- Joined
- 3 May 2009
- Posts
- 515
- Reactions
- 2
I would rather find you answering my question of whom exactly indoctrinated me.
I don't drink.
The nanny state is perpetuated by both major parties, there is no real choice. In fact this same claim can be made about most issues. Allow me to list some;
- Middle class welfare
- Toxic housing policy
- Public sector waste
- Playing to people's emotions rather than rolling out reforms and actual policy
- Looking out more for foreign interests (USA) than our own (for instance, the USA-Australia FTA is significantly imbalanced in USA's favour).
None of these things are restricted to either the Lib/Nat coalition or ALP. However I do not attribute any of them to the Greens for instance.
As for long weekends, I agree...the people in charge (ie. in charge of companies) are completely out of touch with the real world. I disagree that we should move in the direction of worse countries which treat their population like slave labor, but rather we should be moving in the direction of better ones.
I would rather find you answering my question of whom exactly indoctrinated me.
This is a very interesting point. Are you talking about the government that subsidises fossil fuel industries with billions? The government that gets massive donations from big oil and big coal? The government that will suck up to USA in every one of it's oil-oriented invasions of Middle Eastern and African countries? The government that will do everything in it's power to give as little funding to renewable projects and research as they can get away with?
Is this the government you refer to?
This is a very valid point, perhaps the most valid point I have come across. I do not yet know how to address it in a way where I am satisfied there can be no logical argument against it.
However from a purely ethical perspective, I would not be able to tell future generations that I considered it was okey to do nothing because some others did nothing.
And here is one of the last 2000 years, I believe it providers greater perspective:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
I am not happy with the carbon "tax" by any means, but I would be more unhappy if nothing was done. I fear this may be a case of us having to crawl before we can walk.
I do want to emphasise that two graphs don't make an argument though, the point is that there are many equally valid graphs which support opposing views.
I'll bite.
1. Probably not as bad as ALP and Libs
http://www.news.com.au/money/mps-top-lodgers-of-dodgy-tax-claims/story-e6frfmci-1226023025342
In fact I remember an article earlier this year about prominent politicians from both the aforementioned parties fraudulently writing off entire car purchases as tax deductible.
2. The article claims; "Senator Christine Milne, who accrued $7527 in Comcar expenses in the past 12 months" - however it makes no effort to compare this dollar figure to any other politician from any other party, nor any sort of an average.
3. The article claims; "Only a few cars in the taxpayer-funded fleet are hybrid Toyota models, with most gas-guzzling family-sized sedans." - however do the greens have any choice in this?
4. You ask why she does not ride a bike, however do you know the circumstances around which the greens senator needs to use a car? What if she needs to get between two geographical points in an amount of time not achievable by bicycle? How much would it cost taxpayers if she would be forced to hold up government meetings if she did ride a bike? What if she has health issues which prevent her from doing significant physical activity?
Are you familiar with the concept of "8 hours labour, 8 hours recreation, 8 hours rest"? If someone works overtime they will have to give up one of recreation or rest. Rest is often scarified by Australian workers at a great cost to their health, and by extension the taxpayer in terms of medical costs funded by the government and lost productivity as a result of poorer health than is achievable under ideal circumstances.
Not to mention it diminishes people's quality of life.
There is a reason why there are laws for matters such as overtime. It is because most consider overtime as something which hurts quality of life.
Sure, but in my view a significant proportion of the human population will die, as well as a significant amount of species living on our planet. The world economy will collapse forever as we know it, and we would be very lucky to maintain any semblance of law and order. I do not believe any depression of a purely economic nature can compete with this scenario.
It would be good if everyone held that view, but then some people believe that people with other views were indoctrinated by parents, schools, universities and everything else
Yes.
Can you please elaborate as to how I absorbed such general ethos? Please, do go into as much detail as you can, as I am very curious as to what basis you have for this most ridiculous notion. I will also repeat if you forgot, that I was not part of any student organisation or group dealing with politics, world affairs, environment, or anything related. I will also mention that all of my views I have held prior to university, I have only built on them through gaining more knowledge by independent research. While at university, almost all of my time was dedicated to study, both during class time and free time. None of the things I studied relate to anything we are discussing now. I never attended any sort of events related to the issues we are discussing now.
