Discussion in 'Politics' started by Scotty, Sep 14, 2010.
Perhaps if you doubted more Scotty, you and I may find more common ground.
Someone who can't trust the major parties has made a sensible decision provided they base it on sound reasoning. However, if the same person trusts or thinks they can trust the media this would demonstrate to me that perhaps they are not asking the right questions. Anyone who believes everything they hear or read would certainly be regarded as gullible, perhaps a fool and it's not far from there to suggest they have an inability (or, equally damning in my view, an unwillingness) to engage in rational thought.
I could say the same about you. However our differences in opinion are more about how we would like to see our country governed, and the best way forward to achieve a good lifestyle for all. A more socialist way believes in hand outs, a benevolent capitalist believes in hand ups. There is only one sustainable way forward in my opinion.
Rational thought? Do you believe it is more rational to doubt everything you hear or read, or more rational to believe most of what you hear or read?
If everyone is telling you the same thing, is it rational to doubt it? Like I said, it is more about ignorance, or lack of information that intelligence.
I am finding yours and the scarf's way of thinking to be extremely arrogant.
Not at all. There's two reasons that people like that are unlikely to post in this thread. (1) They don't follow rugby union. (2) They avoid reading and writing.
Ignorant? I like it. You've converted me.
Whoooooaaaaa there big fella. I have an intimate knowledge of Western Sydney. I have worked there for years. I have caught public transport there, eaten in pubs and malls there. I play in parks there with my children. You make the fairly incredible assumption that people who read and write for a living don't live in the world. We do!
I think there's a general direction in your posts that suggests that intellectual-types aren't real Australians. This is Howard's big, poisonous lie and to my dying day I will contest it as strongly as possible. There's all kinds of Australians: intellectuals; rednecks; toothless underclass; recent migrants; Aborigines; inner city gays; Saturday IKEA shoppers; Nimbin hippies; and so on. Australia is a very plural country which has a small minority who like to claim a monopoly on "Australian values."
A benevolent socialist also believes in hand-ups.
Don't get defensive about this question: what makes you say that Howard considered intellectuals not to be real Australians?
This characterisation had never occurred to me.
You have the "bent" of my posts all wrong Scarfie. I do not imply at all that academics, judiciary and advisors (as opposed to intellectuals - lets not move the goal posts and change terminology mid debate) are not real Australians. I state openly that said people have lost the trust and respect of the segement of the population we are discussing here. Because they have lost that trust and respect any message they have is largely ignored. I also openly state that many of the individuals in this group of learned, non stupid people, are ignorant themselves, arrogantly believing and vehemently thrusting their opinions forward regardless of the fact that they have little actual experience of life in these communities. In my years in both the isolated community and the Western Syndey community I saw said advisors come in for their meetings and focus groups an leave as quickly as they could after their tourist type whirlwind tour of chaking their heads at the conditions etc and shaking hands.
I do not think any group has ever tried to claim they have a monolpoly of "Australian Values" in fact the historical cultural cringe probably stopped any even contemplating it, though that has faded somewhat with the recent advent of militant nationalism we have seen in recent times (another symptom by the way of the breakdown in our trust in the main stream politics and pillars of our society as it has been whereever we have seen the rise of extreme right wing elements.) One group, the Advisors, Academics and Judiciary have seen fit to impose their ideals and writ upon the diverse community you describe though because they are arrogant and firmly believe that they know best and everyone that disagrees with their position is afflicted by an "ism" of some description or are "stupid".
Funny enough on Monday I was talking to a electrician mate in a group of various other tradesmen (not a Uni Degree in sight but these are highly skilled and learned individuals) about the Government and and he said something that should be very thought provoking for the "Advisors, Judiciary & Academics" - he refered to the Government and all associated to them as the "Ruling Class". The contempt for the whole system and the individuals was extreme. As I have said so many times this is the real source of concern for our Politicians, they have lost the confidence and trust of the people and are seen as not being part of the community but a class apart.
