TAKE A LOOK AT YOURSELVES! The Worrying rise of a conservative youth! (1 Viewer)

[gerhard]

of course everything is based on the choices we make

but why do we make the choices we make? these choices are based on a combination of our genes and our environment. nothing else. of course this doesnt abdicate the individuals responsibility - i cant kill someone and blame it on my genes/environment and expect to get away with it.

but when we can see that for instance, poor children have the same ability as rich children in early years in terms of scores on some test, but then a much larger proportion of the richer kids end up in university, environment must play a role in future choices. a recent study found this exact result.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/poor-soar-at-university/2006/10/29/1162056867076.html

now id argue that as long as you believe that all children should start on an equal footing, irrespective of wealth/class etc and that a childs potential ability should not be based on their parents earnings then you would believe this is a problem

 

[gerhard]

im just assuming the study was controlled for that, the smh article doesnt give any info and the paper isnt published yet i dont think. and also

If a rich student and poor student had the median level of literacy and numeracy in year 9, the rich one was likely to go on to achieve a university admission index (or ENTER) score of 77. But the poorer student was likely to have a score of just 63 - and probably miss out on university .

 

[_dhj_]

If you take a step back and look at things rationally, 99% of people are in the situation they are in due to their own choices.

If everything is based on the choices we make (eg. choice to study at school, choice to stay in school, choice to go to uni thus leading to higher income) should some people be getting government benefits while others who have made the correct decisions and done the hard yards go without?

Am I selfish because I get pissed off that it is my tax dollars going to people who fucked around while I was busting my arse studying, and at the same time i get nothing?

People shouldn't be financially rewarded for laziness.

My view is the exact opposite. Nobody makes a choice to do anything. There's no such thing as choice. Everyone is in their situation due to complicated sequences of events both occurring externally and internally which, at any stage, compelled them to specific actions. People are merely sophisticated robots.

I'm richer than most of you and I'm on HECS.

Suck my (Worth far more than yours) balls.

Due to mere luck. You were lucky to be born into a well off family and to be born with a decent brain.

 

[withoutaface]

On the whole richer students thing, they pay more and create more HECS places. Or are we having the "I'll take stuff away from them even if it means everyone, including me, is worse off" mentality?

 

[_dhj_]

On the whole richer students thing, they pay more and create more HECS places. Or are we having the "I'll take stuff away from them even if it means everyone, including me, is worse off" mentality?

I understand your logic but fees are not the main source of income for universities. A shift towards HECS only will also be subsidised by the government and allow universities to attract more private investment given its increased focus on academic merit. The full fee argument only has merit on the basis of equality between domestic and overseas students.

 

[Ishamael]

1. As a libertarian my views are entirely consistent, I argue only the side of negative liberty, what the 'two sides' you refer to are I'm unsure.

You're looking at the wrong definition, by no means are you the friendly centrist.

2. Calling me a facist when YOU'RE the one who wants to control the economy, and YOU'RE the one who wants a bloody revolution is disgustingly hypocritical. I support very, very minimal government intervention...

RTFM on Fascism.

You wish to force people into jobs, you wish to force people to think as you do, and WE'RE the fascists?
God you're a joke, kid, read a fucking book on Liberty.

Perhaps I wasn't unsubtle enough.
I wasn't being serious about the killing, I'm generally not for it. However, I agree that revolution (in any form) can always be a force for good. The quote was serious, but the wrong bits were taken out of the context by you "liberal" economists. If you knew anything about my economic theories, you'd understand that not all Leftists are Stalinist in economic theory. Once again though, you misunderstand my use of fascist. It has mutiple connotations in the social, political and economic fields many of which are expressed in this forum.

3. Che wanted to cause a nuclear war between America, Russia and Cuba. Hardly the most admirable role model.

Che was an exceptional role model, you take a single incident out of the context of the Crisis.

4. The purpose of political debate is never to convince the other side that you're right. Both sides have entrenched views that will very rarely change. The winner of the debate is judged by those third parties who observe it, not the participants.

Name one of these so called third party participants that you have come to convince. The enitre point is to prove that the other side's is fallacious, and yours is vaild.