It's a fair suggestion, but it also implies necessarily that I'm incorrect in my current views. Not claiming to be infallible, but I do not like your implication nevertheless.
This is not new to me. This is one of the main reasons why I support the Greens. Using your own argument which I just quoted, I do not understand how you (or anyone who thinks the same) can possibly support any major party. Perhaps you would care to explain, especially how ALP and LIB are any different in regards to this, and why either deserve yours (or my) support given the obvious truths of what you have said.
And I will claim that governments are far beyond corrupt. It is often not obvious to me whether ours are as far down the rabbit hole as in the USA or many European countries, but I have no doubts they are deep in there.
and despite calls by Psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg for educators to be "more circumspect and present both sides (of the climate-change debate)", it seems like they don't want to know.PRIMARY school children are being terrified by lessons claiming climate change will bring "death, injury and destruction" to the world unless they take action.
.Federal Schools Minister Peter Garrett said the government would not stop the teaching of climate science, despite moves in Britain for the subject to be withdrawn
Well said Noco, and right on the money. The figure I've heard for union membership, with low confidence, is ~12%. I don't blame the Gen X'ers and Y's and Next's for not understanding the historical socio-politics, they weren't around to witness how insidious and how destructive it was to Australian life and the economy.During the 50's and 60's, communism infiltrated the unions with super charged power.....The sole purpose of their strategy was to break down the economies of countries like Australia resulting in high unemployment, high interst rates and higher cost of living and people discontent with the ruling government of the day. Communism would then become the alternative with promises of a better way of life..
..We were probably saved by the mere fact that communism failed...As an alternative, we now have "GET UP"...
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ermail/comments/the_new_warming_mccarthyists/
...Also what sort of place is Canberra, I read yesterday that 1 in 5 people are members of GetUp. The loftiest of Ivory Towers.
This is the stuff being perpetuated by the alarmists on the basis that it can do no harm to introduce a tax which is not replicated in our trading competitors.
Comparisons with other politicians are beside the point which is that they who decree we must live without modern stuff like petrol powered cars should be demonstrating the point if they are to have any credibility.
Oh god, one day you might understand that to get ahead in competitive work environments you might actually have to work a few hours of overtime.
This from someone with next to no experience in the workforce. There is no rational way of debating with this sort of ingrained attitude.
No, SCM (try to choose a simpler nic next time, huh), I will not elaborate or explain to you something which you have already decided to reject.
It may come as somewhat of a surprise to you, but people on forums are actually not obliged to meet your demands. They will make their responses only insofar as they feel inclined.
Pity. A good party would probably do you the world of good.
Look at this rationally and sensibly. The top 500 companies will be taxed for CO2. They pass the increase onto the proletariat. The Guvmint uses the "tax" to subsidise the cost of living increase! How does this reduce emissions if everyone is compensated? I will not be changing my usage if it means that I will be getting money from the Feds to cover up my CO2 cost impost. How does this change the output? It does not. Open your eyes and ears to what is actually going on. It WILL cause inflation as everything is going to be more expensive.No wait ...... 9 out of 10 people will be compensated which means the "rich" people will have to cut back on their consumerism. Pfffffffffffft !!!
Ethics are for the people who inhabit Ward 4 at any mental institute. There is no such thing when it comes to a government hell bent on making "nation building changes" and clinging to power by having the Greens dictate what they can and can't sell to the populace. "No carbon tax under the government I lead" - Julia Gillard said. "There will be a carbon tax" - Bob Brown. You decide the ethics on this one.
Once again I reiterate:- If this government was actually wanting to do something about global warming and CO2 is the culprit then place a "carbon tax" on the naughty big emitters of CO2. Use this money to actually invest in solar/wind/hydro/gas/thermal generation companies and let the people decide. Or would this risk them losing power (pun intended) at the next election?
