The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Dogmas change but habits remain > Comments

Dogmas change but habits remain : Comments

By Mark Christensen, published 31/5/2013

We are now free from the bonds of religion, but everywhere imprisoned by the bonds of social conformity.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
Interesting article and I'm looking forward to thinking about it some more.

However, I would take exception to the sub heading for this article, "We are now free from the bonds of religion, but everywhere imprisoned by the bonds of social conformity." Anyone who truly understands Christianity (I assume that's what is meant by religion) would understand what it means to be truly free.
Posted by rational-debate, Friday, 31 May 2013 7:56:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rational debate - Anyone who truly understands Christianity (I assume that's what is meant by religion) would understand what it means to be truly free.

Just to be difficult, I'll argue that there is a GINORMOUS difference between christianity and religion, in fact there is little or no commonality between them. The former is to do with the teachings of one particular individual whereas the latter is a purely human invention intended to provide a very few with power & control over the masses. Just a few snippets to put the two in perspective. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image & Call no man Father. Quite obviously the 'original' church doesn't take any of these seriously. As others have so ably pointed out, there are numerous religious 'franchises' with differing rules, nevertheless they are all to lesser or greater extent about power & control. As with all entities conceived by humans, the power corrupts, positions of power attract the corruptible, and some pigs are more equal than others factors become more prevalent as organization size increases, ie major religious franchises catholic, anglican & islam are clearly more 'interesting' than the rats & mice franchises, exactly the same as the ALP & LNP are more 'interesting' than their equivalent rats & mice. Note that I'm not for a millisecond suggesting that little franchises are inherently as pure as the driven snow, but merely that they have yet to acquire the habits of their more established brethren. One can only hope that in both cases they do not.
Posted by praxidice, Friday, 31 May 2013 8:32:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are not free from religion.

Islam is the most aggressive social force and ideology in the world today. Its adherents are a constant menace to our social structure and individual safety.

The idea of the moderate muslim is a canard yet we hear this continually in the context of whatever latest outrage is perpetrated in islam's name.

The history of islamic terrorism shows that the perpetrators came from every sphere of life; some were doctors, teachers, engineers, many university educated and seemingly well adjusted people who had assimilated with the values of Western society.

If even the 'best' of islam can turn and commit atrocities then how can you say there are any moderate muslims when patently moderate muslims have committed atrocities in the past? Is a moderate muslim simply a muslim who has not yet terrorised? Is it fair to brand every muslim with the potential to be a terrorist? If not why and how do you distinguish those who will from those who won't?

It is an impossible task; and for what; what does islam bring to the West; what does it contribute? The only argument I hear is that the West is a pluralistic society and that tolerating islam is a part of that. But that argument doesn't answer the question because that is describing an attribute of the West which islam is usurping in its declared quest to get rid of that tolerance and replace it with sharia.

In fact there is nothing islam contributes to Western society and it is a beligerant threat; it should be treated as such and those who argue otherwise should be treated for what they are.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 31 May 2013 9:12:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Just to be difficult, I'll argue that there is a GINORMOUS difference between christianity and religion>>

And the heavily-criticised Christian church is different to both.

Religion is any path which brings us closer to God.
Christianity is one such path taught by Jesus Christ.
The Christian Churches are organisations that aspire, with varying degrees of success, to promote religion using Jesus' teachings.

Exerting power and control over the masses is the furthest possible thing from religion in general and Christianity in particular. The fact that churches were involved in such exploitations only means is that those churches have failed in their mission.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 31 May 2013 9:19:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark

Your essay starts off as a fairly vigorous defence of individualism and the secular state. From my recollection Enlightenment asserted that human reason and scientific inquiry should displace religious belief, and that the legitimate state represented the will of the people (democracy).

I understand your article then proceeds to savagely criticise the "intellectual paradigm" (of reason and scientific inquiry?) that takes precedence over individual common sense, as well as the "moral contrivance" of the democratic state that is acting in accordance with the common will of the people (in this case to minimise the adverse social and personal impacts of gambling).

It seems to me that your article evokes "common sense" as the only legitimate basis for action, yet such an individually-defined perspective is potentially as subjective and emotional as religion
Posted by Donkey, Friday, 31 May 2013 9:24:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Praxidice - I wasn't suggesting they were the same, just assuming that is what the author intended. Religion is indeed a man-made thing, however, I think you are a little too general in your criticisms.
Posted by rational-debate, Friday, 31 May 2013 10:00:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu - The fact that churches were involved in such exploitations only means is that those churches have failed in their mission.

Exactly my point, most if not all HAVE failed in their mission. Well to rephrase that, they have failed dismally if one assumes their mission was to promote christianity as per the bible, but they have been extremely successful in creating empires to the glorification of whatever religious franchise and particularly the human leaders thereof. Check out the property holdings of the biggest half-dozen religious franchises and then tell me I'm barking up the wrong tree. Obviously the church of rome is the original and worst offender, with judaism, islam, greek orthodux & church of england in a similar league. The examples I provided earlier ' Thou shalt have no other gods before Me (how about Mary ??), Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (Hmm, all those statues ??) & Call no man Father (hullo ??) are only three of many that show catholics don't regard even their own Knox bible as authoritative. Furthermore, I understand that as from 2011, the vatican has required civilian employees to have a microchip implanted under the skin of their right hand. If that doesn't send a shiver up your spine then maybe Revelation 13:16 would be enlightening. Furthermore I think you'd find a bit of research on the 'false prophet' enlightening.

In general, most of the other 'franchises' use translations derived from the catholic vulgate, thereby accepting incorrect concepts that first principles researchers abandoned years ago. As for your comment 'Religion is any path which brings us closer to God', I'll agree that religion brings people closer to A god, but not necessarily the same one. For example, it could be argued that the main religions practiced in Australia are footbrawl, thugby, consumerism, politically-correct-ism & probably quite a few more.

to be continued
Posted by praxidice, Friday, 31 May 2013 12:26:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued

As cohenite has just noted, islam is a major ideology today, one that ostensibly reveres the same God as christians & jews. Mind you JC clearly didn't exactly agree in John 14:6 with either mobs carryings on. Genesis 16:11-12 (circa 5000 years ago) provides a stark notice about Ismael & his (islamic) descendants so we can hardly say we weren't given plenty of warning about that mob. Another modern example of the utter nonsense spread by one particular 'franchise' is the pentecostal practice of 'speaking in tongues'. Sure there was a real purpose for speaking in tongues in the first century with teachers imparting knowledge to students who spoke a language unknown to their teacher. Thats a totally different event from some lunatic spouting utter drivel !!

