's only about two or three.

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 9:15pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 6th, 2011 at 3:36pm: Soren wrote on Jul 6th, 2011 at 3:29pm: You say that every side in a political debate only wants to crush its opponets and grind their noses in the dirt. You are saying this in a political debate. By your own reckoning, then, your aim is to crush Yadda and grind his nose in the dirt. Your effort is feeble for that purpose. Unless, of course you are NOT debating Yadda. But what are you doing posting in a political debate. Just to grind your nose into it: why do I need to spell out your own theory to you? At this point I should say namaste but I won't. So there. nameste (what the hell) If Yadda is honest he'll realize his views are merely one among thousands of views. Do you accept the same for your views - one among thousands, with no particular validity? If so - why hold it? Or do you think you are right?

In regards to morality and politics, it all comes down to power. Whoever controls the mechanisms of right and wrong, shame, guilt, reward, punishment, is right.
There's no right and wrong morality lying dormant beneath the flux of phenomena, there is only the imposition of one's will on the other.

Big Donger wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 5:25pm:

Yadda is right. All liberals, athiests and humanists are wrong. However, he is also wrong because Yadda is not right either. We are all wrong. Can you be wrong and right at the same time? I never studied analytic philosophy, but it would seem that you can. As a continental man, I always thought that we are always wrong, but in this case Yadda could not be right about the atheists, liberals and humanists being wrong, but be wrong too. As you can see, it is very hard to be right. Yadda is righteous, by the way, which is not the same as being right. That's something else entirely.

Right, wrong, whatever, it's all perspective.

That's just your biased opinion, one of thousands. Or three.



The point, though, is that you cannot maintain a relativists 'perspective' without thereby immediately rendering your own argument suprefluous as no more than a personal perspective.

So you're saying there's an absolute morality lying dormant somewhere beneath the ever changing notions of morality?

Platonism has been thoroughly refuted.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 8^th, 2011 at 4:29pm:

So you're saying there's an absolute morality lying dormant somewhere beneath the ever changing notions of morality?

Er.... no, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that you cannot maintain a relativists 'perspective' without thereby immediately rendering your own argument suprefluous as no more than a personal perspective.

In regards to my moral views, yes they are just perspectives. Just as everyone elses is.

Well, the whole point of having morals is that they aren't just for you/about you. To say that everyone's views are just perspectives, no better or worse than any other, is a recipe for paralysis.
The whole point is that you are taken out of your narrow self-referential perspective. That's what education is about also, by the way.

While moral views are perspectives, people still believe that the perspective they hold is better than the alternatives. People take the moral perspective they do because it benefits them in some way; hence, there is a great deal of egotism in one's moral views. Selflessness is often the exception, not the rule. This is why I singled out Yadaa here. He tries to bring himself across as some kind of truth holder, but his moral views benefit him in some way; they are psycho-physiological manifestations of his soul that project his egotism.
In fact, to take the projector out of the moral perspective one espouses is what is called "the view from nowhere". Hence, it's a logical fallacy to claim that one escapes perspectives.
This is why some people gravitate toward Labor, others toward the Liberals, others the Greens, others God etc. because each has a doctrine that best expresses the personal perspective of the projector.
You can tell a lot about a person by the group he gravitates toward.

Quote:

Karnal - Really, though, there are not thousands of views. There's only about two or three.

hahahahaha What dimension are you living in? Shuffle around the tree Karnal, how many views? Every fraction of a fraction is a different tree. Don't stop there, there's the view from afar from very afar from extremely close, the view from above and the view from below, the view from sitting in the canopy. in different places.

