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 > Selfish

Selfish

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. All
Dear Javan,

Welcome, and Thank You for raising
this topic. Of course we can change
if we want to. All we need do is apire to social
cohesion and respect for each other and ourselves
as Australians, and as human beings.

Since European settlement, and even long before
that, Australia has been host to diverse cultures.
It has never been and cannot now be considered
monocultural, regardless of the overwhelming
political, economic, and social dominance of
white Australians. The expectation that we should
all be some kind of "same" is not only impossible,
but it also lacks integrity.

Multiculturalism regardless how some "selfish" people
view it (who see life only through their own narrow
lens and want everyone to be "people like us."), is
not about being reactionary or anti-white. It is
about - aspiring to social
cohesion and respect for each other and ourselves
as Australians and as human beings.

We have to admit that social and political inequalities
feed separateness, and can lead to intolerance, racism,
and reactionary violence. That is the kind of self-centred
selfishness, that is damaging for us all.
It is precisely these kind of fears that the politicians
play on - especially by making asylum seekers - an
election issue.

As Germaine Greer said:

"Australian racism derives from the same bottomless
source as British racism, from universal ignorance,
working-class frustration, reinforced by an
unshakeable conviction of British superiority over
all other nations on earth, especially the swarthy ones!"

It is possible, and desirable, to speak - and even argue -
across social, religious, and cultural borders. The above
is not remotely a call for moral relativism. But it
requires a level of knowledge that a large proportion of
those engaged in the conversation are either too
arrogant or lazy to obtain. It requires people looking
at each other to see more that superficial appearances.
We need to look deeper. We live in an age where
ignorance is the prevailing influence of our times.
Whether this can be cured will depend as author, Waleed
Aly points out in his book - on "people like us".
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 23 July 2010 2:16:06 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
Dear Pericles

*It is actually trying to point out to you that voting in such an "ethnically selfish" manner is actually bad for people and society*

That was.... my point. (my exact point)

Pelly... see Peter Hume's response to you :)

We can 'be changed'.. yes, but 'change' ? hmmm well.. some people can, I guess I have to concede that, but it depends a lot of what type of change. Inner moral/spiritual condition ? I'm skeptical by observation, and absolutely unbelieving ideologically.

"You need to be born again" said Jesus to Nichodemus... I tend to agree.

Given that the Lord was able to

-Heal the sick
-Calm the storm
-Give sight to the blind
-Cast out the demon
-Enable the lame and paralyzed to walk.
-Raise the dead

I'll go with His opinon :)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 23 July 2010 2:55:34 PM
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
Foxy:>> Germaine Greer said, <<

Dear Foxy, Germaine has said many things and achieved little except notoriety. Another example of a no surprise comment from Germaine:

"The house wife is an unpaid employee in her husband's house in return for the security of being a permanent employee."

Germaine hates the patriarchal society and has never found contentment in a relationship, so her observations are tainted. Here is a quote from her ex," Our marriage lasted 3 weeks - and that was three weeks too long!". I really do not believe she has the balance to be a societal adjudicator on the interaction of the sexes.

This is the most intuitive comment I have come across from Germaine, and it is a gem of wisdom.

"If a person loves only one other person, and is indifferent to his fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism."
Posted by sonofgloin, Friday, 23 July 2010 3:26:17 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
Foxy,
Be afraid very afraid you are starting to sound like me...well maybe if If I wrote in English.

I would amplify the criticism of those who hide behind the the notion that because it's in our 'human nature' to be selfish then that's it! 'it's normal" to allow ourselves to think and BEHAVE primally. By that I'm particularly referring to us against them 'the different' mentality.
Even on evolutionary need for this *tendency* to protect against difference has long past. It therefore seems to me to continually reinforce this basis is at best retrogressive. It is one thing to be aware of our origins but another thing entirely wanting to emulate it.

Some one said civilisation is on generation from the cave and one more from the trees.

Therefore, all that is civilised is learned/conditioned ergo conditioning ourselves to advance to the next level is neither impossible nor undesirable.

Who amongst us wants to go back to the cave times a life of total Brutishness unpredictability and total fea
Posted by examinator, Friday, 23 July 2010 3:27:11 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
examinator:>> Who amongst us wants to go back to the cave times a life of total Brutishness unpredictability and total fea <<

E,I will take the last word to be "fear". I do not think the advocates for genes over societal imprint believe selfishness is a valid emotion just because it exists, but to my experience perspective changes when we feel we are being disadvantaged. It is like we have an internal barometer that tells us when we have had our fair share. The problem is each barometer is set differently, but nearly all have a set point where self comes before others.
Posted by sonofgloin, Friday, 23 July 2010 4:23:14 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
No kidding, Boaz? That's not how it came across at all.

>>[voting in such an "ethnically selfish" manner is actually bad for people and society] was.... my point. (my exact point)<<

So how does selfish voting relate to multiculturalism?

>>thankyou soooo MUCH for making the point some of us have been trying to make about 'MultiCulturalism' for sooooo long.. IT DOESN'T WORK..

Think of it this way.

If 100% of the people voted "selfishly" - as defined here - there would be no multiculturalism.

So by agreeing that "voting in such an 'ethnically selfish' manner is actually bad for people and society", you are also agreeing that "no multiculturalism" is also actually bad for people and society.

At least, that's the logical way to interpret your position. Do you see it differently?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 23 July 2010 5:38:36 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. All

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