Given that the first century examples of christians meeting together entailed a few people in someones lounge, do you think JC would be impressed with the present day zillion dollar edifices to this or that franchise ?? Isn't it more likely He'd say 'why didn't you do a bit for the down & outs rather than spend all that money building fancy castles' ??
Posted by praxidice, Friday, 31 May 2013 12:26:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another attempt at the "Nanny State" argument.

"Science and technology has certainly all-but vanquished religious dogma as a political force,"

This is a remarkably daft statement--religious ideologies are still extremely potent forces and far from vanquishment.

In a democratic society the state is us, it's not the enemy, without its protection citizens would be at the mercy of the capitalist and criminal classes, the most pernicious propaganda these days is produced by corporations, not by the government. Gambling, alcohol and smoking are health, not moral issues, why shouldn't the state, as representative of its citizens warn of the dangers inherent in using nicotine and alcohol or gambling. Those corporations whose shareholders profit from selling dangerous products have an appalling record as to informing the public of the dangers. We're in the real world, not the bizarre universe of neo-liberal economics.

The author is really drawing a longbow in his attempts to equate the modern state with the theocracies of the past.
Posted by mac, Friday, 31 May 2013 12:41:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article.

All that's happened is that the same irrational beliefs that used to be invested in the church, are now invested in the state.

A classic case is the current dogma that state action is necessary to improve the situation that would otherwise result from supposed catastrophic global warming.

- There's the unfalsifiable belief (both extra hot or extra cold weather, flood or drought, are taken as proof)
- there's belief in an impending cataclysm
- those who critically doubt the reason or evidence for it are "denialists" (heretics) as if they issue were one of *faith* in authority
- there's the time-frame (not near enough to be disproved, but near enough to be worried about)
- the idea that man's moral fault is at the root of the problem ("consumerism")
- the need to repent
- there's the need to practise self-denial for salvation
- the promise of a future paradise in which the economic problems caused by natural scarcity are solved by virtue for a more harmonious and morally superior society ("sustainability")
- there's the reading of birds' gizzards: high priests of orthodox authority (climate experts) reading mysterious signs (computer models) whose true meaning is inscrutable to the common herd
- there's the reverencing of a corporation (the state) as being all-knowing (it knows that the values of all human beings are and should be, now and indefinitely into the future, in the use of depletable resources; and all other resources; it knows what resources should be consumed now or conserved for future humans; it knows what the distribution and abundance of species should be on all continents and time-frames)
- the reverencing of a corporation as morally superior (it has the selflessness and goodness to exercise total power over any and every aspect of human action)
- the reverencing of a corporation as omnipotent (it can fine-tune the weather in 500 years time)
- the holy corporation is charged with rectifying man's error and showing the path to salvation
- and now to cap it all off, we have carbon taxes - the selling of indulgences!
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 31 May 2013 1:04:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jardine,

Your comparison is a gem - I hate to add anything after that.

But I must draw the conclusion from those similarities that as both the Church and the state are infested by the exact same plague, that plague must be independent of religion.

Can there be an uninfected Church?
Can there be an uninfected state?

Perhaps the correct question is not "can there be", but "for how long" [can a Church/state remain uninfected].

Dear Praxidice,

I am deeply shocked about that RFID implantation, though all I could read so far is that Vatican employees were issued with a card, not implanted, so far anyway (could this be a measure to prevent Jews from entering the Vatican, as they're not allowed to carry electronic items on the Sabbath?).

<<I'll agree that religion brings people closer to A god>>

You are not seriously suggesting that there's more than one God, are you?

Yes, there are myriads of little-gods (with a small 'g'), but coming closer to one does not count as religion, so that excludes footbrawl, thugby, consumerism, politically-correct-ism, etc.

Otherwise I agree with you, including that JC would be very unimpressed by most of the mob calling on his name.

Dear Mac,

<<In a democratic society the state is us, it's not the enemy, without its protection citizens would be at the mercy of the capitalist and criminal classes,>>

In other words what you say is "the enemy of my enemy must be my friend". According to your logic, if the Comancheros and Rebels bikie gangs are fighting with each other, then one of them must be your friend!

And by the way, Mac, I know myself - and I am not a state, so next time you claim that "the state is us", you better define clearly who these "us" are, excluding myself and probably some others here.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 31 May 2013 1:59:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

You're begging the question by assuming the state is an enemy, where did I assert that?

Where did I maintain that individuals are states in themselves--only through collective action.

Can you live without the state? If so in what way?

Presumably if threatened by criminals you would call the Police and if by fire, the Fire Brigade, or perhaps you might rely on a private security force, or rely on market forces to solve the problem.
Posted by mac, Friday, 31 May 2013 2:26:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu - Yes, there are myriads of little-gods (with a small 'g'), but coming closer to one does not count as religion, so that excludes footbrawl, thugby, consumerism, politically-correct-ism, etc.

Have you been keeping an eye on those two discussions about what some girl was supposed to have said & how some footbrawler was offended and so on and so forth ?? Those have to be easily the longest winded wastes of time since that 'Blue Hills' radio show was canned (from memory it went on for 36 years or something equally stupid) , well the page after page after page ad nauseum of total umitigated crap about (#*%#&*%)# a stupid sport played by grown men who should have more sense proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that it IS a God (yes with a big 'G'). Its played on Sunday (well I think it is, either that or Saturday anyway, either are someones sabbath), it occupies a cathedral (check out the one in Brisbane near Milton railway station), and its followers are more fanatic than any other religious franchise other than possibly islam & the pentecostals.
Posted by praxidice, Friday, 31 May 2013 2:46:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mac
You didn't assume the state is an enemy, you assumed it's a god.

“If one assumes that there exists above and beyond the individual’s actions an imperishable entity aiming at its own ends, different from those of mortal men, one has already constructed the concept of a superhuman being.”
Ludwig von Mises

But you don't only assume that, you assume that the State morally superior, that has superior knowledge about what people's values should be, that it represents the people better than they represent themselves, that consensual relations are vicious and only permitted subject to coerced relations, and that a problem of crime is best solved by investing a monopoly of crime.