Don't you see? It's ALL like that. The views are infinite.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 11^th, 2011 at 5:22pm:

While moral views are perspectives, people still believe that the perspective they hold is better than the alternatives. People take the moral perspective they do because it benefits them in some way; hence, there is a great deal of egotism in one's moral views. Selflessness is often the exception, not the rule. This is why I singled out Yadaa here. He tries to bring himself across as some kind of truth holder, but his moral views benefit him in some way; they are psycho-physiological manifestations of his soul that project his egotism. In fact, to take the projector out of the moral perspective one espouses is what is called "the view from nowhere". Hence, it's a logical fallacy to claim that one escapes perspectives. This is why some people gravitate toward Labor, others toward the Liberals, others the Greens, others God etc. because each has a doctrine that best expresses the personal perspective of the projector. You can tell a lot about a person by the group he gravitates toward.

Brilliant. So what are the psycho-physiological manifestations of your soul that project your egotism and bring you psychological or physical benefits? Is it just the bringing yourself across as some kind of truth holder?

But if your view is no different from anybody else's on the subject (an ego boost) - why should people bother listening to you in particular?

Grey wrote on Jul 11^th, 2011 at 5:37pm:

Quote: Karnal - Really, though, there are not thousands of views. There's only about two or three. hahahahaha What dimension are you living in? Shuffle around the tree Karnal, how many views? Every fraction of a fraction is a different tree. Don't stop there, there's the view from afar from very afar from extremely close, the view from above and the view from below, the view from sitting in the canopy. in different places. Don't you see? It's ALL like that. The views are infinite.

The views may be infinite in number but they are not interchangable, that is to say, they are not equal - in relevance or importance or what they reveal or indeed in any other aspect.

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2011 at 10:17pm:

Grey wrote on Jul 11th, 2011 at 5:37pm: Quote: Karnal - Really, though, there are not thousands of views. There's only about two or three. hahahahaha What dimension are you living in? Shuffle around the tree Karnal, how many views? Every fraction of a fraction is a different tree. Don't stop there, there's the view from afar from very afar from extremely close, the view from above and the view from below, the view from sitting in the canopy. in different places. Don't you see? It's ALL like that. The views are infinite. The views may be infinite in number but they are not interchangable, that is to say, they are not equal - in relevance or importance or what they reveal or indeed in any other aspect.

Oh yes they are!

What is a view? A view is a looking at...- A mexican riding a bicycle seen from above

http://www.hamiltonpruim.co.uk/blog/mexican.jpg

Only when you have viewed the Mexican, (or a tree)  from all possible views in all possible dimensions do you have an accurate picture. This is true of issues. The more views (opinions + facts) you collect, the more chance you have of making a reasoned assessment or decision. A person who takes one view and excludes all others is a bigot.

Quote:

Soren wrote So what are the psycho-physiological manifestations of your soul that project your egotism and bring you psychological or physical benefits?

That's for my opponents to find out.

Grey wrote on Jul 12^th, 2011 at 11:06am:

Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2011 at 10:17pm: Grey wrote on Jul 11th, 2011 at 5:37pm: Quote: Karnal - Really, though, there are not thousands of views. There's only about two or three. hahahahaha What dimension are you living in? Shuffle around the tree Karnal, how many views? Every fraction of a fraction is a different tree. Don't stop there, there's the view from afar from very afar from extremely close, the view from above and the view from below, the view from sitting in the canopy. in different places. Don't you see? It's ALL like that. The views are infinite. The views may be infinite in number but they are not interchangable, that is to say, they are not equal - in relevance or importance or what they reveal or indeed in any other aspect. Oh yes they are! What is a view? A view is a looking at...- A mexican riding a bicycle seen from above http://www.hamiltonpruim.co.uk/blog/mexican.jpg Only when you have viewed the Mexican, (or a tree)  from all possible views in all possible dimensions do you have an accurate picture. This is true of issues. The more views (opinions + facts) you collect, the more chance you have of making a reasoned assessment or decision. A person who takes one view and excludes all others is a bigot.

How the bugger do you know it's a Mexican when you've had only one view??

You and Time just crap on without realising that you are refuting yourselves with every post.


But you probably sense it, that's why you bandy the the worrd 'bigot' too readily - it's a a shorthand for 'I can't think of a reason so I'll just assert something and hope it'll bamboozle them".

