The Australian Greens party

[Garpal Gumnut]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

During my brief flirtation with journalism, I discovered the importance of distinguising facts from opinion...

... But the beauty is thats all entirely subjective !

Maybe you can dispense some more of your facts ... and i could reply by not utilizing words at all, and merely post pictures of dinosaurs. Then we'd both be trolling

A very sensible reply to which I have no cogent answer. I'll move my King to a stale, mate.

gg

 

[tothemax6]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

The ability to speak freely does not condone the discrimination of anyone, this is not double speak on my behalf, but simple common sense. Not to mention just basically morales that people in this country are taught from pre-school.
Your making a lot of good discussion, dont ruin it by being bringing up crap like that

Firstly, to clear something up, my dialog firmly offers zero consideration to RandRs personal taste, whether or not a discussion is in his opinion 'good' or 'ruined', nor does it concern itself with his personal interpretation of 'crap'. Friendly FYI.
Secondly, please explain your understanding of 'speak freely', and 'the situation in which someone has been ''discriminated'' by someone else'.

Because we already know one or the other is a disaster if pursued singularly.

Capitalism has no record of causing disaster. Socialism does. As history proves (Koreas, Germanies, West Europe vs East, Japan/HongKong/Singapore/Macau vs China/Cambodia, Latin America vs North America, on and on), the higher the 'percent capitalism', the higher the quality of life. There is no historical record of people being shot trying to leave more capitalist states to enter more socialist states.

you know its perfectly reasonable in a socialist sense for man to posses property. Indeed, in a socialist society theres nothing stopping one from accumulating more wealth and property then another. There's merely a greater level of redistribution from that person to those that dont have that same level of wealth.

Please read this over again and tell me if it sounds rational to you. I will simply apply this logic to a non-political example:
"There is nothing stopping a rock rolling up a hill, there is merely gravity". Again, double-speak. 1984 is not a guide, it is a anti-guide.

Socialism is theft rolling around in rhetorical candy-floss.

 

[tothemax6]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

I challenge the Greens to present a budget from their policies.

Their budget is 'the life of every human'.

Seriously, if one was to be asked 'what is the fastest way we can realize the Greens environmental policies', one would instinctively recognize that it is 'human death, lots of it'.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Socialism is theft rolling around in rhetorical candy-floss.

A perfick encapsulation of my views.

Can anyone quote a piece of intended legislation by the Greens.?

gg

 

[tothemax6]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

A perfick encapsulation of my views.

Feel free to use it. I thought that one up after a fair few Heineken's - and those are the ONLY greens I will let into my house .

 

[IFocus]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

1/ It is a mistake to underestimate your political adversaries, unless of course that was just a gratuitous insult. Either way, all the work you have done on this forum to seem reasonable is now lost.

2/ It is a low probability that people who are not paid up members of the Fabian Society are in fact Palin groupies.

Socialists fancy themselves as intellectuals yet readily take the low road with pejoratives. How about arguing on the merits of policy rather than casting aspersions.

It was meant to be tongue in cheek............I have no intention of insulting anyone here and if I have then I sincerely apologize.


But as some one who takes more incoming than most of this forum for my environment, social and political views often incoming associated with brutal and despotic dictatorships dressed and labeled up as socialism I find your comments puzzling.

 

[RandR]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Firstly, to clear something up, my dialog firmly offers zero consideration to RandRs personal taste, whether or not a discussion is in his opinion 'good' or 'ruined', nor does it concern itself with his personal interpretation of 'crap'. Friendly FYI.

Socialism is theft rolling around in rhetorical candy-floss.

bahahaha. my 'personal taste' is backed up by law ....

your argument is like saying just because you have the right to own a gun, you can shoot somebody with it.

If you believe in the validity of your opinion, try telling an American that because there constitution gives them the right to free speech, they have the right to discriminate against someone. See how far you get .... because in the real world, it doesnt, and any attempt at justifying discrimination or vilification through "its just free speech" will surely end up in a court of law.

