The AEC has today approved the registration of Australian Conservatives as an official political party, making it, according to Cory Bernadi, the only Conservative Party in Australian politics.

Prime Minister Banana, can't be any worse than the selfie taking fool in "control" at the moment, or the Mad Monk who thought he knew everything. Got to give it to the conservatives, when they stuff up, which is more often than not, they really stuff up.

Did you get the pics of Money Bags Malcolm with the Indian Prime Minister, I don't understand Hindi, but translated I do believe after meeting Turnballs for five minutes, Modi was saying "Who is this WACKO!"

Is it true?

Whenever Malcolm meets a Coalition member in the corridors of Parliament, and says "G'Day MATE!" the member goes up and kicks him in the shins without saying a word, and then walks off. Malcolm then turns to an aid and says "Swell fella that member, loyal as the day is long, I can count on his vote at the next party spill....got an ice pack!"

Or... Malcolm these days only calls party meetings in daylight hours, because when he use to hold them at night, someone would flick the lights off (probably Barnyard sitting in up the back), and when they came back on, Malcolm would be plastered with eggs. He should hold an Easter meeting, maybe they will throw chocolate eggs, that could be an advantage. So they say.

Just asking.

Wow, Paul, what was in that NZ water ?

Dear ttbn,

This should prove interesting. What effect will this
have (if any) on the Liberal Party and on One Nation?
Will Cory Bernardi be able to attract a larger following
than either of them? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Foxy,

It's entirely up to the Australian people what happens; they can decide to opt for change or, they can meekly continuing accepting the same old same old.

//they can decide to opt for change or, they can meekly continuing accepting the same old same old.//

Isn't accepting the same old same old and avoiding change what conservatism is all about?

Toni Lavis,

I guess even conservatives have to accept some change on the odd occasion. If they didn’t, then they’d all still be dressing like puritans and burning witches, or some such nonsense.

It just goes to show that, eventually, progressivism always wins in the end.

There is a certain sound of irony in the call for ‘change’ to a ‘conservative’ party. A desperate scramble to cling to the past.

Ah Joe, got to laugh sometime. What can I say about Corny Banana and his Conservative Party, wish him luck, no way not for me. Get 500 names and you have a political party, then the real work begins.

AJ, it reminds me of Australia's greatest ever conservative leader, Sir Stanley Melbourne Bruce, 1st, and I think last, Viscount of Melbourne, Good old Stan insisted on wearing spats and a straw hat, which was considered very conservative and old fashioned even in 1929, not a good look. Poor PM Stan no only lost the 1929 election, he also lost his seat in parliament at the same time. Maybe it had something to do with the fact good old Stan choofed off to London halfway through the election campaign. Nothing like having confidence in ones own ability. Not sure what Stanley got his knighthood for, maybe it was for being a complete tosser! If Stanley was alive today he would join the Conservative Party.

Paul,

You should read more on Bruce, he served Australia and his fellow man well.

I have Issy, and good old Stan did serve Australia well, lived to a ripe old age. I have a very good book on Australia's PM's, given to me by the 'Old Man', fascinating reading.
Australia has been indeed fortunate to have had some extremely capable people as leaders, particularly in its formative years when the country was young and did not have the financial and economic resources it has today, it was struggling in many ways. Two events of those times could have destroyed Australia WWI and the Great Depression If you were to make a list of our finest leaders you could not leave off men like Barton, Cook, Fisher, Hughes and Sir Henry Parks although never PM did much to formulate what Australia became. Bruce also did a very good job of steering Australia through the 1920's, despite the spats and straw hat.

I was told banana got his names on a Saturday doing the rounds of local pubs shouting drinks.

Its much too difficult to explain Conservatism in 350 words, especially to those who are determined to misunderstand it. I'll leave it to the great GK Chesterton to give an inkling as to the views of the truly conservative....

"There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

I suspect most 'progressives' won't understand that.

And like AJ they think that they win when the fence is torn down and then themselves become conservatives when it becomes clear that it needs to be rebuilt.

The excesses of the progressives usually require a 'conservative' to fix them. The Great Society 'reforms' need a Reagan to fix the mess. The welfare state yields a Thatcher.
The mindless education 'reforms' of the past 50 years are now being unwound as the reformers suddenly but belatedly understand what the fence was for.

Bernadi will fail because he's too decent. You need an a...hole to defeat the great leftist me-too herd. We will (probably) eventually get our Trump, Farage or Le Pen. Or maybe not. Maybe our decline will go unopposed and the next few decades will be,for Australia, a fight over the scraps.