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12^th, 2011 at 12:46pm:

Quote: Soren wrote So what are the psycho-physiological manifestations of your soul that project your egotism and bring you psychological or physical benefits? That's for my opponents to find out.

Well, the recesses of your sould are not important. We know all we need to know: whatever you post is just a psycho-physiological manifestations of your soul projecting your egotism. This is your own theory and I will take you at your word.i

Soren wrote on Jul 12^th, 2011 at 1:02pm:

Grey wrote on Jul 12th, 2011 at 11:06am: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2011 at 10:17pm: Grey wrote on Jul 11th, 2011 at 5:37pm: Quote: Karnal - Really, though, there are not thousands of views. There's only about two or three. hahahahaha What dimension are you living in? Shuffle around the tree Karnal, how many views? Every fraction of a fraction is a different tree. Don't stop there, there's the view from afar from very afar from extremely close, the view from above and the view from below, the view from sitting in the canopy. in different places. Don't you see? It's ALL like that. The views are infinite. The views may be infinite in number but they are not interchangable, that is to say, they are not equal - in relevance or importance or what they reveal or indeed in any other aspect. Oh yes they are! What is a view? A view is a looking at...- A mexican riding a bicycle seen from above http://www.hamiltonpruim.co.uk/blog/mexican.jpg Only when you have viewed the Mexican, (or a tree)  from all possible views in all possible dimensions do you have an accurate picture. This is true of issues. The more views (opinions + facts) you collect, the more chance you have of making a reasoned assessment or decision. A person who takes one view and excludes all others is a bigot. How the bugger do you know it's a Mexican when you've had only one view?? You and Time just crap on without realising that you are refuting yourselves with every post. But you probably sense it, that's why you bandy the the worrd 'bigot' too readily - it's a a shorthand for 'I can't think of a reason so I'll just assert something and hope it'll bamboozle them".

Pffft. You've not refuted a single thing I've said.

Quote:

How the bugger do you know it's a Mexican when you've had only one view??

Oh I viewed the Mexican from every which way, she had very nice tits.  ;D .

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12^th, 2011 at 2:05pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 12th, 2011 at 1:02pm: Grey wrote on Jul 12th, 2011 at 11:06am: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2011 at 10:17pm: Grey wrote on Jul 11th, 2011 at 5:37pm: Quote: Karnal - Really, though, there are not thousands of views. There's only about two or three. hahahahaha What dimension are you living in? Shuffle around the tree Karnal, how many views? Every fraction of a fraction is a different tree. Don't stop there, there's the view from afar from very afar from extremely close, the view from above and the view from below, the view from sitting in the canopy. in different places. Don't you see? It's ALL like that. The views are infinite. The views may be infinite in number but they are not interchangable, that is to say, they are not equal - in relevance or importance or what they reveal or indeed in any other aspect. Oh yes they are! What is a view? A view is a looking at...- A mexican riding a bicycle seen from above http://www.hamiltonpruim.co.uk/blog/mexican.jpg Only when you have viewed the Mexican, (or a tree)  from all possible views in all possible dimensions do you have an accurate picture. This is true of issues. The more views (opinions + facts) you collect, the more chance you have of making a reasoned assessment or decision. A person who takes one view and excludes all others is a bigot. How the bugger do you know it's a Mexican when you've had only one view?? You and Time just crap on without realising that you are refuting yourselves with every post. But you probably sense it, that's why you bandy the the worrd 'bigot' too readily - it's a a shorthand for 'I can't think of a reason so I'll just assert something and hope it'll bamboozle them". Pffft. You've not refuted a single thing I've said.

That's just it - you refute yourself. Applying your statements to your own stance shows up how untenable both your stance and your statements are. But you do not seem to even realise that relativising everything makes your every statement relative, that is, applicable only to you. Yet you boldly speak of 'other people', as if you were not yourself 'other people'. I suppose subjecting yourself to sociology for decades does that.