Theoretically in a socialist society everyone should be equal (economically) as the production for the economy is shared by all and not for private profit. So I would class that as more of a hand out (since you will never be able to get past a certain capped level of society), than a hand up?
Gnostic is this a modified version of the Matt Burke Theorem as to Understanding?
Any generalisation in relation to a group of people is dangerous. Stupidity is not restricted to the poor or rich, to the educated or uneducated. Fools come in many guises.
I'm not sure of your point. Is it that the poor or those not living in the city or those in isolated communities have lost trust? Is it only that group/s which have lost trust? Whom do they no longer trust? Is it politicians? If that is the case, the group might be larger than you suggest. Is it the judiciary? If so, is it all judges or just Pat O'Shane or do they like her and dislike the now retired Justice Kirby? Or is it all judges because they are so alike? Or have they not thought about it?
As for academics, don't get me started. Is it the CSIRO types or the Steve Keens or is it the guns for hire like Bob Carter who speaks for the Heartland Institute or is it the classic academics who teach and do a little bit of research and not much else?
And the advisors! I don't even know where to start. Seriously, I have no idea. Financial advisers? Tax advisors? Interior designers (who are just advisers really, they can't make you pain it lilac)?
So, apart from the electrician, who is it that has lost trust and whose trust have they lost?
I don't think that everyone must be equal in socialist society (that sounds more like communism) but it is where wealth is shared so that everyone has everything they need. Where the 'individual rights and needs cannot be more impotant than the needs of everyone'.
Gnostic, picking up cutter's point, I am troubled by the inclusion of the judiciary in the groups in whom the people have lost trust: what is the evidence for this and what do you think is the cause?
In what way has the judiciary done this? Do you say it has done it more, recently, than for say the last 300 years or do you say that its the same but more is publicly known about what the judiciary does?
The judiciary can, of course, only deal with controversies brought before it by the state in criminal cases and citizens in civil cases so i am unclear as to the point at which it has the opportunity to impose "its 'ideals or its writ except where a matter has been brought before it.
Generally speaking the "ideals and writs" have a historical background and pedigree or are the product of legislative intervention: i.e. they are not "made up" on the spot to suit the particular social, moral or political exigencies of the occasion. These "ideals and writs" are not personal to the judge. Additionally judges themselves have diverse political, social and moral views: both liberal and labor former Attorneys General have sat on the High Court and the Supreme Court of NSW in the past.
Those electricians sound like fair dinkum top blokes.
I bet they have extremely non-ignorant views on refugees, Aborgines, single mothers, etc.
I've got to tell you, for a member of the Ruling Class, I often don't feel as I my point of view carries much weight in the polis. Maybe it's because I have abused the trust of these electricians by teaching their kids how to spell, while writing books on my weekends.
Why are you a member of the ruling class? Thought he was just referring to politicians?
presumably because he's tertiary educated and on their view that makes him a member of the ruling class
As an Electrician I find your sweeping assertion that Electricians are racist, misogynistic ingrates quite offensive.
What's your schtick, to abuse and look down upon those you consider to be below your ruling class because we have chosen to follow a career that doesn't require tertiary education?
I hope your post had an element of tounge in cheek humour, but I am stuggling to identify it.
So the sparkies can say what they like about the so-called ruling class, and we academics, judiciary, and politicians are supposed to cop it sweet?
My electrician is a totally sweet bloke. My plumber, though, has an Aussie flag flying from his car antenna, so I avoid any conversation with him that doesn't involve pipes.
For an apparently inteligent person, you pay way too much attention to stereotyping...or you be trolling.
Your Electrician is probably the smartest guy you know.
Seriously, why the fuck is that, Sully?
Scarfy, I equally am wary of :-
1. Southern Cross stickers on cars, especially utes
2. Hibiscus stickers, especially on Barinas and Hyundais.
3. My Family stickers on SUVs.
For entirely different reasons.
Separate names with a comma.