5. Go back to logic school dude. Ad homs don't constitute a valid argument.

If you accuse me of "Ad Homs" you cannot also accuse me of serious extreme and dangerous values.
I was taking the piss at the Slippery Slope advocates, who assume the most rediculous and ignorant policies of Leftists.

(Rambling crap)

Browbeaten: To intimidate or subjugate by an overbearing manner or domineering speech
Notice the lack of convincing arguement in that definition.

Leftists views: I don't know what kind of constricted "logic" you uphold, but Leftist covers a wide range of political views, and not in any broad swathe as you would classify our "communist monolith"*. Beat it square.

*Ignorant views on the cohesion and undivided acceptance of all "leftist policies" by those on the "left".

I reject a whole bunch of 'leftist' ideals. For example, I support nuclear power and I don't think people should be paid to refuse work. Iraq, and all muslim majority states are a lost cause either way.

Some people have a mind of their own. Unlike some f***ists (apparently a dirty word). Socialise it!(I have a foul mouth )

Now can someone attack what I've said logically?

You're bollocks!
REFUTED!

.................

F***ist

Congratulations are due to user: Dieburndie. He wins a prize, it's a prize for being a whiny lefty fuckwit.

Congratulations dieburndie you issued an ultimatum, I stepped up and damned if we know what you've done, because you've disappeared. Or did I make a mistake? I know I forgot to add a friendly little: 'please attack this logically' at the bottom of my post.

Oh noes I attacked you logically and now you're missing in action presumed lame. Have you ever wondered if the problem with the left on BoS is that when confronted by opposition they disappear? This of course fits very neatly with my little bandwagon theory. Dieburndie you are on it and like all your fellow passengers you're just along for the ride, you don't have a real opinion of your own so you can't argue a case.

Oh noes some of us have the HSC to work on. Others decided that Reason is a quickly disappearing natural resource under Howard, and decided to hoard it until the revolution.

I'm richer than most of you and I'm on HECS.
Suck my (Worth far more than yours) balls.

COMMIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SimonCrean]

I think its a little sad how so many young people essentially LOVE John Howard and conservative government.

You hear girls say things like 'I hate feminists, useless'. I always wonder where that girl would be if there was no feminist revolution? Barefoot, in the kitchen and pregnant? What about when she chooses to have a child? Wow Australia's 52 weeks unpaid leave is just so worldclass.

 

[frog12986]

I beg to differ; there is too much idealism, particularly on this forum. Socialist and similar rhetoric overrides the reality of our world.

Extensive government intervention, banishing poverty, pandering to minorities, and free tertiary education to name just a few. There are plenty of nations around the world that offer such 'solutions', yet for some profound reason they don't seem to produce the ideal world that the socialist proponents lead us to believe.

Government control merely places the decisions of a nation into a mere few, and for the sake of 'equality', brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator. History has proven, that all forms of revolutionary behaviour have resulted in nations that aim to create equality, not through enhancing the impoverished, but rather through penalising the successful. Opportunity and incentive are thrown out of the window...that's not my perception of idealism

 

[philly17]

I love howard and I am CONSERVATIVE why just because we are young must be like every other stupid person at uni and be a radical lefty!

As for feminism I believe in equal rights for men and women but i also dont believe women must constantly want to be men. They are sexually aggressive like men, in the workforce they want to copy men and they even reject motherhood in the bid to be 'equal'.
Women need to accept that we have a different role to men, yes we are equal BUT WE ARENT MEN AND DONT HAVE TO BE THEM. We can be just as liberated being educated and then becoming a full time mother!!!

 

[yy]

I love howard and I am CONSERVATIVE why just because we are young must be like every other stupid person at uni and be a radical lefty!

As for feminism I believe in equal rights for men and women but i also dont believe women must constantly want to be men. They are sexually aggressive like men, in the workforce they want to copy men and they even reject motherhood in the bid to be 'equal'.
Women need to accept that we have a different role to men, yes we are equal BUT WE ARENT MEN AND DONT HAVE TO BE THEM. We can be just as liberated being educated and then becoming a full time mother!!!

so if you are sexually aggressive and is a bit authoritative (read bitchy if you're a woman), this is because you want to be a man? are men inherently authoritative and aggressive whereas women are by their nature submissive? is this what you're getting at?

funny that you think men and women are equal, yet women are forbidden to be in touch with characteristics that are considered as "masculine"

how about men that reject fatherhood, are they trying to be women?

of course i respect your wish to become a full-time mother, it's all about personal choice, right?

or are you being sarcastic?