Soren wrote on Jul 12^th, 2011 at 4:44pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12th, 2011 at 2:05pm: Soren wrote on Jul 12th, 2011 at 1:02pm: Grey wrote on Jul 12th, 2011 at 11:06am: Soren wrote on Jul 11th, 2011 at 10:17pm: Grey wrote on Jul 11th, 2011 at 5:37pm: Quote: Karnal - Really, though, there are not thousands of views. There's only about two or three. hahahahaha What dimension are you living in? Shuffle around the tree Karnal, how many views? Every fraction of a fraction is a different tree. Don't stop there, there's the view from afar from very afar from extremely close, the view from above and the view from below, the view from sitting in the canopy. in different places. Don't you see? It's ALL like that. The views are infinite. The views may be infinite in number but they are not interchangable, that is to say, they are not equal - in relevance or importance or what they reveal or indeed in any other aspect. Oh yes they are! What is a view? A view is a looking at...- A mexican riding a bicycle seen from above http://www.hamiltonpruim.co.uk/blog/mexican.jpg Only when you have viewed the Mexican, (or a tree)  from all possible views in all possible dimensions do you have an accurate picture. This is true of issues. The more views (opinions + facts) you collect, the more chance you have of making a reasoned assessment or decision. A person who takes one view and excludes all others is a bigot. How the bugger do you know it's a Mexican when you've had only one view?? You and Time just crap on without realising that you are refuting yourselves with every post. But you probably sense it, that's why you bandy the the worrd 'bigot' too readily - it's a a shorthand for 'I can't think of a reason so I'll just assert something and hope it'll bamboozle them". Pffft. You've not refuted a single thing I've said. That's just it - you refute yourself. Applying your statements to your own stance shows up how untenable both your stance and your statements are. But you do not seem to even realise that relativising everything makes your every statement relative, that is, applicable only to you. Yet you boldly speak of 'other people', as if you were not yourself 'other people'. I suppose subjecting yourself to sociology for decades does that.

We've been over this and your only option to counter this is to argue for moral absolutes. You have yet to do this; instead you slyly move away from the topic everytime it rises.
If you want to argue against the relativism of morality the onus is on you to prove your case by arguing absolutes. Yet you haven't, or is it you can't?
You're pinned in an intellectual corner, playing antics with semantics in the vain hope that you may get yourself off the ropes.
For someone who claims to know a lot about philosophy, you are about 200 years behind where knowledge is at today.

You are very binary for a relativist. It does not follow that just because your relativism doesn't hold up I have to somehow, therefore, argue for absolutes.

Relativism is untenable because it essentially says that there are no principles, only self-interest disguised as principle. But then this statement is nothing more than self-interest disguised as an insight into principle. In other words, does your statement about projected egotism include your on statement? If not, then your statement is untrue - not all statements are as described. If yes, then you are just projecting.

I don't see how it is necessary for me to be an absolutist to be able to show this. How am I pinned anywhere by showing that a relativist position is a paradoxical position?

More word games.

Answer this simple question: Is there such thing as moral absolutes? If so, how are they grounded?

Quote:

How am I pinned anywhere by showing that a relativist position is a paradoxical position?

Paradox is the land where truth lives.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 13^th, 2011 at 10:11am:

Is there such thing as moral absolutes? If so, how are they grounded?

Yes, my frien. They are grounded in the relative natures.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 13^th, 2011 at 10:11am:

More word games. Answer this simple question: Is there such thing as moral absolutes? If so, how are they grounded?

They are grounded in epistemological absolutes.

Grey wrote on Jul 13^th, 2011 at 10:42am:

Quote: How am I pinned anywhere by showing that a relativist position is a paradoxical position? Paradox is the land where truth lives.

ParadoxParable is the land where truth lives

Soren wrote on Jul 13^th, 2011 at 7:56pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 13th, 2011 at 10:11am: More word games. Answer this simple question: Is there such thing as moral absolutes? If so, how are they grounded? They are grounded in epistemological absolutes.

Ah, you are very tricky fellow, my frien, very tricky indeed. We have these epistemological abolutions in my country. No good! Thank the god Mother England come and teach us good manners.

