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 > General Discussion > Gillard speaks the Truth: a welcome change in politics today

Gillard speaks the Truth: a welcome change in politics today

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Squeers, and others,

Sorry about this, Squeers.....
Welcome to my world, you are espousing similar theoretical concepts I have been advocating for years i.e. our version of "representative (?)" (sic) democracy is, in the vernacular, a crock of pre-composted horse deification. It may eventually grow good mushrooms when ripe, but good citizens? good government?). It is Messy and smelly, often more of a problem than solution.
NB Democracy is better than other forms of government but democracy can come in different forms. It is ours that is dysfunctional and illusionary.

BTW Ancient Greece was hardly a perfect role model. Their exclusions and ' roofing tile' negotiation techniques were a more than a little internecine (violent,corrupt and self interested) too.

I haven't run across the works you are quoting, more details please.

However, back to the topic .....JG speaking the truth? hmmmmm. If constantly with dogs without respite will have fleas/parasites sooner than later. (apologies to Ben Franklin).

I am sad for the country that our method of choosing preferred leaders
is based on superficiality (appearance) rather than substance.

We do get what we deserve, simply because we delude ourselves that the current system is/or can be made fair and/or inclusive....it isn't/can't and is becoming less so.
That doesn't mean that there isn't a solution,we simply haven't got the motivation *yet*.
Evolutionary genetics be damned (cop out)
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 1 July 2010 9:00:16 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
davidf:
<The assumption that we can have a science of ethics depends on the assumption that all societies can be made enough alike so that the same ethical considerations apply to all of them. I think that is not a reasonble assumption.>

Dear davidf,
I'm not talking about universalism or some kind of dogmatic adherence to a set of ethical rules. It's horses for courses, but the idea is also aspirational in that personal and cultural ethics are seen as works in progress and never actually acheived. The notions of inclusivity and individual paideia (personal responsibility and development) would also guard against populist, or 'memetic,' movements that might otherwise instantiate an ideological bias. The idea then is for a democracy based on ethical/political inclusiveness, responsibility, engagement and aspiration, very much in the humanist vein of a Kantian morality, only without the need of metaphysics. Ethics in school (paideia) could lead to a lifelong commitment to individual ethical development. Neither does such an ethics have to be divorced from pragmatics, or dream of some silly utopia, but 'respond' ethically, sustainably and with dignity to the ongoing vicissitudes of the human condition.
What we have at the moment is unsustainable economic universalism based ultimately on an ideology of individual self-interest and international paranoia.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 1 July 2010 9:06:41 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
I am reminded of a story: A group of Bikies walk into a bar. They see a small man quietly having a beer on his own, and their leader walks up to him and tips his beer over. He says nothing but orders another beer. He has a sip and the same biker walks up and tips it over again. The man says nothing, and leaves the bar.

The biker says to the barman, “He does not seem to be much of a man!” The barman says, “He is not much of a truckie either, he has just run over a row of bikes.”

This is a bit like Julia. She left the legal profession after working for Slater and Gordon. She has reached the top in politics, but in neither law nor politics is she up to speed. A lawyer should know, although Jesus Christ did not like them very much, ( Luke 11: 46&52) the people forced the lawyers in England to adopt the New Testament as their Constitution.

The people did this because they saw the benefits of Democracy, and English Biblical Scholars, divined that the New Testament was God’s gift of democracy, to His followers. They made this binding law in 1295 in the Magna Carta, 715 years ago, and except for 11 years, when they had a Republic, the English have remained faithful to their Sovereign. The Office of Queen represents Almighty God. That is why Turnbull was unfit to be Prime Minister, and Julia is on a steep learning curve.

She is smart, savvy, and pragmatic. Her teachers of both Law and Religion, have breached their trust. Religion is good, sectarianism is destructive. It destroyed the ALP between 1949 and 1972. Whitlam united the ALP and drove out sectarianism. He won, but like all atheists, without a rudder he soon foundered.

We need to see if Julia is as honest as she is unbelieving. The black and white words in Ch III describing court, as a stand alone uncapitalised word are found 21 times. A court is the centrepiece of democracy, not a Parliament
Posted by Peter the Believer, Thursday, 1 July 2010 9:44:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
very few people living in sin will ever admit a belief in God. Why should Ms Gillard be any different?

Suzie gain makes us laugh by her hypocrisy. She writes 'It is none of her business what Julia's personal beliefs are.'

When Abbot offers his daughters advice with a little bit of decency their was no cry from the left for people to myob. If Gillard does not want her personal beliefs known she should keep them to herself. I thought that would be obvious. Her unbelief in God might make the deniers a little more smug and at ease with sin but it won't stop them from facing their Maker when they die.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 1 July 2010 11:41:45 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
Dear Examinator,
I'm glad to hear we're singing the same tune, though it's still a rather lonely duet. The hardest thing in the world is to think outside cultural norms, or what Raymond Williams called the "structure of feeling" that imbues a cultural moment. The prevailing ideology is the discursive centre of gravity, or confluence from which denizens draw and confabulate their more or less homogeneous world-views; a kind of 'contemporary soup' whose vital ingredient (chestnuts) gives it it's compelling flavour (meaning).
Naturally, one provokes contempt and ridicule by questioning or trying to ignore this ready-made doxa that sneaks into and makes "sense" of our so-called intellectualising as easily as cliches can be strung together. I had an interest in writing fiction once and early on I was amazed, when critically reviewing what I'd written, and been pleased with, at finding it utterly derivative and formulaic. There's nothing new under the sun.
I certainly don't recommend Ancient Greek culture as a template, btw, but there are elements of it's intellectual tradition that far outstrip our own. Indeed, though we live in a post-neoclassical age, virtually all our cultural traditions have evolved from that extraordinary civilization. As I'm arguing, it's very hard (probably impossible) to think independently of the collective mind of our time and place, but that's the challenge.
Maybe if one or two Lemmings can pull-up and think it over, before we all go over the cliff, they might get a following!
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 2 July 2010 8:11:27 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
Squeers,

I didn't respond sooner as your response moved a little further again from the headline topic and I didn't want to discourage other posters.

Much of what you say resonates in the broader general sense.

I do however, for conversation interest, have difficulty with some your reasoning and conclusions. but tends to IMO fall into the same problem of all philosophy and philosophic schools' thinking. i.e. it tends (tries) to describe TOE from a specific perspective.
Taking a subjective perspective as self-referential measuring point,
thus limiting reality by effective 'subjective absolutism'.
In short they tend to fail reaching or understate the importance of other contributive factors
Posted by examinator, Saturday, 3 July 2010 7:11:37 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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