What au needs is middle road politics, not one way or the other. The likes of Abbott he is clearly in the wrong party. His agenda was hard right politics.

Bernadi party is completely unknown as to policy. So any comment is only fairy tale.
Australia is not hard left or hard right, it is cut 50: 50 down the middle. Any party that removes themself from that is short lived.

I can explain Conservatism in two words, GREED and FEAR. One is the greed of the minority, who instill fear into the majority.

GK Chesterton, also said; "The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." That was in 1917, a rather cynical observation for that time. Considering it was said during one of the most horrific and destructive wars in history, maybe Chesterton could have said something like; "If progressive liberalism had reigned over Europe, instead of this intractable conservatism the world could have avoided this catastrophic war". just as it could have avoided the great depression and WWII.

Reagan and Thatcher, history has judged that pair of fools, and it has not been kind.

"eventually get our Trump, Farage or Le Pen. Or maybe not" we can only hope not!

mhaze,

I agree that “.... most 'progressives' won't understand that”, but there is quite a lot that they don't understand, isn't there?

Toni Lavis, better know for his foul mind than his intellect, said “Isn't accepting the same old same old and avoiding change what conservatism is all about?”, totally unwitting of the fact that, for at least the last decade, the 'same old same old” that has gripped Australia and the rest of the West has been 'progressive' dogma. So, it could be said that they are the real conservatives, fearing change.

I agree that Bernadi is unlikely to set the world on fire, or to have very much success at all. Your cannot be a 'nice guy' and beat the Left, which does not play by any rules, and will do whatever it takes to win.

The Leftist Turnbull has squeezed any spirit that the Coalition had left out of it, and now we have a looming Left takeover by Labor in a couple of years.

I can't wait to see just how Labor manages without the huge surplus they have been granted each time they overthrew a Coalition government in the past. Turnbull has seen to it that there will be no surplus this time. Perhaps, after another predictably destructive Labor government, we will get our Trump.

Paul,

These days, whatever you say is bound to be absurd, you poor fellow.

ttbn, is that the best you can do, why not try and counter my accretion that Conservatism is based on greed and fear. When mhaze threw in that silly old tart from Britain Thatcher, and the equally befuddle second rate actor from America, Ronald Reagan as shining examples of Conservative leaders, I knew something was wrong.

doog,

"Bernadi party is completely unknown as to policy. So any comment is only fairy tale."

There's this new invention called the Internet where you can try to discover things that you aren't aware of, so long as you're prepared to do a little checking....

http://www.conservatives.org.au/principles

Paul1405,

" Reagan and Thatcher, history has judged that pair of fools, and it has not been kind."

There was a time back in the 1990's when that might have been true or at least vaguely defensible. This was especially true among those who couldn't separate their partisan politics from dispassionate historical evaluation.

But since then, the world, unlike Paul, have moved on and made more sober assessments of these giants of late 20th century history. Increasingly history and historians recognise that the political revolutions wrought by Reagan and Thatcher were a watershed moment in the history of their respect countries and international affairs.

Of coarse their major achievements were as the leaders of a change in attitude to the Cold War which eventually led to the demise of the USSR. Now Paul, given his far left attitudes, may be of the view, like Putin, that the fall of the Soviet empire wasn't a major positive event for the world. but most would disagree with that. Some think less gulags and freeing slave nations are a good thing.

As importantly, both inherited economies that were in decline, and where the elite opinion was that decline was irreversible and a symptom of the failures of capitalism. Neither Reagan nor Thatcher bought that and proceeded to revitalise their nations by returning to principles that had made them great. Again, for people like Paul, while creating wealth and jobs might be acceptable, doing it by demonstrating the errors of the progressives was unforgivable.

/cont

So Paul and his ilk will never understand why Reagan and Thatcher are held in such high esteem and why history is increasingly reflecting that, so much so that even the Obamessiah sought to enhance his stature by claiming to be the modern version of Reagan. Equally Blair often claimed to be the inheritor and carrier of the Thatcher legacy.

While the west, which benefited so much from Reagan/Thatcher continues to have dills like Paul who are unable to see greatness even when its in front of their face, the slave nations of Eastern Europe who were rescued by Reagan's policies continue to venerate him (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2011/07/reagan-veneration-in-eastern-europe/).