If you have an open mind (which is not apparent right now), you will stumble across the answer one day.
never trust a man who doesn't drink
LOL you are kidding right, I mean either you are blind, or one of the new media spinsters the Greens are using to change public opinion. The Greens have set about a social media blitz across the boards and apparently comments and forum boards are the new battleground. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment.
What you spout is communism throughout your post like it is some kind of saving grace. Sorry to be harsh but your post makes me sick in sections.
Hiding behind cover policies of feel good nature to make the more damaging ones
Starcraftmazter, here is some information on how our school kids are being brainwashed to the point of fear. And Garrett refuses to take it out of the cirriculum. What does he know about education?.
Bandicoot, trade unions were excellant in the late 1800's up to ww11 and I agree it was an essential protection for workers. Then in the 50's and 60's it was definely exploted by communist infiltration. Coming to the end ot the twentieth century, union membership went into rapid decline to where it is are today.
My call on communism breaking down the morals of our youth came from a small book my father gave me many years ago and it was mentioned. I am sure I still have it packed away some where. It's not lost,I just can't find it ATM. If I locate it I will scan and post it.
My call on communism breaking down the morals of our youth came from a small book my father gave me many years ago and it was mentioned. I am sure I still have it packed away some where. It's not lost,I just can't find it ATM. If I locate it I will scan and post it.
I assert my mind is more open than yours.
I am once again amazed at some of the crap that is posted here
What next, you're going to hate on people who don't like ice-cream? You sure have a good way to make stupid assumptions and illogical choices. I prefer to stick to logic and reason though, so I won't trust or distrust someone because they do or do not consume as certain type of food or drink.
Patrol powered cars...
Patrol powered cars..
BTW, I have never heard of these. Sounds exciting, what are they?
Found it ! Little Red Book - Mao Tse-Tung:
We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity ... But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organisations
i would argue strong national ideologies are far better at shaping and maintaing the morals of youth than the "do what you want you unique and precious flower" liberal attitude that is common now.
Along with land reform, during which significant numbers of landlords were beaten to death at mass meetings organized by the Communist Party as land was taken from them and given to poorer peasants,[28] there was also the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries,[29] which involved public executions targeting mainly former Kuomintang officials, businessmen accused of "disturbing" the market, former employees of Western companies and intellectuals whose loyalty was suspect.
Mao himself claimed that a total of 700,000 people were executed during the years 1949–53. However, because there was a policy to select "at least one landlord, and usually several, in virtually every village for public execution", the number of deaths range between 2 million and 5 million. In addition, at least 1.5 million people, perhaps as many as 4 to 6 million, were sent to "reform through labour" camps where many perished. Mao played a personal role in organizing the mass repressions and established a system of execution quotas,which were often exceeded. Nevertheless he defended these killings as necessary for the securing of power.
What is the rate of carbon tax in those countries with which we directly compete (as distinct from trade with)?This is an economic argument rather than an environmental one. Also it's a pretty big generalisation, ie. some of our trading partners do have carbon trading systems in place. In this sense, we are actually late with ours.
The nanny state is perpetuated by both major parties, there is no real choice. In fact this same claim can be made about most issues. Allow me to list some;
- Middle class welfare
- Toxic housing policy
- Public sector waste
- Playing to people's emotions rather than rolling out reforms and actual policy
- Looking out more for foreign interests (USA) than our own (for instance, the USA-Australia FTA is significantly imbalanced in USA's favour).
None of these things are restricted to either the Lib/Nat coalition or ALP. However I do not attribute any of them to the Greens for instance.
As for long weekends, I agree...the people in charge (ie. in charge of companies) are completely out of touch with the real world. I disagree that we should move in the direction of worse countries which treat their population like slave labor, but rather we should be moving in the direction of better ones.
I would rather find you answering my question of whom exactly indoctrinated me.
This is a very interesting point. Are you talking about the government that subsidises fossil fuel industries with billions? The government that gets massive donations from big oil and big coal? The government that will suck up to USA in every one of it's oil-oriented invasions of Middle Eastern and African countries? The government that will do everything in it's power to give as little funding to renewable projects and research as they can get away with?
