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.