I think is nice in your country. You are Englishman, no? You are a good man.

Soren wrote on Jul 13^th, 2011 at 7:58pm:

Grey wrote on Jul 13th, 2011 at 10:42am: Quote: How am I pinned anywhere by showing that a relativist position is a paradoxical position? Paradox is the land where truth lives. ParadoxParable is the land where truth lives

<sigh> None so blind as those that will not see :-)

Soren wrote on Jul 13^th, 2011 at 7:56pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 13th, 2011 at 10:11am: More word games. Answer this simple question: Is there such thing as moral absolutes? If so, how are they grounded? They are grounded in epistemological absolutes.

What are these epistemological absolutes?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12^th, 2011 at 5:43pm:

We've been over this and your only option to counter this is to argue for moral absolutes. You have yet to do this; instead you slyly move away from the topic everytime it rises. If you want to argue against the relativism of morality the onus is on you to prove your case by arguing absolutes. Yet you haven't, or is it you can't? You're pinned in an intellectual corner, playing antics with semantics in the vain hope that you may get yourself off the ropes. For someone who claims to know a lot about philosophy, you are about 200 years behind where knowledge is at today.

Sounds familiar - You just described the Soren gambit.  Exactly the same tactics were used in Environment when discussing climate change. :)

:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Not my invention, alas, nothing 'Soren' about it. I just spotted what is known as the Epimenides paradox.

It is not magic, or sneak, or tricky to point out when an assertion, if applied to the person who makes it, undermines that person's authority/grounds for making the assertion. This is what happened to Time, who made an assertion about morality to the effect that his own assertion was itself nothing more than a projection of his ego. He just didn't realise it.

Ah, this tricky deconstructionalist argument will not wash with us, my good man. You are a very tricky fellow, very Post Modern academic fellow, very French.

If you don't mind me saying, sir, I am thinking we have very much in common.

We both come from the behind.

Big Donger wrote on Jul 15^th, 2011 at 12:21pm:

Ah, this tricky deconstructionalist argument will not wash with us, my good man. You are a very tricky fellow, very Post Modern academic fellow, very French.

Well spotted. It is also very strange for a Conservative to side with postmodern deconstructionists.

Soren wrote on Jul 14^th, 2011 at 5:03pm:

Not my invention, alas, nothing 'Soren' about it. I just spotted what is known as the Epimenides paradox. It is not magic, or sneak, or tricky to point out when an assertion, if applied to the person who makes it, undermines that person's authority/grounds for making the assertion. This is what happened to Time, who made an assertion about morality to the effect that his own assertion was itself nothing more than a projection of his ego. He just didn't realise it.

The regress argument only further reinforces my point.
If it's a perspective from a perspective, then there is ... only perspectives.

Big Donger wrote on Jul 15^th, 2011 at 12:21pm:

Ah, this tricky deconstructionalist argument will not wash with us, my good man. You are a very tricky fellow, very Post Modern academic fellow, very French. If you don't mind me saying, sir, I am thinking we have very much in common. We both come from the behind.

:-) Soren is to Foucault what soap is to chocolate.

You fellas have a horizon that extends for decades. Well done. Alas, Epimenides goes back further. Even before French deconstructinists (I know you'd find that hard to believe).


Epimenides,  (flourished 6th century bce?), Cretan seer, reputed author of religious and poetical writings, including a Theogony, Cretica, and other mystical works. ...
For his reputed claim—cited by St. Paul the Apostle (Titus 1:2)—that all Cretans are liars, Epimenides, a Cretan, is credited with invention of the paradox of the liar, in which a sentence says of itself that it is false, thus being true if it is false and false if it is true.



Time is our Epimanides:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

How does this differ from conservatives in debate, or any other group for that matter? Every group will push their barrow of what they consider right. This is especially the case when politics is involved. Politics is about winning, it's about crushing your enemy and rubbing their nose in the dirt, not debating, not discussing, not making concessions. You're no different with your religious talk: you want to severely punish those who you believe are wrong (moreso than most on this forum, which is not unusual for religious types).