"why not try and counter my accretion [assertion?] that Conservatism is based on greed and fear."

This misunderstands conservatism. It isn't fear of change but a recognition that our predecessors weren't fools and rejecting and changing their legacy ought to be done judiciously. Conservatives don't oppose change per se, they oppose change for the sake of change. And greed? - well that just Paul misunderstanding and/or promoting 19th century notions of class warfare.

mhaze, to prove the greatness of Reagan and Thatcher you link to some nondescript queasy judeo-christian blogger who's name escapes me, a worthless link it be. You would have us believe that at some point in time, just when you cannot say, the conservative ethos miraculously transcend it founding base of greed and fear and shifted to some new altruistic level of concern for the great mass of humanity, that is laughable. The proof of this world changing phenomenon is the implementation of Reaganomics in America, and Thatcherism in Britain. Reagan and Thatcher were both divisive politicians who did untold social and economic damage to their respective countries, and the world in general. It is through progressive liberalism that real change is achieved.

Donald Trump will prove to be as politically flawed as the aforementioned pair, only this time the world may pay a much higher price.

The banana party does not exist let alone have policy. Who wrote this fictitious policy. Anything around now is only fairy tales. It takes a whole party to make policy, unless you are Abbott, and you know where his one man policy ended up.

We were fed the most disgraceful heap of blatant lies ever used against the Australian people in history. All orgustrated to win an election, which he did win by deceight, blatant lies, which amounted to fraud.

It will take a labor govt to bring that runt to justice.
With 22 seats lost at the DD election the field has been squared.

Abbott wants changes to the senate. Like he was manipulating FWA. Who was supposed to be independent of govt.

Never have we seen such a disruption to govt as the runt stating he will not be disruptive. Just another blatant lie. Anyone that would ever believe a single word that mongrel mutters is a definite twat.

Can someone translate doog's post for me?

Paul,

Pretty standard for the likes of you to reject information based on the messenger. Irrespective of who wrote the post, the fact is that Reagan is venerated in Eastern Europe. But you don't want that to be true and will adopt any childish means to pretend it isn't. Oh well, it takes all types I guess.

Based on your utterly erroneous assertions about the origins of WW1, your historic understand is at the level of Little Golden Books. So its little wonder that you also confuse conservatives with Conservatives.

//So its little wonder that you also confuse conservatives with Conservatives.//

Are the Conservative party not conservative then?

That,s a reasonable question. I second the motion that the statement be decifered.

Mhaze, standard stuff from a Conservative when losing the argument to resort to personal insult. claiming I am adopting "childish means", which I am not. If the people of Eastern Europe were venerating Ronald Reagan, which I very much doubt they are, it would prove nothing as to the superiority of Conservatism over Progressive Liberalism. As for rejecting information based on "the messenger" there could be more truth contained in 'Little Golden Books' than on that ridiculous Bible bashing website.

The greatest claim to fame of Ronald Reagan was a jocular jest to a live microphone that he had just ordered the start of WWIII against the Soviet Union! It showed the mentality of the man. For Margret Thatcher it was the sinking of an old aged "battleship" of no military significance during the Falklands War which resulted in the deaths of hundreds. A nasty woman with blood on her hands!

Toni Lavis "Isn't accepting the same old same old and avoiding change what conservatism is all about?"

Not when, as mhaze confirms, the "same old" for decades has been utopian fantasy.

Progressives are now like termites, destroying the house (change), not building a better one (change).

Conservatives oppose *radical* change, not change per se.
I don't see many conservatives wearing bussle dresses or top hats these days.
I also don't see too many with nose piercings or ripped punk clothes.

The problem with naming it the Conservative Party is that it alienates anyone right-of-centre that doesn't identify with that particular label.

One Nation is a stupid name, but classical liberals and conservatives can support it.

Yet another party is not going to help. It will just split the vote making all right parties weaker.

One Nation is the only right party to make any impact. All should support it, even with a stupid name.

Suggested campaign slogan:
"One Nation: Stupid name, Only hope."

Instead of commenting on 'Conservatives', I thought I'd make a quick comment on 'Progressives'.

Where does all this liberal left 'triggering' and 'safe space' ideology come from? One might ask.
Well an article I saw this morning might point us in the direction of that answer.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/rising-number-of-queensland-teens-face-mental-illness-mission-australia-report-20170418-gvn1t5.html

I could question a few things from this article, whether kids 'living with psychological distress' automatically makes them mentally ill, and whether 'stress, school and study problems, depression and body image issues' automatically defines them as 'living with psychological stress' and are thus considered mentally ill?