The right to free speech, does not condone or give anybody the right to justify discrimination.

If you dont like my interpretation of that, thats fine, but its a pretty common interpretation, and one thats surely upheld by the majority of people and court systems around the world.

 

[wayneL]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

bahahaha. my 'personal taste' is backed up by law ....

your argument is like saying just because you have the right to own a gun, you can shoot somebody with it.

If you believe in the validity of your opinion, try telling an American that because there constitution gives them the right to free speech, they have the right to discriminate against someone. See how far you get .... because in the real world, it doesnt, and any attempt at justifying discrimination or vilification through "its just free speech" will surely end up in a court of law.

The right to free speech, does not condone or give anybody the right to justify discrimination.

If you dont like my interpretation of that, thats fine, but its a pretty common interpretation, and one thats surely upheld by the majority of people and court systems around the world.

Social democracy substitutes one purported type of discrimination (and I'm not arguing there isn't) and replaces it with another. It makes it unlawful to discriminate against some, and lawful to discriminate against another.

Ironically, it is often on the base of gender, race and religion.

In Anglo Saxon countries, people are free to discriminate against white Europeans, particularly males... often this is institutionalized.

It is fine banging on about equality, a fine ideal (that is impossible in practice), but social democratic ideologues in fact embrace inequality and discrimination in the real world.

 

[tothemax6]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

bahahaha. my 'personal taste' is backed up by law ....
your argument is like saying just because you have the right to own a gun, you can shoot somebody with it.

Well, if we are being absurdist:
"Your argument is like saying that because my shoes are made of cheese, the King of Spain lives in Japan."

If you believe in the validity of your opinion, try telling an American that because there constitution gives them the right to free speech, they have the right to discriminate against someone. See how far you get .... because in the real world, it doesnt, and any attempt at justifying discrimination or vilification through "its just free speech" will surely end up in a court of law.

So by your logic, one can have freedom of speech, and also end up in court for certain statements. So for instance (and tothemax6 will point out he holds the opposite views), if I say "Japanese people are primitive and stupid" - I have discriminated, yes? If I say "I hate Japanese people", I have discriminated, yes? And I should be punished by force, yes? Again, double-speak - the ability to simultaneously hold two views that a mutually contradictory. One either has freedom of speech, or one is banned from a subset of speech.
Before the term was hijacked by the Left, discrimination was a non-politically-charged word, which merely meant "to make a selective decision based on information". And this is what it is. When a black man chooses not to hire a white man for a job (or the more politically charged opposite), he is making a decision on how to relate to someone, based on the information he has of that person.
If a man does not have this right he has NO freedom whatsoever. He lives in a totalitarian nightmare in which he is not free to make his own decisions as to who he will associate with - but has his relationship decisions decided for him at the point of a gun. It is a vicious dystopia right out of (or worse than) 1984, the USSR etc.

It is Evil.

 

[IFocus]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Limitations on freedom of speech

According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[32] Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech.[33] Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.[3

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[34] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

 

[drsmith]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

I think the key thing to consider in relation to Green polices ... is to take them with a pinch of salt ....

They are not designed to ever be implemented. There designed to create debate and awareness.

Actually, their poicy on coal mining is a watered down version of their idiology.

In the absence of a sensible overall management plan, take them with a pinch of salt and reject them at the ballot box.

 

[tothemax6]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech.

This is wrong precisely because anything can be declared to be obscene or hateful to a particular viewpoint. To claim that saying certain things violates rights is irrational. By this logic, it is reasonable to jail people for verbal statements. Indeed to claim that there are 'limitations to freedom of X' is again, double-speak. Either something is free, or it is constrained. 2+2 only equals 4.
Any government which initiates force against individuals because of statements that came from their mouth, is full-bore totalitarian.

To say that freedom of speech should be limited by its capacity to offend is even worse, indeed it is monstrous. Any variety of speech can be considered offensive to someone. We would live a horrendous existence worse than that of a soviet citizen, if this ideology was enforced with any kind of strength.