Soren wrote on Jul 15^th, 2011 at 5:23pm:

You fellas have a horizon that extends for decades. Well done. Alas, Epimenides goes back further. Even before French deconstructinists (I know you'd find that hard to believe). Epimenides,  (flourished 6th century bce?), Cretan seer, reputed author of religious and poetical writings, including a Theogony, Cretica, and other mystical works. ... For his reputed claim—cited by St. Paul the Apostle (Titus 1:2)—that all Cretans are liars, Epimenides, a Cretan, is credited with invention of the paradox of the liar, in which a sentence says of itself that it is false, thus being true if it is false and false if it is true. Time is our Epimanides: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 6th, 2011 at 2:33pm: How does this differ from conservatives in debate, or any other group for that matter? Every group will push their barrow of what they consider right. This is especially the case when politics is involved. Politics is about winning, it's about crushing your enemy and rubbing their nose in the dirt, not debating, not discussing, not making concessions. You're no different with your religious talk: you want to severely punish those who you believe are wrong (moreso than most on this forum, which is not unusual for religious types).

Time, Epimanides et al are not wrong. I myself have said that the only Anarchic gang worth belonging to is called General Public.

Our society is made up largely of gangs. Political parties, police, bikies, Nurses associations, antismoking lobbies, vivesectionists and animal rights groups all belong to a gang.

The object of a gang is to expand. It is run by and for the glory of the chief and the hierarchy. It wears uniforms, develops specialised languages, coerces its members. It is capable of 'spinning' its policy a full 180degrees, (Conservatives started off as conservationists). Gangs compete with other gangs for power and/or territory.

The opposite of a gang is a community, which is the at the heart of Anarchism. Communities are made up of diverse individuals, who have learnt to co-operate without surrendering their sovereignty to 'leaders'. Ideally communities should arrive at consensus decisions by compromise; regardless of and with a fine disregard for ideaology. They are free from coercion or usurped authority, though respect be given where deserved.

Hence, in this time where Anarchists call themselves by all sorts of prefixes, my comment.

Paradoxes, like the paradox of the liar, are things of beauty. It is only when you see and understand the different views that reasonable decisions can be made. The merely rational is chop logic, 'you can rationalise anything'. Reason requires a deep understanding.  

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302552215/105#105

;)

i think im the moral voice of this forum now

being slammed by me is like internet death and if it happens you know something is wrong with you

Soren and Imp2 try to form a bleh bloc but get bogged down in own hubris.

grey to f*ck off, world rejoices

Soren wrote on Jul 15^th, 2011 at 5:23pm:

You fellas have a horizon that extends for decades. Well done. Alas, Epimenides goes back further. Even before French deconstructinists (I know you'd find that hard to believe). Epimenides,  (flourished 6th century bce?), Cretan seer, reputed author of religious and poetical writings, including a Theogony, Cretica, and other mystical works. ... For his reputed claim—cited by St. Paul the Apostle (Titus 1:2)—that all Cretans are liars, Epimenides, a Cretan, is credited with invention of the paradox of the liar, in which a sentence says of itself that it is false, thus being true if it is false and false if it is true.

Ah, my frien, this good philosopher is very much favoured by the Frenchman, Jaques Derrida.

You are very clever man, very smart man. You study at Bradford Polytechnic? This is very good school I can say, number one school in all of the worlds. I have good diploma from this school, my friend.

I now look for job as post-structuralist. This is good job, frien. I can also work as post-colonialist.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 15^th, 2011 at 2:45pm:

Big Donger wrote on Jul 15th, 2011 at 12:21pm: Ah, this tricky deconstructionalist argument will not wash with us, my good man. You are a very tricky fellow, very Post Modern academic fellow, very French. Well spotted. It is also very strange for a Conservative to side with postmodern deconstructionists.

My friend, this man is very clever. He once prove truth of god with thoughts of very smart philosopher from the Switzerland. I think is called Friedrich Neitzche?