Some might argue these problems are valid and need to be addressed but I might counter with 'What happens if you start telling someone they are mentally ill when they are not actually mentally ill?'

Is it not a self fulfilling prophecy?
If they don't already have a mental illness will they not soon get one by telling them they do?
I'm not sure we're doing ourselves any favors telling the kids they're 'mentally ill', I'm not exactly sure where that ideology leads but it could just be leading us as a society to the door of the 'insane asylum'...

The point I actually wanted to make though, is that's going on is that all this kids, whether rightly or not, are being lead to believe they have a mental illness.
This legitimises their problems, but it also means that they can then legitimately argue against anything that that might cause them; 'anxiety' for example.

So now, after legitimately being told they have a mental illness, their response is to then legitimately argue that they need to be protected from anything that might have an adverse affect on said diagnosed mental illness.

Ta-da! - Enter 'Safe Spaces' and 'Triggering'.

What this also means is that our University's have now become breeding grounds for the mentally ill, but that's another discussion.

Food for thought...

Liberal can be left of centre or right of centre. Conservative can be dictatorial and one minded. Take Abbott for example, he completely discarded his mentors like Menzies and Howard, he knew better than all of them.

He based his assumptions of policy on the Singapore govt. Big business is thriving, multi thousands have been dislodged to live along railway tracks and under bridges. They have created the perfect two class society. The extreme rich and the destitute.

A perfect example of conservatism, was Abbotts mentor.

Along with his chalf eating offsider they sidestepped the complete process of govt.

Hi doog, I stand by my assertion that Conservatism is based on greed and fear. Since both are deemed negatives the claim brings a stinging reaction from those who see themselves as such. Conservatism bring nothing to society, the devotees are forced to rely on the absurd claim that the function of Conservatism is to wind back the excesses of Progressives. Undoing bad change and returning to the "good old days, a claim I find ridiculous when looked at in the context of Australia we are in a far better position today through progressive change that we were in the past "good old days".

Paul1405,

I’d agree that fear certainly plays a big part in conservative thought. While not all conservatives are xenophobic or racist, virtually all xenophobia and racism comes from that side of politics.

Perhaps the most pertinent example of fear-driven conservative politics nowadays would be homophobia, and the stance against same-sex marriage: something with multiple demonstrable benefits, and absolutely no foreseeable negative effects.

Crudely put, I’d say that social conservatism is one big argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy, while economic conservatism is one big trickle-down-economics “fallacy”.

http://goo.gl/7g6Lka

Paul1405, is not the Progressive multicultural utopia based on fear and greed?

Greed prompts Third World people to flock to the advanced countries.

Fear permeates progressive ideology: fear of anyone being offended, fear of any unequal distributions or outcomes, fear of Men, fear of Whites, fear of the power of tradition and history, fear of realistic or gradualist "compromise", fear that even the slightest bit of race-preservation will lead to a Fourth Reich and millions dead.

"virtually all xenophobia and racism comes from that side of politics."

Except that the consequence of the Leftists' multicultural displacement will be the annihilation of an ENTIRE race: Whites/Europeans.
All White-predominant countries are being flooded with unrelated peoples, on the basis that there is something "wrong" with Whites and they need to be "crippled" to make them harmless.

No prob Shocka,

Get migrants from India where 80% of the population are "white" and where English is one of the Official Languages.

Win, win.

certainly conservatives like to enjoy the fruit of their hard labours while socialist love to spend and dine and give away other peoples money.

Dear runner,

Do tell. So you consider people like Tony Abbott, John Howard,
Bronwyn Bishop, George Brandis, Joe Hockey, et al,
a bunch of socialists? Interesting.

" I stand by my assertion that Conservatism is based on greed and fear. "

Yes, it certainly is an assertion ie a claim which is devoid of any evidence or empirical argument.

Conservatives (small c conservatives) are neither necessarily greedy nor fearful. They simply accept that our forebears were intelligent and thoughtful and that the structures of society developed over the generations were/are of value and ought not be trashed without due care and understanding. Its not fear of change but simply accepting that change is not necessarily for the better and care should taken to understand whether the change will indeed be improvement.

You, being of the class warrior brigade, assert (again) that change is opposed for matters of greed. But it has often been those who'd you'd call conservatives who have been at the forefront of the movements to improve the lot of the poor. But it would take a level of understanding of history to get that and, well, we know that ain't gunna happen.

