It is precisely this ‘moral relativism’ philosophy that has brainwashed western society such that a situation has arisen by hard religious work of Leftists in their indoctrinations in which average live in terror of being imminently outcast by the leftist clergy IF they even imply anything remotely claiming the falsehood of moral/cultural relativism since by extension that implies that some cultures and moral/political systems on earth may be bad or somehow immoral or wrong for a society wishing to be free and foster equality and fairness – and this equates to being ‘racist’ or ‘bigoted’ to the left clerics

Although surely it is TRUE and JUST to claim that certain beliefs and ways of social ethos should be deemed wrong and anti-egalitarianism by any person especially those whom self-profess universal deliverance of human rights as their primary objective in life; for example Nazism is wrong or bad or against freedom ?
Therefore it seems that ‘cultural/moral relativism’ cannot be true but rather that human kind’s myriad of cultures/beliefs/moral/political ways and systems throughout history can be compared, judged against and interfered with, which is possible by virtue of the essential and universal fact that all individual persons are equal in beingness and presence at an existential level.

Thus it seems this is the way the world IS, but the Leftist phenomena has created a cultural environment bringing to heel all citizens from highest to low, forever in fear of being ‘caught’ for believing in this “truth” and forever to be at risk of becoming an instant ‘leper’/’outcast’ in society for any citizen who hints at this TRUTH. It is this ANGST of the deepest and darkest orders that has essentially crippled our society’s centuries old traditions of open mindedness and honest inquiry, inherited even before the Greeks in which intellectual inquiry and honest analysis governed society

I claim that TRUE racist/bigots would dare not to place non-western peoples/cultures on equal par with our own western/white ways, since being treated as equal also requires being honestly told when an error in perspective exists, especially if it affects badly equality of persons.

Mathew.

Forgive me, but I'm REALY struggling to understand what you believe in, so I am totally confused by what you are trying to say. Can you simplify your argument please.

Matthew,

Re your last post: don't confuse 'culture' with 'people', that slide from one to the other is really not on.

As for culture, how's this: that it is the mask of power within a group (family, tribe, nation) and usually sanctions, in a multitude of ways, male power within groups. There's nothing 'neutral' about it, anywhere, so it's always open to critique, everywhere.

i.e. critical studies of culture: how's that ?

Joe

Snake I do agree about being confused, I think the writers have completely left the subject matter, "No contraception, No dole" I do appreciate the writers who write easy to understand posts, some unfortunately I need the help of a dictionary to help fathom out what they are saying.

Aside from the impact on the long term unemployed (which is discussed more sensibly un the other thread) such a plan would be an unfair intrusion into the lives of the short term unemployed. Why should someone who's trying to get pregnant only do so at a time she has work even though she'll have to take time off work to have the baby?

The whole idea is incredibly ill conceived (no pun intended).

Hi Aidan,

That raises the question of why a woman who is out of work would want to get pregnant at that particular time ? I can appreciate that no time is perfect for getting pregnant, a working woman's work course, and promotion chances, is disrupted no matter when, but being unemployed doesn't seem like an optimal time for it.

Gary's suggestion really involves two different cases: single women, and unemployed women, and proposes that, in either case, while those women are in receipt of government benefits by virtue of not being employed, that they undertake not to get pregnant. Thus the two sides of a social contract.

Of course, once a single woman gets pregnant, then she must be supported by government benefits, for the time that she is now unable to work, or study for future work. So, in a sense, this thread is concerned with whether or not single women have the right to have more children and retain benefits - effectively, that she can access such benefits for as long as she is fertile, and the extra years until the youngest is six (six ? Or eight ?)

In effect, if this was so, a woman could have kids as soon as she leaves school, have another one every three years, until - thanks to the miracles of modern fertility science - she in her mid- to late forties, then for the extra six or eight years of the youngest - then she can state doing some of those bullsh!t TAFE courses, which could take her into her mid-fifties; then if she's lucky, she can get onto a disability benefit until she's seventy-odd. Sweet !

So those are the options:

* the current one (immediately above), and

* Garry' suggestion that a single woman is entitled to benefits while her first child is growing up, to six or eight, then needs to be prepared for lifelong employment like everybody else, but in the meantime she agrees to voluntarily stay on contraception for the duration.

Joe