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 > The progression deficit: the people and the power > Comments

The progression deficit: the people and the power : Comments

By Brenton Luxton, published 8/1/2013

Should we be less critical of our own practices simply because they are markedly more supportable than those of Syria or Zimbabwe?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
How typical.

The author doesn't like the facts of a survey, telling him what yanks actually want. Of course not, they refute his whole premise.

No he prefers his own "belief" of what yanks want. More academic bull oozes from our institutions of higher learning.

The very worst factor is that this bloke, with his subject choices is setting himself up to be an "adviser" of lefty governments. In such places, his personal opinion will carry more weight than the facts he chooses to ignore.

God help our kids.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 11:07:47 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
Hasbeen

I'm sorry you failed to understand the subject matter as it was intended. Also a tip, I would refrain from blindly attempting to criticise academia and/or higher education whilst exhibiting poor literary ability, it doesn't do your position any justice.

As for my career ambitions, it's not really relevant. And of course people's ideological position would hold sway over their decision-making (see every single politician/public servant in Australian history). As far as my alleged denial of facts go, please elaborate. My article is based on political and ethical philosophy, not about specific extrinsic realities.
Posted by Brenton Luxton, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 11:24:28 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
Is it the vigor of youth which enables clear and uncompromising attribution of fault in complex social mechanisms? Are older heads just not 'up-to-date', overly-cautious and ill-informed? Or, do some simply not leap to the most obvious conclusions, however shaky?

.It isn't psychotic, antisocial psychopaths who commit massacres or mass-murder, it is 'guns' (and their free availability) at fault?

.Gay marriage, with all this entails, is 'right', and all argument to the contrary is, obviously, 'wrong'? (Would that all complex social issues were so easily determined.)

.Refugees should be allowed free entry - as a matter of human rights (and 'nature') - and therefore all argument against is contrary to 'nature', and therefore flawed? Hallelujah!

.All lobbying is necessarily (obviously) contrary to 'consensus' public opinion (or 'nature'), and should therefore be outlawed? (Pity those groups wanting a way to have their views fairly heard!)

>>The relationship between human nature (humans) and the institutions that govern them isn't necessarily the primary cause of inequality and injustices, at least not directly.<<

As the premise, or hypothesis, of the article, the above proves nothing, and is arguably invalid - good relationship equals happy campers, bad relationship equals tyranny, inequality, injustice.

.'Human nature' tends to be fairly unreliable, variable and flexible - depending on circumstance, education and environment (of culture, religion and socio-economic status, etc) - and hence fails dismally as any sort of yardstick. So, that leaves us with a sort of consensus of public opinion - and it is just such consensus (or average of viewpoints) which determines government(s), at least in a genuine democracy;

.Democratically elected governments which do not act generally in the national best interest, at least most of the time, don't tend to stay in power for long - but you can't please all of the people all of the time (that's life) - though there's always room for improvement.

We may not have a perfect system, or clear solutions to all 'human' problems, but it was no easy process to get where we are, and those who act in haste very often get to regret at leisure.
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 3:47:35 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
Brenton

My objection to your article is that it neither puts a positive case for the positions you espouse, nor engages critically with the arguments against. Instead, you proceed almost entirely by attacking the motives of groups you disapprove of.

Your article states: “not many could disagree with” the proposition that inaction on gun control was responsible for Sandy Hook. But a significant proportion of Americans DO disagree with that, and only a minority agree with you that the NRA wields too much influence. My point is not whether lax gun laws make such incidents more likely (on which we agree), but your contention that most people agree with this position, which in the USA is clearly not true. But more telling is your comment “what is so wrong with people” that they fail to see the issue as you do. Again this reinforces my initial point that you argue like an ideologue – your worldview is so self-evidently right to you that anyone disagrees with you must have something “wrong with” them.

I do not claim to be a “progressive”. If I give myself any political label, it is “small-‘l’ liberal”, so I support some issues commonly seen as left wing (gay rights, refugees) and some seen as right wing (scepticism of economic regulation and social engineering). If you doubt my sincerity – again, the mark of an ideologue (“if you claim to believe X must believe Y”) – check out my comment history, including forums here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11371&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13642&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13293&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11429&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5799&page=0

While you do not claim explicitly to be “progressive”, your frequent and favourable use of the term in the article makes it clear it is a stance you approve of.

I do not “defend” the anti-refugee or anti-gay lobbies, nor “sit on the fence” on these issues (again, check my comment history). I point out that their motives are not merely selfishness and stupidity. They have reasons for their views which by their own lights are no less “ethical and moral” than yours. Respecting the sincerity and integrity of people you disagree with is a liberal virtue.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 11:52:05 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
Why thank you Brenton, you have proved my point so succinctly for me.

Your obvious attraction to form over matter is nicely displayed. Better a nicely written bit of rubbish, than worrying about the subject matter ah? An example of publish or perish perhaps.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 12:10:57 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
Brenton Luxton

tnks for responding. No, its not intellectually lazy to label the greens mad, as that's what they are, certainly when it comes to immigration policy. Everyone but them now recognises that the boat people trade has to be stopped..otherwise too many people will die. I note you didn't respond on the point about immigration quotas or refugee quotas (which is a subset of the immigration quotas).. are we ahead or behind other countries in this respect?

I couldn't say offhand and don't remember seeing any material on this point. About the only point that could be made is that Australia has substantially better control over immigration flows, but there is more confusion about the status of those who do get here if they come by boat.

The US and Britain, for example, would have much larger illegal immigration problems. But anyone they catch would be sent straight back. Far fewer would be in a position to lose all their documentation and then claim they are refugees. Australia is thus probably one of the few advanced countries with a large number of people living in camps while they work through the immigration processes. to claim that their treatment is not "humane" then begs the question what standards are you using?
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 12:44:14 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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