Insh'allah, one day I will read this very wise philosopher. God is great!

barnaby joe wrote on Jul 15^th, 2011 at 7:11pm:

i think im the moral voice of this forum now being slammed by me is like internet death and if it happens you know something is wrong with you

You are good man. I think you are like Roger Moore.

Grey wrote on Jul 15^th, 2011 at 6:31pm:

Our society is made up largely of gangs. Political parties, police, bikies, Nurses associations, antismoking lobbies, vivesectionists and animal rights groups all belong to a gang.

Just to stop at the beginning - washing together all these groups as each being a mere gang, no better or worse than any other gang is the firts false step you make and from her its just o many more false steps.

If people are just partisans of gangs that are not hierarchically different - qualitatively different - then of course you are making the same silly mistake as Time: you are just a gangster of no particular worth or insight.

Pretending that you are of the select few who are un-ganged is just juvenile ignorance and boastfulness ithout any grounding.

Grey wrote on Jul 15^th, 2011 at 6:31pm:

The opposite of a gang is a community, which is the at the heart of Anarchism. Communities are made up of diverse individuals, who have learnt to co-operate without surrendering their sovereignty to 'leaders'. Ideally communities should arrive at consensus decisions by compromise; regardless of and with a fine disregard for ideaology. They are free from coercion or usurped authority, though respect be given where deserved.

Gang, community - a completely arbitrary distinction, formulated purely to claim the moral high ground without actually providing any basis for the claim. Juvenile.
Any community is a mere gang for its enemies.

Anarchism is a really old-fashioned, fuddy-duddy 19th century Russian notion, cooked up over by a vodka-sodden misfits and rejects with grizzled beards.
Only pampered, spoilt middle class naifs would still buy it as a compass to their banal lives.

Quote:

Anarchism is a really old-fashioned, fuddy-duddy 19th century Russian notion

Quite wrong. It's a very English idea, William Godwin is widely regarded as the first Anarchist though some trace links back to Moores 'Utopia'. A frenchman Proudhon was the first to use the word as a self description rather than as a perjorative. He, being fond of words, recognised the ambiguity of the word. It commonly means a state of chaos, but actually means 'without rulers'.

The power of 'leaders' and their enabling gangsters is of course the old structure dating back to apes swinging through the tree tops. The evolutionary direction is towards the deconstruction of power. It's a two steps forwards one step back process. As we can see now the push is for us to hand back power to a central leadership with the Federal government clawing back power from the states and states removing the power of local councils.

The Anarchist tradition has both right and left adherents. The Ayn Rynd freemarketeers have a common bond with European left wing Anarchism; individualism. Ultimately Communists and Capitalists follow slightly different routes to the same place, totalitarianism.

Soren wrote on Jul 17^th, 2011 at 6:25pm:

Grey wrote on Jul 15th, 2011 at 6:31pm: Our society is made up largely of gangs. Political parties, police, bikies, Nurses associations, antismoking lobbies, vivesectionists and animal rights groups all belong to a gang. Just to stop at the beginning - washing together all these groups as each being a mere gang, no better or worse than any other gang is the firts false step you make and from her its just o many more false steps. If people are just partisans of gangs that are not hierarchically different - qualitatively different - then of course you are making the same silly mistake as Time: you are just a gangster of no particular worth or insight. Pretending that you are of the select few who are un-ganged is just juvenile ignorance and boastfulness ithout any grounding.

Actually, if you'd read my posts closely, or at all, you'd see I hold no such position. I stated this on page 6:


Quote:

While moral views are perspectives, people still believe that the perspective they hold is better than the alternatives. People take the moral perspective they do because it benefits them in some way

This is why debates, discussions, arguments, wars etc occur. Because there is always competing perspectives battling it out.


So, how's that argument for moral absolutes coming along?

Quote:

This is why debates, discussions, arguments, wars etc occur. Because there is always competing perspectives battling it out.