 

[yy]

unfortunately it's true, people seems to forget that there are different waves and types of feminism. whenever i hear them say it, i always remind them that suffrage is part of feminism. they don't seem to be too keen on being disenfranchised.

 

[loquasagacious]

Not even. Fuckin' goof.
I'm not going to argue each point because I don't feel like typing a novel after an exam where I had to write about the Arab-Israeli conflict neutrally.

Hooray he has been found, no longer lost in the woods is he. Firstly I did have to laugh at your edits in the last lines you quoted me on, though they are untrue - have a search through my previous posts in NCAP (unless I've been faking for two years). And I will also have to shed a tear for you, having to write on the Arab-Israeli conflict, poor you, I can't say I've ever had to do anything similar.... or have I? Oh thats right, my major, for some reasons it keeps cropping up in my International Relations major, would you believe I even did a couple of courses dedicated to it?? Who'd have thought?

Though I'm presuming your problem was that you couldn't put all of your imagined angst on behalf of the Palestinians down on paper.

I'll just say a couple basic things.

Basic just about covers it. Love the one liner.

In what ways does economics in general not agree with the left? (I'm not arguing that it does, I just would like to know why).

Well really this is a rather complex question asking me to explain the entire subject of economics because the entire subject disagrees with communism. I will however give you some brief summary points.
-Economic philosophy dictates that humans are driven by incentive, work harder -> earn more, etc. Communism does not have incentives, work harder -> earn same, eat same, live same, get killed by co-workers for making them look bad. Thus communism is less productive and does not advance as fast.
-Any micro 1 student can prove that international trade at floating prices and specialisation increases the total amount of goods available.
-Any economics student can tell you that a minimum wage (or any other price floor) keeps people out of jobs and slows growth.
-Likewise they can tell you that a price ceiling (eg on a good) stops people having the good.
-etc etc

How can you prove that environmental legislation doesn't work if it doesn't exist? Something doesn't necessarily lack merit because it isn't accepted by the mainstream. That's an appeal to majority.

Doesn't exist means it doesn't have the appeal to exist and hence its merit is moot, welcome to pragmatism. Having said this environmental legislation does exist and doesn't work. Alternatives like carbon market etc could work.

You threw the bandwagoner tag right back at me, motherfucking hypocrite.
I'm not on any bandwagon. I reject a whole bunch of 'leftist' ideals. For example, I support nuclear power and I don't think people should be paid to refuse work. Iraq, and all muslim majority states are a lost cause either way.

I called you a band-wagoner first, so you threw it back at me, like yeah, totally. Congratulations given your opinions it seems you have an intellect greater than is displayed in your posts.

I'm not going to argue about this anymore, I don't find it particularly interesting or productive.

Is this where you laugh, and disappear in a puff of smoke? Maybe it impresses simpletons but I don't think it flies here.

Label me whatever the fuck you want.

Pretty sure I already did.

Name one of these so called third party participants that you have come to convince. The enitre point is to prove that the other side's is fallacious, and yours is vaild.

I think the whole point is that the third-parties are silently watching hence we can't name them because they aren't posting. Given your own definition, Nolan is doing a good job anyway.

Oh noes some of us have the HSC to work on.

Woohoo, would you like a sticker? Maybe a wolly-pop? Been there done that, incidentally uni is like a HSC twice a year, and my first exam is tomorrow morning.

 

[_dhj_]

If total free market was the best outcome, we would not even need economics to give us answers in the macro sense.

The fact is that there are just as many aspects of economics that "disagrees" (strange word to use tbh) with the right. A few of them include total utility, market failure, externalities, need for regulation in areas (because there is incentive to do what is detrimental to total utility). I think it's inappropriate to confer onto economics the task of making value judgements on who should get what. It is partly the study of human behaviour (humans being invariably driven by incentive, as you mentioned), but also the study of how to regulate or manipulate that behaviour to achieve a particular outcome.