Is this the government you refer to?
This is a very valid point, perhaps the most valid point I have come across. I do not yet know how to address it in a way where I am satisfied there can be no logical argument against it.
However from a purely ethical perspective, I would not be able to tell future generations that I considered it was okey to do nothing because some others did nothing.
And here is one of the last 2000 years, I believe it providers greater perspective:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
I am not happy with the carbon "tax" by any means, but I would be more unhappy if nothing was done. I fear this may be a case of us having to crawl before we can walk.
I do want to emphasise that two graphs don't make an argument though, the point is that there are many equally valid graphs which support opposing views.
I'll bite.
1. Probably not as bad as ALP and Libs
http://www.news.com.au/money/mps-top-lodgers-of-dodgy-tax-claims/story-e6frfmci-1226023025342
In fact I remember an article earlier this year about prominent politicians from both the aforementioned parties fraudulently writing off entire car purchases as tax deductible.
2. The article claims; "Senator Christine Milne, who accrued $7527 in Comcar expenses in the past 12 months" - however it makes no effort to compare this dollar figure to any other politician from any other party, nor any sort of an average.
3. The article claims; "Only a few cars in the taxpayer-funded fleet are hybrid Toyota models, with most gas-guzzling family-sized sedans." - however do the greens have any choice in this?
4. You ask why she does not ride a bike, however do you know the circumstances around which the greens senator needs to use a car? What if she needs to get between two geographical points in an amount of time not achievable by bicycle? How much would it cost taxpayers if she would be forced to hold up government meetings if she did ride a bike? What if she has health issues which prevent her from doing significant physical activity?
Are you familiar with the concept of "8 hours labour, 8 hours recreation, 8 hours rest"? If someone works overtime they will have to give up one of recreation or rest. Rest is often scarified by Australian workers at a great cost to their health, and by extension the taxpayer in terms of medical costs funded by the government and lost productivity as a result of poorer health than is achievable under ideal circumstances.
Not to mention it diminishes people's quality of life.
There is a reason why there are laws for matters such as overtime. It is because most consider overtime as something which hurts quality of life.
Sure, but in my view a significant proportion of the human population will die, as well as a significant amount of species living on our planet. The world economy will collapse forever as we know it, and we would be very lucky to maintain any semblance of law and order. I do not believe any depression of a purely economic nature can compete with this scenario.
It would be good if everyone held that view, but then some people believe that people with other views were indoctrinated by parents, schools, universities and everything else
Yes.
Can you please elaborate as to how I absorbed such general ethos? Please, do go into as much detail as you can, as I am very curious as to what basis you have for this most ridiculous notion. I will also repeat if you forgot, that I was not part of any student organisation or group dealing with politics, world affairs, environment, or anything related. I will also mention that all of my views I have held prior to university, I have only built on them through gaining more knowledge by independent research. While at university, almost all of my time was dedicated to study, both during class time and free time. None of the things I studied relate to anything we are discussing now. I never attended any sort of events related to the issues we are discussing now.
It's a fair suggestion, but it also implies necessarily that I'm incorrect in my current views. Not claiming to be infallible, but I do not like your implication nevertheless.
This is not new to me. This is one of the main reasons why I support the Greens. Using your own argument which I just quoted, I do not understand how you (or anyone who thinks the same) can possibly support any major party. Perhaps you would care to explain, especially how ALP and LIB are any different in regards to this, and why either deserve yours (or my) support given the obvious truths of what you have said.
And I will claim that governments are far beyond corrupt. It is often not obvious to me whether ours are as far down the rabbit hole as in the USA or many European countries, but I have no doubts they are deep in there.
Well said Noco, and right on the money. The figure I've heard for union membership, with low confidence, is ~12%. I don't blame the Gen X'ers and Y's and Next's for not understanding the historical socio-politics, they weren't around to witness how insidious and how destructive it was to Australian life and the economy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?