BTW here are a few more links to data about how Reagan is viewed in Eastern Europe. I look forward to see what mechanisms you use to convince yourself that this data ought to be ignored...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/8904456/Ronald-Reagan-statue-unveiled-in-Warsaw.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/29/statue-in-budapests-liberty-square-credits-reagan-/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-26-europe-reagan-100th-birthday_n.htm

Hi Foxy

' Do tell. So you consider people like Tony Abbott, John Howard,
Bronwyn Bishop, George Brandis, Joe Hockey, et al,
a bunch of socialists? Interesting'

They certainly inherited a socialist regime. That's why Browyn has no problems with flying a helicopter around on our money. Unfortunately once you allow a socialist mentality and system in place whether you are conservative or socialist the corrupt nature kicks in. Just look at the corruption, hypocrisy, theft and bullying in the union movement.

Yes, mhaze, and sometimes they were just ignorant.

<<[Conservatives] simply accept that our forebears were intelligent and thoughtful …>>

But who could blame them, really? They didn’t know as much as we do now.

<<… and that the structures of society developed over the generations were/are of value and ought not be trashed without due care and understanding.>>?

Well, we’ve got plenty of data with regards to the negative effects of marginalisation and exclusion, but that still doesn’t seem to be enough for you lot when it comes to your most feared minorities.

<<Its not fear of change but simply accepting that change is not necessarily for the better and care should taken to understand whether the change will indeed be improvement.>>

Sure, but there’s only so much evidence for a change (or lack of evidence against a change) that can be collated before sensible caution just looks like bigotry and fear.

<<I look forward to see what mechanisms you use to convince yourself that this data ought to be ignored...>>

Perhaps Paul could just tell himself that you’ve been led down the garden path? It works for you:

“Oh good, a consensus of sociologists! Are they the same sociologists who led AJ down the garden path concerning the origin and longevity of the traditional family?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18926#337954)

You're not in a position to criticise there, mhaze.

Dear runner,

Both sides of politics have a great deal to answer
regarding corruption scandals. What is needed is
an independent Body that will investigate the claims,
Fat chance of that happening though, especially with
big business donations to the parties of their choice.

Yeah we agree on that Foxy. The prolem is finding an impartial body to do the work. Look at how incompetent and political the HRC became under Triggs.

Dear runner,

Not sure about your claim regarding Triggs.
After all her report did end up resulting in
the number of children in detention being lessened
by the Liberal Party. That was quite an achievement
I'm sure you'll agree.

More fears of the Left:

Fear that there may be intrinsic, intractable differences between the sexes and races that no amount of propaganda and wishful thinking can eradicate.

Fear that capitalism has benefited mankind more than it's hurt them.

Fear of genuine social liberty, as people may do and say "incorrect" or "offensive" things or "exclude" others.

Fear of the uncertainty and imperfection inherent to our world and our nature, making a perfect utopia impossible to create or maintain.

Fear that there may be a "God" after all, an intelligence far greater than theirs (though not as historically defined).

Fear of genuine democracy, as most people are not utopian radicals and would not vote for, or would repeal, many "progressive" policies and laws, if given the chance.

You only have to look at the hysterical reaction to Trump's *democratic* election, to see how much fear permeates the minds of Leftists.
He hadn't even been sworn in and they're crying like babies.

Is Mise, some Indians are Caucasoid and of Indo-European origin.
Some are unrelated Dravidians.

The Indo-Iranians separated from the European family over 6000 years ago and developed their own civilisations.
Their English is irrelevant.
I had an Indian TAFE teacher who "spoke" English. Nobody in the class (even other Indians) could understand him.

Thanks for the list, Shockadelic. It gave me a good chuckle. I particularly liked the one about fearing the existence of a god. It was at that point that not even my accounting for your obvious exaggerating was enough to take you seriously anymore.

When there’s evidence for a god, then we can start talking about fears with regards to its existence. Until then…

"But who could blame them, really? They didn’t know as much as we do now."

Yes, we know now about a lot of things. But we aren't talking about nano-tubes or dark matter or lidar, but societal issues. The best ways to structure society (for our culture) has been developed over many generations and significant trial and error.
Its mere conceit to think that we can do some study based on some theory about human nature and magically overturn the fruits of that multi-generational knowledge.