Besides, who are you to talk about the problem of crime if you think the use of force to violate people's personal and property rights is the basis of a good society? The problem is, you think crime is virtuous if done by the State .

You are a good example of the modern day religion of state worship. Your only defence is to squark "neo-liberal!" as if this somehow disposes of all ethical and pragmatic issues in your favour.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 31 May 2013 3:22:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes and lets see, secular freedom

freedom to have sex with as many partners as you want and guilt free (except for the massive increase in teen suicide and stds)
freedom to gorge oneself and end up having to have one's tummy banded
freedom to have sex and then dispose of the consequenes by throwing the baby in the bin
freedom for women to have their 'rights' and yet over 25% of them end up on anti depressants

freedom to not discipline children and now the elderly are beaten daily for a couple of dollars

freedom to watch all the porno you want and yet kids are being fiddled with at a higher rate than ever before.

secular freedom really equals terrible bondage but don't let facts get in the way of secular dogma

freedom to perve at naked teenage girls but if you are a secularist call it art

freedom to dump your missus for a younger model and let the taxpayer pick up the tab for your kids

yes lovely secular freedom.
Posted by runner, Friday, 31 May 2013 3:47:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mac,

<<You're begging the question by assuming the state is an enemy, where did I assert that?>>

On the contrary - you stated that the state is NOT an enemy. I challenged that.

<<Can you live without the state? If so in what way?>>

People lived for hundreds of thousands of years without a state!

I do realise that it would be difficult now, after all the damage already done by states over around a couple of millennia, killing off all alternatives, especially now that we have such a high human population.

For now then, let's start by shrinking the powers of the state and leave the total elimination of the state for a better day.

<<Presumably if threatened by criminals you would call the Police and if by fire, the Fire Brigade>>

Yes, that's about as much as the state may legitimately do. I am not complaining about that part.

The problem is that the above is just a fraction of what the state does. Other than this "good cop" show, the state does so many other things without a legitimate moral justification.

Dear Praxidice,

Fortunately I have no idea what you are talking about. Is this a heresy on my behalf?

Dear Runner,

Without the choice to do wrong there is no choice to do right.
Without vice there is also no virtue.
The role of the church is to educate, the role of the state is to protect those who want to be protected:
neither has an authority to enforce morals, which in fact could only hinder religion.
It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in humans.
Trust in God!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 31 May 2013 4:05:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This reference and the associated website gives a much more comprehensive overview of the various dogmas by which we are propagandized - even while still in utero.
http://www.firmstand.org/articles/separation_of_church_and_state.html

This reference also provides a unique perspective of the overwhelming power of the the now world dominant paradigm of scientism. Part 4 gives a unique assessment and criticism of the power of conventional exoteric state religion - the kind of entirely reductionist exoteric religion that Runner promotes - and the IPA too for that matter.
http://global.adidam.org/truth-book/true-spiritual-practice-3.html

This reference describes the all pervasive nature of the anti-psychic, anti-Spiritual, doubt mind that mis-informs our entire culture, including all of conventional exoteric religion.
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/nirvanasara/chapter1.html
Posted by Daffy Duck, Friday, 31 May 2013 5:20:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine,
You forgot to add that secular fundamentalists also have a belief in the supernatural, the all seeing eye of "World Opinion".
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Friday, 31 May 2013 6:32:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh yeah. I also forgot:
- nutty little rituals like sitting in dimly-lit rooms under curly light bulbs thinking you're saving the world.

My favourite is the dishwashing machine setting "eco", which means that your dishes come out dirty. Real self-flagellation stuff.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 31 May 2013 9:16:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yuyutsu - Fortunately I have no idea what you are talking about. Is this a heresy on my behalf?

If you can be more explicit about what particular part of my rant you mean, I'd be happy to elaborate. That said, heresy is an intensely personal event. Quite obviously footbrawlers will regard anything remotely critical of their religion a hanging offence, big-business will regard anything that degrades their great god money as worthy of the severe castigation, islamics clearly take umbrage to any suggestion that the prophet is not the be all to end all, and catholics get their knickers in a knot if someone criticizes the pontiff. Personally I don't regard any of the aforementioned as warranting as much as a slap on the wrist but YMMV
Posted by praxidice, Saturday, 1 June 2013 8:44:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are right Praxidice. Everyone has their own set of 'rules' for life, whether they be religious or not.
For this reason, Australia is thankfully one country that embraces all these differences and is a secular society.

As far as Christians or Muslims go, I often wonder how humans ever managed in those sin-filled days before Jesus or Mahommed ever supposedly walked the face of the earth?

How did the human race survive without the Bible or the Koran?
There must have been rampant terrible sins raging through the communities, surely?

Maybe humans got on with their lives by simply using common sense and decency?
Sounds like our secular society today really?
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 1 June 2013 12:15:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, the nice thing about the bounds of social conformity is that usually nobody tries to kill you when you overstep them. So this is progress, innit?
Posted by Jon J, Saturday, 1 June 2013 12:46:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline

Religion has been part of human civilization for yonks, certainly well before christianity (2000y/o), or for that matter the Mosaic franchises (judaism & islam) which date from about 2000bc plus or minus. All ostensibly civilized populations had at least one, and often multiple religions. Not only the egyptians but all the tribes encountered by the israelites during their wanderings through the middle-east had their own gods & associated religions. In roughly the same timeframe, the various south american civilizations had another different set & whilst I've never researched ancient history of the far east, the chinese would probably have had an advanced society by the time of Moses with confucious, buddha & no doubt a whole tribe of gods on the scene. Then there was another mob of gods that didn't seem to get off the indian sub-continent, and pele who apparently had some way of travelling around the pacific islands. Somewhat later we had the greeks & the romans worshiping a veritable tribe of gods. Interestingly, the civilizations generally considered to be the most highly developed also had the most highly developed religions, eg china, india, greece, rome. Whether or not 21st century western civilizations have really advanced with consumerism, politically-correct-ism, sport-ism, child-worship-ism is another subject again.
Posted by praxidice, Saturday, 1 June 2013 1:18:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine K Jardine,

"But you don't only assume that, you assume that the State morally superior, that has superior knowledge about what people's values should be,.."

