Fester,

You must do what you feel the need to do, of course; and people do disagree with each other. But, to me, it is not “pointless”, as you apparently think it is, to refuse to argue with people you know are still going to hold their own views, as is their right.

Online Opinion will never be “pointless” to me because it provides me with what it invites me to do: express my opinion on all sorts of things. The only other chance I get is every three of four years at elections.

There is nothing to “learn” here, except that different people have different opinions, but we already knew that. The idea, I believe, is to express your opinion on subjects, not on other people's opinions you disagree with: particularly when you know those opinions are set in concrete. We are all the same in that regard.

So why argue? Life has taught me that it is better to encourage your own ‘side’ - to strengthen it - than it is to argue with the other side, which is futile, particularly when you argue with obnoxious trolls whose only purpose is to insult and hurt you.

With trolls, I think it's ok to give our opinions on what you think of any subject they raise (their threads are usually traps to gather victims to subject to their malignancy) but to keep feeding them is pointless and self-demeaning.

You might like to read up on of trolls, narcissists and suchlike psychopaths. There's no cure.

Hi Paul,

"What young people believe, and I think they are predominantly correct, is there is an uneven playing field when it comes to government largesse, a bias in favour of those in society who are already relatively well off. Government recognises that imbalance, and they want to address it in some small way. Can we agree on that?"

It's the same as you have been saying all along. It's scapegoating. South Africa does the same. It's horrible and holds no prospect of increasing the prosperity of a nation. My mum's family had friends who escaped the Nazis in Austria. Went in one door wealthy and came out the other penniless and with exit visas. At least they lived. Many didn't. That is what addressing an imbalance is all about.

https://youtu.be/dFpgOUkp8Q8?si=aYRn8r8iZE7LMWJ6

ttbn,

I understand your sentiment, and can think of one person I argued with quite a bit here. The arguments went nowhere, but what I found that I enjoyed were the things I learned during the course of the arguments. And as well as learning a few things, my opinions do change. For example, in this discussion I changed my opinion of Nelson Mandela.

Yes, it's always good to air a gripe, but gaining nothing is missing out. Yes, I have read much of psychopaths etc, and dealt with a few in my time. Very unpleasant people, which is one reason why I treat discussions as a means of gaining perspective and understanding rather than persuasion.

Hi Fester,

I don't want to see any section of Australian society marginalised, scapegoated or disadvantaged in anyway, I support progressive improvement. Where there is an injustice or imbalance, steps should be taken to remedy the situation. What is highlighted here is an imbalance between those in the emerging generation, mostly young productive people under 40, and that section of society which for their part have obtained their goals in life, which places them in a comfortable position. Its not a case of taking from one and giving to the other, rather its about opportunity, and creating pathways so all Australians can realise their goals in life. Government can play a part in that by ensuring that its not being overly generous to one section, while burdening the other. The interaction between welfare, housing and taxation is a good example, in my view there is too much from government that favours the affluent in society, call them the investor class, and those less resourced, call them the productive class, who have a goal of home ownership, but are being unfairly disadvantaged through the action of government.

Hi Paul,

You claim no intent to cause harm, yet you want to redress an imbalance? What do you propose? It does sound a lot like "eat the rich" to me, which does not help the disadvantaged. I enjoyed watching this fellow explain why.

https://youtu.be/M9IVeHyyMP8?si=1tYswfu4NLZ1YTbL

Perhaps you could provide a successful example of a nation addressing the imbalance. All the examples I can think of ended badly, which is why I don't think it all that smart to try again.

“Mental illness is a metaphor. Minds can be ‘sick’ only in the sense that jokes are ‘sick’ or economies are ‘sick’ …. mental illness is not something a person has, but is something he does or is”