Take education as an example. The methods for educating the young were developed over the centuries. Then about 50 years ago, it was decided that our new and better knowledge would allow us to progressively unravel the fruits of that system and implement better ways to educate. The results have been a disaster for a generation of kids as our education system faltered and we fell behind those countries who were more CONSERVATIVE in their education decisions. The result is that only now to we recognise our PROGRESSIVE errors and begin to undo the errors. The most recent syllabus changes are now moving us back to emphasis on those things we abandoned.

On a grander scale, the very notion of Marxism relies on the notion that we can overthrow the past knowledge and replace it with a society based on 'scientific' understanding of human nation and practice. As Orwell said of that notion "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."

______________________________________________________________--
"you’ve been led down the garden path? It works for you"

For those playing along at home, this refers to a previous thread where AJ initially claimed that the nuclear family only came to prominence in the 20th century. After I'd inundated him with data to show that was a daft a notion as any he'd advanced (and that's saying something) he retreated into claims that sociologists had shown this to be the case in Australia only. That was so wrong that it was beyond ridicule,hence my garden path comment.

Shockadelic,

As someone on the left, I find your fears laughable.

People are individuals, and while I don't doubt that there are differences between the sexes and other groups such as races, the differences between groups are smaller than the differences within groups. It certainly doesn't justify discrimination or exclusion. I'm guessing your comment about offensive things refers to 18C. I think 18D gives sufficient protection there, though we must avoid the implementation problem that affected those Queensland students from ever occurring again. And I'd be in favour of replacing "offend" with "harass".

I certainly don't fear the success of capitalism. But unlike those on the right who view economic policy as a dichotomy, I see capitalism as a combination of policies; some good, some bad. I think the economy should be run for the benefit of those who actually do the productive work rather than those who finance it. And no, of course that doesn't mean I want to nationalize everything or put the unions in charge!

Communism may or may not require a perfect utopia. The question is moot because I (like most people on the left) am not a communist. But the fact is we can do a lot better than we are now. We should be pragmatic, but not at the expense of our values.

I do not fear there may be a God. Indeed I believe there is.

I presume by "genuine democracy" you mean direct voting on issues. On the whole I'm in favour, but I concede that's a tricky issue because to work well it requires an educated and informed population, and at the moment there's a huge amount of misinformation out there (indeed it's adversely affecting decisions in the existing political system).

It wasn't just leftists who feared Trump. His failure to distinguish between facts and lies, and his insulting everyone who got in his way, and his disrespecting women, made him thoroughly unsuitable in the eyes of many on the right as well. Having said that, he's done much better than expected as president so far.

Correct, mhaze.

<<… we aren't talking about nano-tubes or dark matter or lidar, but societal issues.>>

Societal issues were precisely what I was referring to. We have about 150 years of sociological, criminological and psychological research pertaining to societal issues. I’m sorry you’ve missed it.

Talk of dark matter is a red herring, too, by the way.

<<The best ways to structure society … has been developed over many generations and significant trial and error.>>

No, those alone are the long ways. The best way is to take an evidence-based approach.

<<Its mere conceit to think that we can do some study based on some theory about human nature and magically overturn the fruits of that multi-generational knowledge.>>

That, it would be, mhaze. That, it would be. That’s why multiple studies are done from multiple theoretical approaches using multiple strict, proven research techniques.

You know absolutely nothing about social science research, yet are happy to reject it when it suits.

What you’ve said about education systems is inaccurate. An evidence-based approach supports what Finland has been doing, and they have the best (and most progressive) education system in the world.

<<… Marxism relies on the notion that we can overthrow the past knowledge and replace it with a society based on 'scientific' understanding ...>>

This is the Association fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy)

<<As Orwell said of that notion …>>

This is the Argument from Authority fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)

<<After I'd inundated [AJ] with data …>>

No, you made one point that made me double-check my source: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226789

You have quite a penchant for exaggeration, don’t you?

<<… he retreated into claims that sociologists had shown this to be the case in Australia only.>>

(“Retreated”. That’s adorable.)

Once I’d double-checked my source, I corrected myself by pointing out that what I had said was only relevant to Australia, and even provided you with a reference to my source: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226793

As is now apparent, you simply disregarded what the authorities which I cited had said, and went on your merry way.

So, again, you are in no position to criticise Paul the way you did.

Aidan,

A refreshing post, like many others I would welcome a revival of Left thinking. There needs to be a debate on the left as well as on the right.