That is a completely straw man argument, where did I say that, in fact my argument is quite the opposite, since the state is product of society. I don't know whose political philosophy you are criticising, it certainly isn't mine.

You haven't described the anarchist paradise that will replace the current coercive state apparatus.
Posted by mac, Saturday, 1 June 2013 1:44:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mac

>where did I say that (that the State [is] morally superior, that [it] has superior knowledge about what people's values should be.." (?)

Here:
>“Gambling, alcohol and smoking are health, not moral issues, why shouldn't the state, as representative of its citizens warn of the dangers inherent in using nicotine and alcohol or gambling.”

You must assume that the state knows better than the people what the people’s values are and what they should be as concerns gambling, alcohol and smoking; and that aggressive violence is justified to get the funds for its unsolicited “warnings”.

But how does the state know better? It’s highest claim is only that it represents the people you presume incompetent to know what’s good for them.

“since the state is product of society…”

So are thieving, murder and rape. So what?

There’s several fatal defects with your irrational beliefs in favour of the state.

Firstly, there’s no evidence or reason for the belief that the state is more representative of society or the social good, than people are by their voluntary actions and consensual relations. No justification for the state so far.

Secondly, the electoral system provides no evidence that any given action of the state represents society; nor that we “signed up” for democracy:
http://economics.org.au/2010/08/no-social-contract/

Thirdly, even if it did, mere majoritarian opinion doesn’t justify using aggressive violence to get what you want. But that’s all the state has on offer – anti-social force. *Real* social action is consensual, which society can and does provide by itself.

“I don't know whose political philosophy you are criticising, it certainly isn't mine.”
Unless you support the abolition of state meddling in other people’s freedom to choose their own peaceable behaviour, including gambling and drugs, then the above critique identifies problems in your political philosophy which you have not justified.

“the most pernicious propaganda these days is produced by corporations, not by the government”
Nonsense. The law against misleading and deceptive conduct does not apply in politics or government; only in trade or commerce. You have just been brainwashed into believing untruths and defending systemic fraud.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 1 June 2013 2:39:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Daffy,

Thank you so much for these references!

Despite its limitations, we must not discard the function of exoteric religion: most people are not yet ready to go beyond.

It was quite challenging and radical to view scientism as yet-another valid exoteric religion - not only that, but even match original Buddhism as its esoteric continuation. I did comment a few times in this forum that atheists can in fact be as religious as their theistic counterparts. While for me science represents vanity, I know others whom science brings to the threshold of religion, especially after being abused, lost faith and disempowered by corrupted 'religious' institutions, when as a result they could see only one set of footprints (http://www.footprints-inthe-sand.com/index.php?page=Poem/Poem.php). How strange and marvellous are the ways of the Lord!

Though very long, it was more than worthwhile reading the subtle comparison between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.

Dear Praxidice,

<<Whether or not 21st century western civilizations have really advanced with consumerism, politically-correct-ism, sport-ism, child-worship-ism is another subject again.>>

I have no answer, it is really hard to compare. It's like asking which kindi songs are more stupid than others. For us they are all stupid, but in the end those kids increase their vocabulary and musical skills through those songs, which is really what matters at that stage.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 2 June 2013 1:53:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jesus, this Mark Christianson is an interesting case.

Mark starts out by putting the boot into religious moral authority, then sticks the boot into the notion that democratic governments have any moral authority, and lastly reams out the "cultural elites."

I would diagnose Mark as a classic Anarchist, because his position conforms to that of a committed Anarchist. Anarchism, for those having trouble remembering their high school history lessons, completely rejected the concept that either church or state had any moral authority to make laws. Anarchists believed that somehow a society could exist where everybody simply did what they wanted to do, without bothering to have an organised and generally agreed upon concept as to what constituted correct behaviour.

Anarchism as political force was all the rage with the Left Bank Parisian intellectuals who were enamoured of the concept that people should do whatever they wanted. (Ironically, "intellectuals" today are not much different, they still despise the society they choose to live in) The Anarchists instigated a campaign of bombing Parisian restaurants to emphasise their point, and to show their displeasure ar society laughing at them. But, after making an enemy of all of organised society, their leaders were quickly rounded up and guillotined.

The Anarchists made the mistake of so many other utopian movements, which promised Nirvana to the human race, provided that the human race stopped being human, and instead became programmable robots that only acted on logic and reason. They forgot that human beings have an instinctive desire to be part of a self protecting group. And that created a need to create an organised society where there was a general agreement upon what constituted correct behaviour.

The idea that a community can exist without rules is, frankly potty. The purpose of governments is to create organised societies and make the rules. Even the Romans put up with psychotic Emperors because they knew that tyranny was preferable to anarchy. In democratic countries, ordinary people have some say in what those rules should be. For Mark to complain about that, makes me shake my head in pitying wonder.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 2 June 2013 6:00:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear LEGO,

Churches have a moral authority to make rules because they are (today) a voluntary organisation. You don't have to take off your shoes - but then you may not enter a mosque.

Yes, it is an instinctive human desire to be part of a self protective group, but this does not mandate non-voluntary 7-10-digit-strong groups of people, without general agreement upon what constituted correct behaviour, that cover the whole earth along with its seas, islands, all that's below and all that's above.

Yes, communities need rules and that's fine as long as you may leave the community if you don't accept those rules, if you can just pack up and walk across the valley to another community that has acceptable rules for you, or in the absence of such, find a lonely cave and live there undisturbed.

The root of this evil of large states hogging the whole earth, is not the Church or the state, but rather overpopulation. However, both mainstream Churches and states tend to encourage it.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 2 June 2013 8:38:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the favourite tactics of statists is to cry "anarchy!" when anyone questions their doctrine of unlimited monopoly arbitrary power. The idea is that if you're not willing to put up with Caligula, or its modern forms, you must be the kind of guy who thinks blowing up restaurants makes for a better society.

This is false for various reasons.

Firstly if the justification of a particular use of power - say to restrict gambling - is questioned, the desirability of social order in general is not in issue. The question is whether social order better consists in people's freedom to do what they want with their own property, or restricting those freedoms based on threats of force and arbitrary power. Even if it’s the latter, that doesn’t justify a creed of unlimited arbitrary aggressive power by a territorial monopolist as the statists maintain.