It's been said of Pietre Kropotkin, that he held the position of a sort of secular saint. That was in 19th century London where he produced his greatest work, the tome 'Mutual aid', first published as a series of essays throughout the 1890's. Mutual aid was supportive of Darwins Origin of the Species,(1859) but took issue with the Social Darwinism of Huxley, in particular 'The Struggle for Existence' (1888).

Kropotkin made the point that co-operation within and even between species was at least as much an engine of evolution as survival of the fittest. In fact the very bodies of higher animal life can be viewed as colonies of co-operation between single cell organisms.

Soren wrote on Jul 17^th, 2011 at 6:32pm:

Anarchism is a really old-fashioned, fuddy-duddy 19th century Russian notion, cooked up over by a vodka-sodden misfits and rejects with grizzled beards.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Peter_Kropotkin_circa_1900.jpg

Prince Kropotkin.

http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/Bakunin/bakuninLevine_med.jpg
Bakunin. Grizzled.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 9:15am:

So, how's that argument for moral absolutes coming along?

You are being silly. If I point out that your relativism undermines your own pronouncement, this does not mean in itself that I must be arguing for moral absolutes.
I could be an absolutists, but also a sceptic, a realist, a logician, an adherent of normative ethics, even a universalist.

In short, I don't need to be an absolutist to spot a paradox. You are attributing something to me without any basis. (Probably wishing to grind me down, by hook or by crook, in acordance with your own theory of ethics as self-serving ego-projection).

Big Donger wrote on Jul 16^th, 2011 at 5:48pm:

I now look for job as post-structuralist. This is good job, frien. I can also work as post-colonialist.

There are a lot of , er, post-structures in the Lebanon and Gaza and now in Bombay - anywhere really where the locals engage in theological dicourse with the sons of M.

WIth a good post-structuralist certificate from Bradford Poly, over there you could be the proverbial busy brickie of Beirut. Or as busy as a one legged man at the arse-kicking competition, as our Cultural Attache. Sir Les, once put it.

Feel encouraged.

sh!t topic

eat sh!t

barnaby joe wrote on Jul 19^th, 2011 at 1:10pm:

sh!t topic eat sh!t

Dubbo's gettin' to ya??

no dubbos awesome at least it isnt full of ethnics

Soren wrote on Jul 19^th, 2011 at 12:46pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 9:15am: So, how's that argument for moral absolutes coming along? You are being silly. If I point out that your relativism undermines your own pronouncement, this does not mean in itself that I must be arguing for moral absolutes. I could be an absolutists, but also a sceptic, a realist, a logician, an adherent of normative ethics, even a universalist. In short, I don't need to be an absolutist to spot a paradox. You are attributing something to me without any basis. (Probably wishing to grind me down, by hook or by crook, in acordance with your own theory of ethics as self-serving ego-projection).

The longer you avoid the question, the more obvious it becomes that you are pinned in a corner.

If morals aren't perspectives based in the needs and desires of its projector, then morals are grounded how? Ignore the question of grounding at your own peril, it's not going to go away.

barnaby joe wrote on Jul 19^th, 2011 at 1:59pm:

no dubbos awesome at least it isnt full of ethnics

Effende, I would like very much to come to this Dubbo. You have the white girls there?

Big Donger wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 10:05am:

barnaby joe wrote on Jul 19th, 2011 at 1:59pm: no dubbos awesome at least it isnt full of ethnics Effende, I would like very much to come to this Dubbo. You have the white girls there?

no we have nothing there dubbo doesnt exist move along good sir

barnaby joe wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 12:46pm:

Big Donger wrote on Jul 20th, 2011 at 10:05am: barnaby joe wrote on Jul 19th, 2011 at 1:59pm: no dubbos awesome at least it isnt full of ethnics Effende, I would like very much to come to this Dubbo. You have the white girls there? no we have nothing there dubbo doesnt exist move along good sir

We have this girls in my country, sir. They use Oprah face creem, just like on the TV.

They still have the brown skin, sir. What to do?

http://www.resist.com/CARTOON%20GALLERY/WHITES/white_image07.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhRvEFpAmSc&feature=related

piss off u cockroach