There is plenty of dross that has been gathering on both sides for years. Some lazy old war horses whose use-by dates are decades past. An example from the comfortable, self-entitled faux left (I prefer 'leftist' for them) would be Phillip Adams. What a pompous, egotistical ass he is and one of the ABC's darlings. Aunty needs to recover her zest too.

AJ Philips "When there’s evidence for a god, then we can start talking about fears with regards to its existence."

You just proved my point.
Your fear makes you deny the very possibility.

Aidan, "the differences between groups are smaller than the differences within groups. It certainly doesn't justify discrimination or exclusion."

This is one judgement, which is then *enforced* on all, whether or not they agree with that judgement.
Where is the respect for free will and personal liberty?
If an employer thinks the differences are significant enough, that should be their decision to make. It's their money and time that built that business, not the job applicant's.

The genetic differences may indeed be small, but there are layers upon layers of social and historical (and possibly metaphysical?) elements that magnify small into large.
Of course, the Left want to demolish that history and deny any dimension beyond the material.

"But the fact is we can do a lot better than we are now."

Perfection is the ultimate end of "doing better". It is the underlying foundation of all "betterment" ideologies, religious or political.
From my experience, Leftists are utterly intolerant of anything "imperfect" (by their definitions).

"I do not fear there may be a God. Indeed I believe there is."

You are a rarity.
In my experience, leftist = athiest.
They take delight in mocking religion and God at every opportunity (yet chant arm in arm with Muslims!)
Only communist countries have ever outlawed religion.

"it requires an educated and informed population"

Again, proving my point.
The Left look down on the very people they claim to champion: the working class.
They cannot be trusted to make the "correct" decisions.

A *voluntary* direct democracy would not require "uneducated" people to vote. Only those with genuine opinions would bother.

I said nothing about the possibility of a god existing, Shockadelic.

I spoke only of the fact that there was no evidence for a god (at least no reliable evidence), which would mean that determining the possibility of a god's existence was impossible.

I proved nothing for you.

Still no fear.

AJ,

1. The issue of nuclear families....

Gild the lily any way you want. This is how it played out: I made a point in regards to SSM being that the nuclear family was a bedrock of society. You sought to refute my point by claiming that the nuclear family was a recent (1940s) invention. I treated that claim with the respect it deserved (ie nil) and gave evidence that it'd been around for the better part of a millennium. You demurred. I gave more evidence. You finally realised your error and then sought to retreat by changing your claim to being just about Australia. You sought to support that new lunacy by new evidence ie linking to an advertisement for a book!!

Many years ago, on this site's precursor, a women, who I much respected, chided me for not giving people a face-saving way of retreating from their errors. Over the years I've tried (imperfectly) to do that. So in this case, since it would have been obvious to all and sundry that you'd screwed up I decided to not press the point and to leave you with a modicum of self-respect. This obviously rankled. Hence 6 months later you now seek to re-write the event.

2. Re your various fallacy fallacies.... I've noticed that, when a point is made that you (1) don't like and (2) can't refute, your go-to solution is to assert, without argument, that it is one of your myriad 'fallacies'. So I make a point about the nature of Marxism and this becomes a fallacy, without any explanation as to why. I quote Orwell and this becomes a fallacy. Basically your 'Fallacy' defense is short-hand for saying, "I don't want this to be true, and therefore it isn't".

3 "What you’ve said about education systems is inaccurate. An evidence-based approach supports what Finland has been doing, and they have the best (and most progressive) education system in the world."

Well that's just rubbish. I see more face-saving on the horizon.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/pisa-worldwide-ranking-of-math-science-reading-skills-2016-12?r=US&IR=

/cont

/cont

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trends_in_International_Mathematics_and_Science_Study

I thought you were in favour of evidence based research!

4. "<<The best ways to structure society … has been developed over many generations and significant trial and error.>>

No, those alone are the long ways. The best way is to take an evidence-based approach."

Yes, obvious we need short-cuts to making a better world!! This, at its heart, the the essence of the disagreement. There is this conceit that we can analyise, dissect and summarise society and human nature and then tweek them so as to improve things the way progressive thinks is best. I understand how people can be mesmerized by their models and think they are the real world.

Unfortunately the results of this tweeking of society has an abysmal record. See education above. Marxism (or more exactly Leninism) had this same conceit in regards to the interaction of human nature and the economy. Do I need to explain how disastrous this was for humankind.