Secondly, not even the anti-state case depends on an argument that the state should be abolished. The argument is that good social order arises, and ought to arise from the moral and practical principle of non-aggression against the person or property of others; - Not from a territorial monopolist of aggression, granting itself a licence to use threats and commit frauds and crimes which it declares illegal for everyone else, as the statists irrationally believe.

Thirdly even, at the wilder shores, if abolition of the state's security monopoly resulted in a scramble for power by competing armed gangs, with the most powerful taking over the commanding heights of society, imposing obedience, extracting tribute, and granting itself privileges – how is that any different from states? That doesn’t prove that anarchy would be worse – it proves that states are no better!

Fourthly, everyone has been subjected to compulsory indoctrination for at least 10 years during their formative years by the state. What makes you think you haven’t been brainwashed in favour of the state? If you were, the signs would be factually false beliefs and logically false reasoning reposing a circular credulity in the necessity and beneficence of the state,

(cont.)
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 2 June 2013 10:08:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
and that’s exactly all the statists ever put up.

Fifthly, most explanations of the state are ex post facto. They take the state as a given, and then try to figure out the reasons for it. So we get this unhistorical nonsense about how it’s society’s decision-making mechanism. In fact, states always originate either by an armed gang taking over and ruling by a double standard, or by continuing succession from one. The question is always whether aggressive force is justified, which the statists always ignore.

Sixthly, the idea that security, or the production of law, or adjudication of disputes, must intrinsically be supplied by a monopolist of territorial aggression does not stand to reason. In fact multiple private providers already produce many of these services. The classic example was the US Department of Homeland Security contracting out the security of its HQ to a private firm. Private adjudicators abound in commercial disputes, each producing his own case law. (They are actively hindered and made dearer by monopolist behaviour from state courts which would be illegal if done by business.) Citizens of different countries can carry on successful personal and commercial relations between themselves without an overarching monopolist of force, thus demolishing the statists’ argument.

Seventhly, the fact a state provides a service is not evidence that state provision is necessary or beneficial. It’s evidence that they used their monopoly power to displace competition by operating at a loss which the beneficiaries were able to force someone else to pay for.

The fact that the community needs rules does not justify states.

The arguments for freedom do not depend on the idea that without states everyone would be nice to each other. Defence against aggression will always be necessary. However that is no justification for states, who are by far the worst offenders.

It is enough for me to show that the statists' claims are irrational and probably brainwashed. In their deep structure, they are no different to the ideas that supported the mediaeval church and all its abuses.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 2 June 2013 10:13:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu.

Churches may have the moral authority to make moral rules among their own congregations, the trouble begins when they claim that their version of morality is so undeniably right, that they seek to enforce their own morality on people who are not even part of their religion.

Traditionally, all societies base their concepts of what is right and what is wrong upon their traditional religious culture. But secular societies have greatly modified these concepts to be in line with rational humanitarian ideals. Every society seeks a general agreement of what is right or wrong, and this is usually easy to do in societies not divided by religion or separate cultural identities.

The direction history has always taken, is that states with organised societies with successful common values will always seek to grow in size and influence. You can criticise that, but it is as immutable as the Law of Gravity, and criticising it is about as effective as criticising the rising of tomorrows sun.

But divided societies do implode and create smaller states, thereby verifying the concept that monoculturalism is more stable than strife filled multicultural states.

Multicultural states tend to be unstable, because groups may exist within the state with opposing values. Stability and tolerance can be obtained provided that the minority tacitly accept the values of the majority, even though it may not agree with them. But where birth rate differentials and immigration erode the position of the majority, the result has always been serious social strife, riots, high crime rates, social separation into ethnic enclaves, terrorism and finally, civil war.

Why be a minority in one society, when your people can be a majority in your own state?

Then history repeats itself. The people from the unsuccessful culture who's economic progress is stunted by their failed cultural values, (including opposition to birth control) will seek to go and live within the successful communities who's cultural values ensured economic success. This is resented by the people of the successful state, who may regard the new arrivals as little more than parasites causing instability and social strife
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 2 June 2013 10:40:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO

I don't know that its necessarily the case that multiculturalism itself necessarily implies instability although it depends on how 'multiculturalism' is defined. The White Australia policy certainly involved multiple cultures as such, although their idealogies didn't differ all that markedly from the anglo-saxon ones that formed most of the initial white-man Australia. I have regular interaction with many if not most of the races labelled as 'new australians' during the late 1950s to late 1960s & few if any of the first or subsequent generations have any interest in living elsewhere. Sure a fair number visit their ancestral homeland occasionally, but Australia is where they call home.

On the other hand, the present open doors approach has landed us with the one idealogy on the planet that cannot possibly integrate. If this is what you mean by your use of the word 'multicultural' then I agree totally with your post. Notably, the White Australia era brought us people who either espoused similar religious values as us or at least accepted the basic principles whereas the open doors approach has brought people who without exception vehemently oppose such values and principles. This can only lead to division and instability. I guess the same criticism could be levelled at asian races who follow buddhism or whatever, since there isn't any appreciable common ground with the various renditions of christianity that were part & parcel of both the anglo-saxon & White Australia eras, that said, asian religions tend to be more like templates for a peaceful / successful life than religions in the western sense. Whatever, many asians now following some 'conventional' franchise & we haven't experienced a lot of issues with asians maintaining their own peculiar religions.
Posted by praxidice, Sunday, 2 June 2013 11:08:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good post, Practice.

It is a cultural universal, that people prefer to live amongst their own kith and kin. People that they feel safe with, and who generally agree to their own values as to what is right and wrong. Even within monocultural societies, class layering occurs where different economic demographic groups, with differing values and intelligences (talents) occupy particular geographic areas. Birds of a feather, just keep sticking together, regardless of what the Egalitarians want.

Multiculturalism is exactly like Socialism, how many times does it need to fail before the educated, and supposedly intelligent, university educated elites figure out that it is a bad idea?

Multiculturalism is the diametric opposite of Assimilation, which presupposes that somehow everybody will influence each other and assimilate into (more or less) one culture where everybody agrees on what constitutes correct behaviour. But the wholesale importation of people from very diverse cultures is going to see exactly the same result that we have seen in Lebanon, Fiji, Cyprus, Georgia, Afghanistan, Biafra, Rhodesia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Liberia, Kashmir, Punjab, Sudan, Nigeria, Bougainville, East Timor, Yugoslavia, Kurdistan, New Zealand, Bhutan, Angola, Burma, Chechnya, Guadalcanal, Aden, Malaya, Oman, Congo, Northern Ireland, Palestine/Israel, Czechoslovakia, Mexico, and recently, Thailand. Add to this sundry race riots and acts of terrorism in Britain, the US, Europe and just about every other country on Earth.