 

[Julia]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

You're right, of course, tothemax6. But there nevertheless prevails a kind of moral highground which tacitly determines that some commentary is unacceptable.

Viz the pejorative language directed toward anyone who is agnostic about so called climate change. They are called 'the deniers' and there is no doubt that this description is negative and critical.

Similarly, any objection to any facet of some religions will quickly bring an accusation of bigotry and/or vilification.

So, yes, we may enjoy freedom of speech in a legal sense, but anyone who goes against the mainstream of opinion is quickly put down.

 

[sails]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Definition of bigotry:

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

””Synonyms
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry

It seems that those pointing the finger and accusing others of bigotry should look at where their other three fingers are pointing...

 

[Mofra]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Definition of bigotry:



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry

It seems that those pointing the finger and accusing others of bigotry should look at where their other three fingers are pointing...

That is a very broad definition - according to that definition I am bigoted against Nazis, pro-rape and child abuse groups, communists, white supremecists and Carlton supporters.

I would still be offended to be labelled a bigot as the general understanding of the term bigot in society tends to be someone who hates a particular group because of who they are, rather than simply what they stand for.

 

[Calliope]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

Definition of bigotry:

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

””Synonyms
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.*

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry

It seems that those pointing the finger and accusing others of bigotry should look at where their other three fingers are pointing...

* you should have added - it is only bigotry when it comes from the right...never from the left.

 

[sails]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

That is a very broad definition - according to that definition I am bigoted against Nazis, pro-rape and child abuse groups, communists, white supremecists and Carlton supporters.

I would still be offended to be labelled a bigot as the general understanding of the term bigot in society tends to be someone who hates a particular group because of who they are, rather than simply what they stand for.

I agree, Mofra. I have found it offensive for those expressing opinions on issues such as the large numbers of boat people without papers to be broadly labelled with such harsh words as a bigot and racist. It is not a hatred of anyone but a concern for the well known issues.

Only the other day a young muslim woman was walking into my granddaughter's school as I was walking out with the books for this year. She look somewhat sad and I made eye contact with her and smiled. Her face lit up. Now if that is being racist and a bigot, I'll be blowed.

* you should have added - it is only bigotry when it comes from the right...never from the left.

Yes, it does seem that way...

I have also noticed that those from the right are more willing to acknowledge faults with their chosen party. The left seem hell bent on defending even the things that they would probably strongly oppose if it came from the right. Just an observation...

 

[Mofra]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

I have also noticed that those from the right are more willing to acknowledge faults with their chosen party. The left seem hell bent on defending even the things that they would probably strongly oppose if it came from the right. Just an observation...

I'm sure there are plenty who would argue the exact opposite - neither would be a bigoted opinion though

 

[sails]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

I'm sure there are plenty who would argue the exact opposite - neither would be a bigoted opinion though

Yes, fair enough - I guess we all have our blinkers on at times...

 

[tothemax6]

Re: The Greens - The New Radical Socialists

You're right, of course, tothemax6. But there nevertheless prevails a kind of moral highground which tacitly determines that some commentary is unacceptable.

Viz the pejorative language directed toward anyone who is agnostic about so called climate change. They are called 'the deniers' and there is no doubt that this description is negative and critical.

Similarly, any objection to any facet of some religions will quickly bring an accusation of bigotry and/or vilification.

So, yes, we may enjoy freedom of speech in a legal sense, but anyone who goes against the mainstream of opinion is quickly put down.

Well yes the important thing is that ideas and speech are competitively favoured by choice, not by force.

Definition of bigotry:
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

I don't think that's a very good definition. It should include at the end "because it differs from one's own". I am fully against socialists, for instance, not simply because socialism differed from my views when I first learned about it, but because upon studying it, my objective analysis concluded with "this is great only at doing bad things". And I am unapologetically against bad things. This isn't bigotry, it is judgment.