Our society is sick and unraveling due, primarily, to our deliberate and/or unthinking rejection of the wisdom of the ages. Things will get much worse before they get better. Hopefully that wisdom of the ages won't be lost to western culture.

mhaze,

Your recollection of the events of that past discussion of ours’ is utterly distorted. You even added two posts in there that never happened. Is it any wonder that you don’t provide any links to these posts?

<<I made a point in regards to SSM being that the nuclear family was a bedrock of society.>>

Correct (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226765)

<<You sought to refute my point by claiming that the nuclear family was a recent (1940s) invention.>>

No, I said that it was the most common form of family only from the 1940s to the 1970s.
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226768)

<<I … gave evidence that it'd been around for the better part of a millennium.>>

Correct (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226789), but how long it had been around was never at issue.

<<You demurred. I gave more evidence.>>

No, that never happened. You’ve added this bit in to make it sound like I was floundering and desperately clinging to a dearly held belief. That’s dishonest. You have no integrity.

<<You finally realised your error and then sought to retreat by changing your claim to being just about Australia.>>

Finally? No, without “demurring” or receiving any more evidence from you (as you claim happened), I immediately double-checked my source and corrected myself by clarifying that the facts to which I had referred only applied to Australia.

<<You sought to support that new lunacy by new evidence ie linking to an advertisement for a book!!>>

No, it wasn’t an advertisement. It was a link to the book, from which I had obtained my information, on Amazon. A Book I own, not just a random book I Googled.

I tried to be as thorough and helpful as possible, and now you throw that back in my face to make me look pathetic. That’s really low.

<<I've noticed that, when a point is made that you (1) don't like and (2) can't refute, your go-to solution is to assert, without argument, that it is one of your myriad 'fallacies'.>>

That’s because fallacies don’t support your argument, because, funnily enough, they’re fallacies. I didn’t need to take it any further, in those instances.

Continued…

…Continued

<<So I make a point about the nature of Marxism and this becomes a fallacy …>>

Correct, because you attempted to associate evidence-based approaches to Marixism in a fallacious appeal to emotion, without demonstrating why an evidence-based approach is flawed or not preferable. That’s not an argument against a scientific approach, that’s just fallacious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

<<… without any explanation as to why.>>

The links explained why.

<<I quote Orwell and this becomes a fallacy.>>

Correct, because the quote, in itself, didn’t support the claim it was making. Instead, you relied entirely his air of authority to prove the point.

<<Basically your 'Fallacy' defense is short-hand for saying, "I don't want this to be true, and therefore it isn't".>>

Apparently not.

Thanks for your link to the education stats. Finland’s right up near the top. By the way, education is about more than just maths reading and science.

<<Yes, obvious we need short-cuts to making a better world!!>>

More misrepresentation. I said nothing about “shortcuts” (which implies a risky, hazardous cutting of corners).

<<There is this conceit that we can analyise, dissect and summarise society and human nature and then tweek them ...>>

In my studies, I don’t recall seeing anything about “human nature”. Too problematic. Again, you know absolutely nothing about social science research.

<<Unfortunately the results of this tweeking of society has an abysmal record.>>

“Tweeking”. As if data were being tampered with.

Nice touch.

<<Marxism (or more exactly Leninism) had this same conceit in regards to the interaction of human nature and the economy.>>

The Association fallacy again.

And there’s that “human nature” bit again, too. Which reminds me of another reason as to why your fallacious appeal to emotion is, well, fallacious: it fails to account for the fact that the data on which Marxists based their alleged “scientific” approach, or their methodology, may have simply been unreliable.

<<Do I need to explain how disastrous this was for humankind.>>

No, because it’s irrelevant. See above.

Try again, mhaze, and next time, how about you employ a little more honestly and a little less emotive rhetoric, eh?

Oh, I forgot to add, mhaze, that the fact that we have done things a certain way for a long time isn’t evidence that those ways are the right ways, and your suggesting that they are is fallacious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Yes, there’s another fallacy for you to chew on. Try to take it as constructive criticism this time, rather than simply utilising it to pretend that I don’t have answers.

Once you start to base your arguments on evidence, rather than common fallacies, then perhaps we can get to what the evidence actually says. You’ll have all the opportunity in the world to pick apart the research I cite, then, with your apparent expertise that supposedly surpasses the knowledge of every expert in the social sciences. You'll want to brush up on your statistical analysis beforehand, though.

Or perhaps you can just pretend that it's all advertising material?