Interestingly, whites and Asians can get along with each other very well, as both have similar cultures and intelligence levels. Even though the Asians are far more racist than white people. The Asians only oppose racism when they want to live with the whites. And they are laughing their heads off at the white people's new idea of social self suicide. Asians have no intention of mutikulting their own countries to death.

About the only white people who would be allowed to immigrate to Japan would be white, blue eyed females. The Japanese consider them to be exotic sex partners.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 2 June 2013 11:57:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A bit too much reductio ad absurdum, LEGO.

The proposition is not that society should be free of rules, but that the primary role of government should be administration rather than reformation and that the purpose of a society is to enable individuals to determine and achieve their own ends rather than to compel compliance with laws that constrain such freedom based on no more than the fashionable moral cause du jour of a class that has colonised the political/media/bureaucratic/academic structures.

That class has arisen out of a great social idea that was entirely congruent with enabling individual opportunity: that a broad tertiary education should be cheaply available to any who wish to take up the opportunity. What that has meant in practise is a vast influx to liberal arts faculties, since technical fields have prerequisite knowledge requirements which limit participation. That in turn has meant a vast increase in teaching staff at the bottom of the academic hierarchy whose role is to produce graduates with a minimum of fuss.

Such an education encourages intellectual conformism and rationalism rather than empiricism and rationality. It equips graduates with a common set of values and largely unexamined assumptions derived from guided analysis of canonical texts. Implicit in that is that they have a special understanding of what constitutes the best way to interact individually and collectively which can be codified as legislation and that this will lead to a better (more conformist) society through compelling compliance.

Conformism leads to oppression if it is not optional.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 2 June 2013 12:18:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear LEGO,

Well I made it quite clear that I do not approve of churches enforcing their morality on non-members. Fortunately this is nearly extinct nowadays and those few places and cultures where this is still practised are not the topic I refer to. Please excuse me if I'm not particularly interested in that side of the discussion.

However, as this article points out, secular and 'humanitarian ideals' (which aren't at all rational as you claim) have taken the place of such churches.

<<You can criticise that, but it is as immutable as the Law of Gravity, and criticising it is about as effective as criticising the rising of tomorrows sun.>>

Current times are indeed hard, population levels being many orders of magnitude higher to allow true individual freedoms, but history is not a straight line, only in the short term. In the longer term it is circular. Everything assembled and organised will eventually fall apart, usually by catastrophe - unless we become wise enough to unwind the knots gradually and gracefully.

<<But divided societies do implode and create smaller states>>

I pray so, but so far my prayers are not answered, so far I see the opposite occurring. This continent in particular is hogged by a single centralised and non-voluntary entity, becoming more centralised by the day.

<<Why be a minority in one society, when your people can be a majority in your own state?>>

Indeed! but am I given a choice?

Say my tribe of 100 or 1000 people owns a piece of land in the country and wants to live and be left alone there, having nothing to do with Australian society at large.

The answer is currently 'no'. The government is too greedy for power and control. It wants to force everyone to be indoctrinated in its school-system in order to become part of its economic 'work-force'. It cares not for the values of others.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 2 June 2013 12:30:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO - Multiculturalism is exactly like Socialism, how many times does it need to fail before the educated, and supposedly intelligent, university educated elites figure out that it is a bad idea?

Ahh, the educated idiot factor, I know it well :) :) :) I

Antiseptic - What that has meant in practise is a vast influx to liberal arts faculties, since technical fields have prerequisite knowledge requirements which limit participation

Having achieved academic qualifications in both technical and humanitarian areas, I can certainly recognize the difference between the mentalities churned out by each of the two. One only has to consider some of the utterly ludicrous degrees its possible to get these days to see why we are over-run with educated idiots.
Posted by praxidice, Sunday, 2 June 2013 12:37:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu - The answer is currently 'no'. The government is too greedy for power and control. It wants to force everyone to be indoctrinated in its school-system in order to become part of its economic 'work-force'. It cares not for the values of others.

Depending on your level of desperation / flexibility / inventiveness / resourcefulness, its actually quite possible to drop out of the system to whatever extent you desire. Most 'society dropouts' of my acquaintance opt for only a partial withdrawal from mainstream society although I do know a few hermits cum troglodytes who are around the 90% level. Remember the old hippy communes of the 1960s - 1970s, they still exist to this very day in one form or another. i live in a community, that while it would never be considered a commune, has many of the advantages thereof without the disadvantages. Then there is Crystal Waters in the Sunshine Coast hinterland, zillions of dropout communities clustered around Nimbin & similar small towns in northern NSW, and that peculiar whatever it is semi-religious arrangement in the central highlands south west of Sydney. People who 'drop out' have as many reasons to do so as there are stars in the sky. For me it was a combination of healthy environment, lack of city hassles, ability to be mostly self-sufficient, adequate resources to setup in comfort, total absence of gubmunt muppets etc. The Crystal Waters mob are much the same, Nimbin people ditto except they are inclined to imbibe more than a bit of the dreaded weed, but to each their own. I can't recall the name right now of the place or the tribe who run the joint in the central highlands but they can only be described as peculiar. For what its worth, they had their origin in the Freeman Movement when it was in its heyday (remember all that taxation is theft / Strawman / Maritime Law / constitution is invalid / gubmunt departments are yankee corporations / Bilderbergs / depopulation agenda / chemtrails stuff)
Posted by praxidice, Sunday, 2 June 2013 1:29:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi antiseptic. This is fun on a rainy Sunday afternoon, isn't it?

Mark Christianson, who wrote the topic under discussion, appears to think that society should be free of rules, but that is not my premise. I think that you would agree that the purpose of governments is to manage functioning societies for the benefit of its citizens, defining what rights it bestows upon its citizens, and giving as much personnel freedom as possible without those freedoms impinging too much on other people's rights and safety.