 

[PaleReflection]

My view is the exact opposite. Nobody makes a choice to do anything. There's no such thing as choice. Everyone is in their situation due to complicated sequences of events both occurring externally and internally which, at any stage, compelled them to specific actions. People are merely sophisticated robots.

What about moral responsibility? You're saying that if Nolan happens to smash someone over the head with a hammer and throatfuck them, as a sophisticated robot, he has no choice in the matter. It's pre-determined. Do you believe anyone can be held accountable for his actions?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Yeah but the cops arresting him and the court prosecuting him are also robots.

 

[dagwoman]

As for feminism I believe in equal rights for men and women but... in the workforce they want to copy men and they even reject motherhood in the bid to be 'equal'.
Women need to accept that we have a different role to men... We can be just as liberated being educated and then becoming a full time mother!!!

1. Hahaha.
2. You've completely contradicted yourself.
3. Are you saying all women are good for is having children? They should just get educated for the sake of it and then spend their lives cooking and cleaning? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I gathered from your last sentence.

 

[_dhj_]

What about moral responsibility? You're saying that if Nolan happens to smash someone over the head with a hammer and throatfuck them, as a sophisticated robot, he has no choice in the matter. It's pre-determined. Do you believe anyone can be held accountable for his actions?

There are a few outcomes of him being "held accountable" for his actions. It will deter him, and others from doing criminal acts which are detrimental to society (adding to the factors that determine whether they will commit particular criminal acts in the future). It will give comfort to the friends and relatives of the deceased. It will also (as your post demonstrated) satisfy the broad community's sense of "justice", regardless of whether their perception of the concept is correct.

If we could predict the future, we would definately have a "choice" over our actions. But without the knowledge of what would have happened our "choice" is always the best choice made in the circumstances (from our perspective when the choice is made).

 

[withoutaface]

1. Hahaha.
2. You've completely contradicted yourself.
3. Are you saying all women are good for is having children? They should just get educated for the sake of it and then spend their lives cooking and cleaning? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I gathered from your last sentence.

The fate/punishment argument fails because the punishment is inevitable as well, and as such we should act as if fate doesn't exist, because there is only one outcome that can come of destiny, but many that can come of lack thereof, and the destiny will play itself anyway if it's true and fuck I can't express what I'm thinking in words.

Ok essentially there's 2 scenarios:
1. Destiny doesn't exist. We act as such and we hold people accountable for their actions and crime reduces. If we act as if it does exist, then criminals are not punished and crime increases.
2. Destiny does exist. We have no choice how to act. We are predetermined to act a certain way and so it's best to make the illusioned choice of there being no destiny in case scenario one is true.

Yes I know that made no sense.

ou're looking at the wrong definition, by no means are you the friendly centrist.

I never said I was fucking centrist. In my view I'm far right, but extremism in defence of liberty is no vice.

RTFM on Fascism.

Now as I don't believe you have the capacity to comprehend a proper definition of fascism with long words, I've gone to the simple english wikipedia: "Fascism is a form of all-powerful government. In fascism, the country is considered more important than any one person"

You believe that the government should be all powerful with regards to the economy. You believe that the collective is more important than the individual. I put it to you, sir, that the only fascist in this thread is you.

EDIT: Here's my argument in the form of a diagram: http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/7262/diagramwp0.jpg

 

[_dhj_]

The fate/punishment argument fails because the punishment is inevitable as well, and as such we should act as if fate doesn't exist, because there is only one outcome that can come of destiny, but many that can come of lack thereof, and the destiny will play itself anyway if it's true and fuck I can't express what I'm thinking in words.

Ok essentially there's 2 scenarios:
1. Destiny doesn't exist. We act as such and we hold people accountable for their actions and crime reduces. If we act as if it does exist, then criminals are not punished and crime increases.
2. Destiny does exist. We have no choice how to act. We are predetermined to act a certain way and so it's best to make the illusioned choice of there being no destiny in case scenario one is true.

Yes I know that made no sense.

I didn't quite get what you were saying tbh but i'll just make the point that whether you believe in destiny and/or act on that belief is itself resultant from "destiny" (if it indeed exists).

 

[withoutaface]

I'm just saying that if destiny doesn't exist, and we act as if it does then we're not getting the best outcome. If it does, and we act as if it doesn't, no harm comes of it because there is no other way things could be.