And I can see that we do agree upon the antics of our educated brahmin caste. They love to embrace any cause calculated to get up the noses of anyone who is not of their demographic group, for the purpose of displaying their social separation from both the Great Unwashed, and the successful business class (who are usually their long suffering parents).

A university education was once the sole preserve of the Establishment, but tertiary education today has caused the number of people with degrees in Australia to explode to an incredible 15% of the population. But the actual status of this educated caste is very ill defined. There are educated people who gravitate towards the Establishment and the business class, and there are those in the humanities who are decidedly less successful who usually go on to infest the public service and academia in general.

What is happening is a blending of two opposites. Social climbing superiority combined with Socialist Egalitarianism. Bourgeoisie and Bohemians are getting all mixed up together. Some of them are rich, and some of them are poor, but they all stridently claim (especially the poor ones) that it is their education and commitment to "progressive" social ideals which identify their class. What the poor ones really resent, is that some members of the despised working class actually have higher wages than they do.

They are not just politically correct, they are politically exquisite, who love to play the champions of morality. These are the characters who are guaranteed to man the barricades for every fashionable cause imaginable.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 2 June 2013 2:23:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Praxidice,

I have no personal interest in the hippy lifestyle. In fact, I see them (and so do the gubmunt muppets) not as dropouts but as part and parcel of Western and Australian society, just like the tamed mainstream churches, both unofficial but quietly-state-sponsored pressure-valves.
I'll only believe them genuine dissenters once they refuse welfare-payments, national-grid electricity and internet, state-supplied water, money, roads, shops, cars, an ambulance to pick them up if they have a heart-attack, etc.

Personally speaking, I am relatively comfortable.
While I suffer in minor-to-moderate ways from gubmunt like anyone else, I managed to create an environment for myself where I am less harassed by those muppets than average. Rather, my main concerns are:

1) By calling what they do 'democracy', they harass others in MY name. It is therefore immoral for me to accept and allow it. I just refuse to take on the role of oppressor. Had it been my free choice (and everybody else's), then perhaps I would even choose to be part of this society, but I have no moral right to agree to belong to a society that forces itself on others, even if it's just one person, against their will.

2) The uncertainty about what the state might decree in future. Who knows what's in store? compulsory RFID microchip implants perhaps (reminding me of Nazi number-tattoos in their concentration camps)?

The biggest problem is not what the government currently does, but what it CAN potentially do by the powers invested in it.

Why should I care how government indoctrinates children? He-he-he I am no longer school-age... I'm not a hippy... I'm not a welfare recipient...

Yet we must remember:

"When they took the Jews, I didn't say anything because I'm not Jewish. When they took the homosexuals, I didn't say anything because I'm not a homosexual. When they took the Gypsies I didn't say anything because I'm not a Gypsy. When they took the Catholics I didn't say anything because I'm not Catholic. When they came to take me away, there was no one left to speak up for me."
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 2 June 2013 7:27:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu

Some very good points. I'm largely self-sufficient, don't live in the suburban jungle & don't have any significant dealings with gubmunt muppets on a daily basis, although I choose to avail myself of certain 21st century trappings. If perchance the muppets did get too big for their boots, the community could possibly secceed (geographically it would be easy) although the legal situation is another issue. I wouldn't be in the least surprised what big-brother schemes are foisted on us in the future, needless to say they are likely to focus more on the big cities than remote itty-bitty communities. Most cities already have extensive video surveillance in place, ostensibly for our own safety, and extension of these is certain. Some police services already have number plate recognition technology & this will inevitably spread. Plastic money transactions & public transport cards are routinely tracked although its not difficult to fool the latter. All landline phone, mobile phone,satellite phone, internet & even some GPS activity is trackable and in fact probably is routinely tracked via the Echelon system. That doesn't leave a lot of areas where we aren't being watched. When we see the microchip implants rolled out there won't be much time left for gubmunts, 42 months if my understanding is correct.
Posted by praxidice, Sunday, 2 June 2013 8:26:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, it's a good day to be inside thinking and pontificating here in Brisbane.

I tried to give a somewhat religious flavour to my description of the approach to learning within so much of the humanities, because I took Christensen's main point to be that the secular humanist ideology has developed within the institutions of modern Western states into a quasi-religious doctrine as rigidly inflexible as any militant religion and aggressively proselytised by the state and those who want to be seen as committed to propagation of the faith.

An explicit commitment to relevant doctrine is a part of official reports and is demanded as a condition of contracts and employment agreements with state bodies and public companies and increasingly with private companies as well, fearful of the consequences of being perceived as insufficiently pious. Those in the public eye who commit some form of doctrinal error are denounced as sinners from the pulpit of the media by self-appointed protectors of the faith. Even children must be doctrinally sound or risk the wrath of these moral arbiters, as the poor young girl discovered who was publicly vilified by the moral guardians of the press for barracking a football player who is a member of a group that is protected as a core part of the doctrine.

Apparently a wealthy black man's perception that his skin colour is being mocked is a doctrinal justification for public bullying of a young girl by our moral guardians clad in their rainbow panoply of righteousness.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 2 June 2013 9:17:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Antiseptic,

You refer to a story where a young girl supposedly abused an adult negro football player, who must have been much heavier, taller and faster than her. I am not familiar with this story - how was it possible? would you kindly fill me in with the details?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 3 June 2013 2:08:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, it was an Aboriginal man who required the protection of the Church of Latter Day Complaints , but you hit the nail on the head:"how was it possible?".

Of course, it isn't possible, but as is always the case in religious matters, impossibility provides nothing more than a test of faith for the pious and an excuse for theologians to produce rationalisations.

What I found most fascinating about the whole business is that it demonstrated the relative weighting given to the sanctity of gender, age, wealth and Aboriginality. It seems that Aboriginality alone confers sufficient doctrinal power to overcome the sanctity of femaleness and youth. As long as the holy words "I am offended" are chanted and the charge of committing the heresy of racism is levelled, the Protectors of the Faith will get the Inquisition under way to secure a public confession and recantation and administer the scourge with the full vigour of self-righteousness.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 3 June 2013 6:18:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu

That story about a foootbrawler & a girl has to be the most nonsensical load of male bovine dropping I've ever encountered. Note that there are two threads devoted exclusively to the nonsense and they have been going almost forever, well since minutes after the affair at least and judging from the number of contributors, they will still be going long after the sun has expired or turned into a red dwarf or whatever happens. How anyone can put so much effort into trivia is beyond me, mind you I've always subscribed to the belief there is only one true God & He doesn't have any connection with a stupid leather ball kicked around by grown men who should have more sense. You may recall a while back that I identified footbrawl & thugby as the predominant religions of Australia, this issue is indicative of why I made that remark.
Posted by praxidice, Monday, 3 June 2013 11:26:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Antiseptic, for the information and nice observations.

Thank you, Praxidice:

I meant it when I wrote earlier that I have no idea what you are talking about. By divine providence I was saved from looking at those two threads you mentioned (I have neither time nor interest to look at each and every OLO thread).

Earlier you mentioned "a few hermits cum troglodytes who are around the 90% level". I aspire to be there one day, but for now just not having a fool's box (that electrical-driven device that produces light effects and noises in line with what government and corporations want you to believe) helps bringing me to about the 50% heresy level.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 3 June 2013 11:53:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the reverse had happened and gambling Ads had been allowed to stay on prime time you would have someone arguing exactly the same but how we have been brainwashed to thinking business can can self-regulate and can be trusted to act with altruism; and that business should be able to operate completely unfettered by the State. One can be equally socially engineered to think the 'nanny state' is wrong. In fact the use of the term immediately gives the game away. It is about degrees.

It all depends on your point of view. My own POV just for example, is that we have become just as brainwashed or socially engineered to accept the globalisation free trade myths as having the most benefits in the face of growing evidence and breaches of FTAs. In the USA the anti-government movement is strong and the Tea Party has faith in the ability of the free markets. Very foolish from my POV.

One might argue that everything is socially engineered especially if we don't agree with it.

We can all write articles like this and they will be skewed by our own values and ideologies and beliefs about what is best or worst for societies. In other words they will all be biased and that is inevitable.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 3 June 2013 12:07:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pelican,

<<If the reverse had happened and gambling Ads had been allowed to stay on prime time>>

The reverse of prohibiting gambling Ads on prime time is forcing TV stations to include gambling Ads in their broadcasts on prime time.

That indeed would be terrible, but I believe it was never proposed.

Mind you, I am not willing to watch not only gambling Ads, but any Ads whatsoever - I just happily don't have a TV.

All Ads (even more so gambling Ads) are disgusting and immoral, but it doesn't mean that they should be illegal. Given that there are consumers of that poison, or at least who are happy to pay that price for watching TV programs, as well as heartless producers who exploit them and produce such poisons; but given also that there is no legal (or 'religious' had churches still wielded worldly power) requirement for anyone to watch those TV channels or even to own a TV, I see no place for legal intervention. There may however be a case for prohibiting public street Ads, which attack innocent passers-by and may even produce a traffic hazard. As opposed to TV-watchers, passers-by in public space have not volunteered to suffer such assaults.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 3 June 2013 1:08:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu - not having a fool's box (that electrical-driven device that produces light effects and noises in line with what government and corporations want you to believe)

Don't let the idiot box stop you :) One of the 90% folk near me has a 12 volt one that runs off the solar system he acquired in the clearance sale of Noahs Ark (the solar system, not the idiot box) The bloke in question couldn't do without his porn. You'll never get away from advertizing as long as you live in the rat-race (or Babylon as some would have it), what I wonder about more than the overt ads are the subliminal ones we obviously don't have a clue about. Consider the almost universal addiction of kids to Maccas ... if thats not the result of subliminal advertizing I don't know what it is.
Posted by praxidice, Monday, 3 June 2013 3:18:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican, the structures, roles and behaviours which have arisen to define, propagate, administer and enforce the dominant ideology in our secular humanist state look a lot like the structures that arise in states where the dominant ideology is religious. There is a similar claim to moral authority based on altruistic intent; a similar claim to having some special insight into the human condition; the same interest in ensuring that political, business and civic leaders overtly confirm their commitment to the ideology; the same colonisation of the existing administrative structures and requirement to affirm belief in doctrinal fundamentals as a condition of employment; the same public vilification of those who do not overtly conform; the same promise of personal reward for the ideologically virtuous; the same interest in ensuring conformity generally, while defining some classes as having inherent special status, worthy or otherwise, conferred by their membership of that class rather than their individual value; the list goes on and on.

This shouldn't be surprising, since they are both catering to the same personality types and attempting to fit into the same underlying culture.

Only the details vary.

It seems to me that business self-regulation has been a quid pro quo for willing conformism to some doctrinal demands rather than an example of special treatment. Equal employment opportunity, for example.

Globalisation has provided a cornucopia of cheap consumerism, that is tangible evidence of enhanced prosperity to the masses. Mining has provided a lot of money to be handed around which makes the bourgeoisie happy.

It's a key driver of the social change that has allowed the ideological changes to propagate. If it hadn't happened, there would have been a much smaller increase in female employment, which would have meant fewer women in a position of power and so on. Feminism has only been so influential because of the growth in the workforce enabled by globalism.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 4 June 2013 8:08:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic

George Orwell covered the same ground with infinitely less words

"Some animals are more equal than others"
Posted by praxidice, Tuesday, 4 June 2013 8:22:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah yes, but he was a genius.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 4 June 2013 8:49:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic - Ah yes, but he was a genius.

Unlike a certain f**kwit who needs a thousand times the number of words to say the same thing
Posted by praxidice, Tuesday, 4 June 2013 9:33:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, it's not the same thing at all. Orwell was making a rhetorical point about the exercise of power without the constraints of obligation. I was making an observation about the way that secular humanism has come to resemble a religious movement and has thrown up the same types of roles.

I realise you prefer to have your thinking packaged in the simplest possible form, but even Orwell had to write a book to make his point. I'm sure you'd have found it boring.

Perhaps you should simply avoid reading comments that exceed your attention span?
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 6:47:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some people thrive on making simple issues unnecessarily complicated, lawyers, politicians & certain OLO contributors being obvious examples. I guess its just a matter of stringing a lot of words together that makes them feel important. Reminds me of a girl I once knew with the nickname of 'mouth'. Actually she rarely said much & when pressed, her catchline was 'brevity is the soul of wit'
Posted by praxidice, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 12:38:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, I see the problem! You don't see the difference between expressing a rational point of view and "stringing lots of words together".

Dyslexia, perhaps?
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 6:46:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy