An accusation was made by a poster that this Forum
was "awash with Lefties".

Is that true?

Some might thing the opposite was true.

That it's "awash with conservative old men".

So I thought it might be interesting to see what people
really think.

And on top of that - what do they like or dislike
about the forum and why they keep coming back - or
in some cases - why do we think or suspect some have
left?

Over to you folks.

Now's your chance to vent or praise as you see fit.

Just one request - let's not use this opportunity for
personal attacks - please.

Lord, Grant me the serenity
To accept abusive people the way they are
Courage to maintain my self-control
And wisdom
To know that if I act on it
I will go to jail or be banned.

Foxy

the thing I like about olo is that it allows all worldviews without censorship. It is reflective of the clashes that are taking place in society and allows people to state what they are thinking. Personally I think it brings out the best and worse in me. Olo is a mixture of abc dogma and sky news and everything in between. As with US politics views on olo are more polarised than ever. It has also taught me that it is almost impossible to separate personalities from ideology. Most politicians play it safe by avoiding the culture wars so I probably have more respect for those who say what they think whether left or right.

Dear runner,

What a beautiful and very thoughtful response.
So well put. Your summation is much better than
anything I could have said.

Thank You.

Foxy,

I would like to see people giving their arguments based on their own position instead of cutting and pasting stuff gleaned on the web. That is, they should support their arguments based on what they themselves know to be accurate. Too many people on OLO think that presenting an argument is a simple matter of extracting information from others and presenting it as their own. You and I know exactly what that is called.

How many people on OLO can actually put forward an argument based on their own expertise of a subject?

Dear runner,

I'd just like to add to the points that you've raised.

The forum does indeed allow a diversity of views
without censorship.

Of course we're all supposed to abide by the forum's
rules which as you know is - not to flame, not to
shout (use caps extensively), not to post the same
message across multiple threads, keep responses on
topic (hard to do), not to use spam, not to attempt
to circumvent suspensions and we know that the
moderator's rulings are final.

Failure to abide may result in post deletion or even
account suspension.

Anyway, we've all at times stretched these rules to the
limits and we've all been given a great deal of lee-way.
Especially in being able to say what we're thinking,
while often breaking the rules.

I agree this forum does bring out the best and the worst
in people. Myself included. Mea culpa. I've made some
doozy mistakes - that O cringe when I think of them.
Anonymity helps in this regard. I would never have done
it in "real" life - face to face. That's not how I was
brought up.

I guess when the right buttons are pushed most people
will react.

And you're spot on - I too have noticed that views on the
forum have become more polarised than I remember them
being in the past. And again - spot on - it is impossible
to separate personalities from ideology.

But I am with you - that I have more respect for people
who say what they think (minus the personal insults) then
people who play it safe, as most politicians tend to do.
Yet again, I guess politicians have to toe the party line,
their careers depend on it.

Thanks for the opportunity, Foxy :)

Misopinionated,

"How many people on OLO can actually put forward an argument based on their own expertise of a subject?"

I recall that you once called yourself an environmental sociologist, which sounds about as wanky as you can get, but I look forward to you taking your own advice :)

Joe

Misopinionated,

"How many people on OLO can actually put forward an argument based on their own expertise of a subject?"

I recall that you once called yourself an environmental sociologist, which sounds about as wanky as you can get, but I look forward to you taking your own advice :)

Joe

LOUDmouth,

By your comment it seems like I hit a nerve. You really do have a touch of the sour grapes. You're not Robinson Crusoe; not everyone can be highly educated and knowledgeable. At least your heart is in the right place, that's the main thing.

What's this runner, have you seen the light, its a good post of yours, well said. With that one you've come up a level with me, you're no longer in the cellar you've moved up into the basement. Cheers!

Mr O,

I think there are a few varieties of posters on
this forum.

There are those who are serious about
wanting to add facts to any discussion.
They will
give links and reference sources to provide
evidence for their views.

Then there are posters who just want to give opinions.
Opinions are like butt-holes, everyone has one.
(Not that there's anything wrong with that as Seinfeld
would say).

With opinions - it can become a bit iffy. Forums often
attract extreme views. Views that tend to see the world in
black and white and an inability to consider opposing
views.

The black and white thinkers are somewhat simplistic.
With them it's either right or wrong. No shades of
grey.
They don't have any sophisticated way of knowing it.
They believe the fake news.

Hence references and links do have a part to play in
discussions.

Anyway, most people love to have their ideas validated
because it gives them a sense of self worth and
self identity.

The forum gives potency by the ability to provide a
sense of social connectedness of like-minded
individuals - but unfortunatley it can at times become
an "echo chamber" - a place where contrary views are
attacked.

That is something we all should try to avoid.

Yet thumbing through pages of "Linkedin" is the source of your high education and knowledge by your own admittance. I must remember that next time I formulate an opinion on immigration and education. Must remember that, no actual research required, just look at Linked in and count the Asian faces.

Mr O my comment was for.

Jimmy2shoes,

Welcome to the forum.

Hope to read more from you.

Foxy,

I wasn't referring to opinions. My concern is with the quality of the arguments being presented. My goal is to seek knowledge, being that which one can justifiably believe to be true. A basic epistemological tenet.

On opinions, it is false to say that everyone's opinion is equal because an opinion is based on who one is and what one knows. As such some people's opinions are of greater worth than other's.

Mr O,

We know that opinions are not formed in a vacuum;
they are made in the context of existing cultural
and personal preconceptions.

Moreover, people do not necessarily get their opinions
directly from media sources. Information and viewpoints
are sifted through other people, particularly family,
friends, workmates.

For example, we're more likely to be influenced to see
a movie by a friend who recommended it to us that by
a newspaper advertisement.

The public is also influenced by opinion leaders,
usually people who spend greater time studying controversy,
form definite opinions about it and interpret the issues
for others.

Political ideologies come into play. Members or supporters
of certain political parties will be influenced by their
leaders on various economic and other issues.

Awareness of others'views may also play a role in the
formation of your opinion. The "bandwagon effect".
If it appears that opinion is swinging in one direction,
some people - especially those who previously were
undecided may be influenced to change their viewpoints.

That's why commercial advertisers often stress -
"everybody is doing it!"

Then there's opinions where knowledge and expertise is
definitely required. Such as a medical problem. You'd go
to a specialist for that.

So it all depends on the kind of opinions that you're
referring to. Because some do require knowledge and
qualifications and expertise while others do not.

You can't place them all in the one basket. Opinions are
as different as the people behind them.

That goes for knowledge as well.

It all depends on the topic under discussion.

Areas of expertise and or knowledge will vary
from person to person depending on the subject,
their life hands-on experience, and know-how.

I've known people who have degrees handing on their
walls and yet have never practiced what they've
learned and would be scared to.

The skills you learn in studying anatomy does not
necessarily make you a good doctor in an emergency
unit of a public hospital. Nor getting good grades
in the philosophy of education - teaches you how
to handle an unruly class room.

Mr O,

I'll probably use up all of my posts pretty soon.
However before I stop I just want to add that -

The ability to craft a coherent argument and to
express arguments with others in a discussion are
skills that not everybody has.

This forum is a public forum so you have to expect
a variety of styles and ways of expression.

One thing that I like about this forum is that from
these many diverse views you can learn how to engage
with people but not only that you learn to process
your own thoughts and discover your own opinions about
things.

You also learn that not every body is interested in
discussion as such. Some are interested in argument.
There's a difference.

However, we should not forget that the real purpose of a
discussion is to explore a variety of arguments to arrive
at the truth - where possible.

We don't always succeed. But that's why many of us
keep coming back to this forum. There's always - next
time.

Hi Foxy,

Don't tell me, the Reds have moved from under some forumites bed, and are now infecting his puter' with terrible unsanitary comment....DISGUSTING! WE MUST FLUSH THEM OUT! I don't know who said that, there are so many on the Forum to choose from.

Besides having too many female young farts, and not enough male old farts on OLO everything is A-okay with me. We are most fortunate to have Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, Issac Newton, Clarence Darrow, J. D. Rockefeller, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Aristotle, The Pope, God and Jesus Christ to name a few of the lesser known anonymous posters using odd ball nicks such as "Wally Wombat" (me thinks that'really Mahatma Gandhi) on the Forum. So fortunate as we are.

Cheers.

Jimmy2shoes,

Going by your comment re my suggestion that LinkedIn can give one an indication of the extent to which the Australian education system is manipulated by foreign students seeking a back door to permanent residency I would say that it has just dawned on you that this practice has been going on for so long right under your nose.

And it is people like you who have been turning a blind eye to the Chinese over the past 30 years and now look at the position we are in with China. It took the WuFlu to bring it to the surface and expose China for what it really is.

The thing I like most about OLO is that posts are only ever removed due to abuse, or advertising. It doesn't matter how wrong or far out an idea may be, we are allowed to express it. When I first found the internet & OLO, I was amazed at how many lefties & greenies there are in the world, or how many of them post on forums.

Sorry Foxy, but your links and reference sources no longer impress me. Hell some of them refer to the ABC, or even the Guardian for gods sake. I was originally a bit of a greenie, although never a lefty. As a young bloke, I actually simply accepted the stuff put out by academia, with out question. Why would they not tell the truth? I assumed that if they got it wrong, the mainstream would correct them pretty quickly. So I "knew" we were stuffing the marine ecosystem, & wanted to get out there to see it before it & the people were too much changed.

So then I went sailing. 53,000 nautical miles later I knew that 97% of the stuff I had been reading was utter garbage. I even realised why it was so. The competition for research grants encouraged first stretching the truth, then utterly ignoring it to get the cash.

As an example check out the thread on Jennifer Marohasy's blog. She shows where a James Cook team ran a couple of traverses across the dead drying coral flat at Bowen, & claimed this proved all inner reefs were ALL dead. 30 meters away she filmed hundreds of acres of thriving coral on the edge of the flat, which did not dry.
Continued

Continued.
Any Queensland school kid, who does a bit of fishing knows drying flats are dead. Can a marine scientist not know this? Can a marine scientist lie through their teeth, by conducting an "experiment" to "prove" a lie? This is one of the thousands of examples that prove many references to scientific studies is an exercise in proving that which is a total lie.

The Marohasy research helped prove that everything Peter Ridd said about James Cook, & it's marine "research" was totally true. You can not believe a single thing coming out of James Cook marine department. This now being well proven & accepted in a court of law, is there any reason to believe anything else coming from that institution is any closer to the truth? I very much doubt it.

Hundreds of hours diving on reefs off major cities, & off isolated tropical atolls, building jetties, & a couple of months with the shark callers of the Solomon islands, has taught me enough to know when some marine professor is trying to com me, & the world. I know enough about a few other subjects to see the same con job being pulled in other areas.

It is bad enough to now make me doubt anything coming out of academia. The total stuff up with the Coronavirus has simply increased my disbelief in their ability to get very much right, before bursting into print.

So Foxy don't bother with references, just tell us what you have totally proven to your own satisfaction.

Hasbeen

I reached similar conclusions to you. I barely passed high school and automatically assumed that the 'academics' knew best. Somehow my second son was gifted with my wife's genes. He won a scholarship to do a phd at a major Australian uni in sciences (believe me not). That is one of the main reasons I don't use my name. No doubt his career would be shattered having a creationist father. That is how low Marxist have gone. He was brought up with a few years home schooling and yr 11 and 12 at Regional State school. When I ask him about quotas, gender stuff and integrity at academia level he just shakes his head.

Hi again Foxy,

Before GY discovered computers this is how the forum operated;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_PWm2zgbg

I think OLO is a great service to those who care one way or another because those who don't care couldn't be bothered to contribute anyway.
Anyhow, the bulk of my quips & remarks is based on what I have experienced (which is mostly disputed by the Rose-coloured glasses brigade) & what is flung at me by them !
Thank you Graham Young for providing this service & I hope that "Govt people" read it because
there are some good ideas for policy making for Govt on OLO !

Dear Hassie and runner,

Thank you both for sharing.

I read a great deal on various subject from
many sources and when responding to discussions
on this forum - I select articles from subject
specialists on the various issues involved.

I don't deliberately choose the ABC or The Guardian,
et cetera. I choose the articles first on their subject
matter. (no matter where it comes from).

Although many do have paywalls - like The Australian,
Herald Sun, and other NewsCorp media. That limits my
choices.

My selection is based on facts and specialist expertise.
Not on any political agenda.

Therefore I am always surprised when being accused of
pushing some kind of agenda.

Of course I don't agree with everything presented by the
ABC or The Guardian. But neither can I disagree with
them all. Or call them all biased. To me that's not
rational.

As for academics?

I know how hard it is to study anything. How long it takes
and how expensive it is to survive. It takes a lot of
blood, sweat, tears, and money. The academics that it
has been my privilege to know and be associated with
were truly inspiring people who worked very hard for
very little monetary gain. They were dedicated people.
Educators - from whom I've learned a great deal.
People that won my respect and admiration. People I
still stand in awe of today.

Dear Paul,

Life of Brian.

Loved it!

Dear Indy,

Thanks for sharing. And I agree - some great suggestions,
ideas, and thoughts have come out of the forum. It
would be great if some of our politicians, or at least
their staff - were to read them.

BTW: Did you know that the name "Graham" is derived from
Grantham, Lincolnshire, England. This place name is
though to be derived from the Old English elements -
grand (possibly meaning "gravel") and "ham" - meaning
"hamlet" the English word given to small settlements
of smaller size villages.

I've been posting on OLO since 2001 when it was a Yahoo user group. To play, you joined the group and then emailed posts which yahoo then distributed to all members of the group. It sounds clunky now but at the time was pretty exciting.

My main aim in being in groups like this is to test my views and to find other views that I might miss in my reading.

"I read the paper every day and the Bible every day; that way I know what both sides are up to."Zig Ziglar

Groups like this (I'm in a few) allow me to see other views and to be exposed to other data. Often I'll see things said here that I know can't be right, but which I need to research to confirm. And that research adds to my understanding. For example, one poster once claimed that Sydney was 50% Asian. Yeah bonkers. But I realised I didn't actually know what the percentages were and had to research it.

One of the beauties of OLO both in its present and past configurations was that it allows you to go back over the years to see if and how your views have changed or to test the accuracy of your predictions or positions. I find that extremely valuable.

OLO is of course very lightly managed which allows for robust discussion. For good or ill I think that's a plus and quite unusual these days.

Its often observed that the cohort is quite aged. Part of the reason for that is the very robustness of the discussion which is alienating and uncomfortable for earlier generations. Of course the format is also, these days, unusual, requiring more than 280 characters and the development of at least rudimentary trains of thought which is not something the current education system develops.

I've said before that Graham should be proud of the site. Hopefully it can continue for a long time yet - at least until I've convinced everyone to agree with me on everything.

Foxy,

I cannot come to terms with the people on OLO who are constantly rubbishing academics and the value of higher learning and the constant quest for knowledge that these represent. It takes a lot of effort, time and dedication to achieve that status.

The ones who rubbish these high achievers are the ones who have nothing themselves in this area. I find a lot of wealthy people fit this category and they resent the highly educated class because they themselves would like to be on that level but they realise that there are somethings their money just won't buy.

The thing one notices most about OLO is that it does give the class of underachievers in the area of knowledge and research an opportunity to tell others how little they know (and we all know who they are on OLO.)

Foxy,,

PS It's only the losers who tell others that they went to the university of life.

'I cannot come to terms with the people on OLO who are constantly rubbishing academics and the value of higher learning and the constant quest for knowledge that these represent. It takes a lot of effort, time and dedication to achieve that status.'

Yeah Mr Opinion probably the best pollie this century in my opinion was Rhodes scholar Abbott. Now wait for the dirt poured on him.

the best pollie this century in my opinion was Rhodes scholar Abbott.
runner,
If only he hadn't changed once he got into the PM's seat. That's when he lost focus. I say this as I was a huge supporter of him when he was in opposition & did & said all the right things.
Offering Phil a Knighthood & annoying Indonesia about the Bali 9 was what turned me off as it was a clear sign of being out of touch.

runner,

I loved the way Tony Abbott bit into that raw unpeeled onion.

The thing I didn't take to was the fact that he didn't offer to share it with any of the members in his entourage. Greedy bastard!

I'm sure you runner would have shared your onion with others because runner you're just that sort of guy.

BTW Tony Abbott is neither an academic nor a man of great knowledge. I think he's just another village idiot but if you took all the village idiots in the world and put them into one village I think Tony Abbott would still be the village idiot.

'BTW Tony Abbott is neither an academic nor a man of great knowledge. I think he's just another village idiot but if you took all the village idiots in the world and put them into one village I think Tony Abbott would still be the village idiot.'

as I thought Mr O

you don't respect academics, just those who agree with you. I suspect your achievements on most levels fall far short of Tony.

mhaze,

So, you're one of the "Golden Oldies"of the forum?
Congratulations!

Also glad to learn that you do recognise other views and
find data useful.

I agree that one of the many pluses of
this forum is the fact that it forces some of us to do
further research, and as a result we learn more and
hopefully broaden our knowledge intake.

The cohort of this forum may well be quite aged as you
point out but old is not necessarily bad, as we both
acknowledge.

I also hope that this forum shall continue for a long time,
at least until I am able to agree with you on much, much,
more. :-)

Mr O,

Academics are no strangers to criticism. When scientists,
historians, philosophers and scholars of all kinds
publish their research part of what they are doing is
setting their ideas up to be criticized.

Of course, for better or worse, however, most academics
are also familiar with another sort of criticism that is not
so clearly essential to what they do, or useful at all.
Criticism of academia as such.

The critics and
their cheer leaders often have two things in common:
They are politically and culturally conservative. And they
themselves are not academics.

However, that does not mean that some of their criticisms
are not valid. Academics can be too specialised,
too obscure, impractical, and too disconnected from
real life. Criticisms are part and parcel of
academic life. It goes with the territory. And on this
forum - that's something that's not about to change
any time soon.

runner,

Your admiration for former PM Tony Abbott is
fully understandable.

Individual,

Tony Abbott was an excellent Opposition leader.
As a PM? Somewhat out of his depth.

runner,

You are absolutely wrong.

I have great respect for academics in the Arts and Sciences.

I was actually encouraged to pursue that path but it didn't interest me. I have always been happy to earn a livelihood as just an engineer.

But I did like the idea of being a polymath so instead of pursuing a PhD in one field I chose to do two MAs in different fields. So instead of knowing a lot about a little I know a little about a lot.

Your raw unpeeled onion munching hero Tony Abbott is just a lawyer who did a BA because he thought he needed to look educated instead of being just a dumb ass lawyer.

I hope that explains things. Now get yourself back to that box of onions and MUNCH AWAY.

Mr O,

You've got Multiple Master's Degrees?

Correct me if I'm wrong. In related fields?

Spending a couple of years learning stuff you
already are familiar with doesn't make sense.

Also it could be interpreted as lack of focus or
passion for one of the topics in which Masters
was earned.

A more logical option would have been a PhD from a
related field. The PhD would have actually added to your
CV and broadened your knowledge.

Usually it is not advisable to have multiple Masters
degrees. Unless you wanted to change your career path
drastically or learn a subject out of passion.

I gather this was not the case for you.

Foxy,

I have four degrees 1xBE, 1xBA & 2xMAs in four fields: engineering, anthropology, sociology, and history.

The BE I did to make a living.

The BA and MAs I did purely out of interest, not as a career. I'm a generalist who likes knowing about everything and I guess my background puts me in the most educated category, which makes me happy. And isn't happiness what we all seek as humans?

Mr O,

As long as you're focused and passionate about
what you do and that makes you happy.
Who am I to question it? It would be sad if
you were unhappy.

Academics & their institutions have earned every bit of condemnation they are getting. Too many know very little, but arrogantly assume they know it all. James Cook is a perfect example.

I started to realise this way back in the late 60s, when I ran into my favorite professor from my engineering. A mate & I built the most successful racing car Australia had ever seen on an old Brabham chassis. It finished second in it's first race, breaking the existing lap record on the way, then won outright, or it's class in Formula 1 races, at every start for the next 20 months.

These results earned me a professional Formula 1 drive.

I excitedly started telling my professor about this, & how we had built the engine. He quickly cut me off, telling me my ideas were all wrong, & would not work.

I wondered how he had missed that this was past tense, & the results were in the record book. It held the class lap record at every circuit I had raced it at in the dry.

This judgement was confirmed when I had considerable interaction with AIMS, James Cook, & the Marine Park authority, when running a large marine tourist operation in the Whitsundays. The area was not, but was about to become an extension of the marine Park.

I was building an outer reef facility to handle 225 tourists a day, & would have liked their input in design & instillation. I wanted their advice if anything I was planning was possibly detrimental. They all ran a mile rather than commit to anything.

The continual utter garbage some academics come up with trying to support the global warming scam, proves how naive & childish so many of them really are.

The days of automatic respect for academics have long been obliterated by the actions of many of them & their institutions.

Foxy,

Being a generalist is not recommended for those wanting a career, especially in academia. But then I would never have been happy doing a bachelor honours, masters and PhD all in the one discipline with each thesis being just an extension of the other(s).

No thanks! I have a passion for knowing everything. But I also wanted to qualify as well by formal study otherwise one runs the risk of having no credibility and ending up being referred to as a know-all-know-nothing; and as we both know, there are a lot of those to be found on OLO.

One might say that I did engineering to make money but did the Arts degrees because I wanted to be smart as well.

Dear Hassie,

I remember well the golden years of universities.
When they were so much a part of Australian
culture.

Today, critiques have often been expressed as
complaints about academia in general, but more
often than not the target have been the humanities, and
"softer"social sciences like anthropology, and sociology,
as opposed to sciences like physics, chemistry, biology
or "harder" sciences like economics and some areas of
Psychology.

We've all heard the complaints, and as you point out
many are quite valid. I'm sorry that your experiences
have been so negative. But you can be proud of your
achievements which no one can take from you.

Mr O,

Your family must be so proud of you and your passion
for learning.

That's wonderful!

There are some on this medium who would be quite pleased and disappointed to know that I nearly did not stop to respond or comment on this topic.
But I thought given that it is a complete fallacy and even an enigma, I had to stop and give it a consideration, even though it is a futile and even irrelevant question or heading, because there is no benefit or actual purpose to the question in the first place.
The forum will not change pending the comments and response given here.
So knowing this fact, I know that responding to it is akin to futile.
But here goes nothing.
What I like about this forum is it's ease of access.
What I dislike about it, I have said before, is that it is not what it purports to be.
It is a lie.
It does not allow one to comment freely.
It does not give clear guidelines as to what is acceptable or more importantly, what is not.
It is inconsistent in it's terms of reference on what you can say and the language used to say it.
I speak Australian, but apparently this forum bans the use of such a language.
We must talk in PC, which as we all know, is a very restrictive language, but more importantly, is a very dishonest and untruthful language.
Then there is the inconsistencies of the adjudicators.
Erratic at best and biased at worst.
Being told by a very flowery group that certain comments have "consequences", is patronising to say the least.
But worst of all is that not being able to speak freely and frankly, renders the comments and the forum moot and irrelevant.
Given that it is a forum I am free to choose to stay, but only if I can speak the truth, and along the way try to highlight the flaws that exist and make this forum biased and restrictive in it's effectiveness and credibility not only for the status and relevance of this medium itself, but more importantly those who comment in it.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, NOT PC.

Universities should be more than places of academic learning. They should be progressive institutions that promote positive change in society. University students supported by their mentors are, as the leaders of tomorrow, tasked with the obligation of being in the forefront of the fight for equality, social justice, and many other of the confronting issues of today.

Without the unpopular protests of the past, led by students and workers, many of the rights we take for granted today would never have come about. I'm glade to see universities as hot beds of radicalism and dissension, for later on it those very radicals who will mellow into the political leaders whose focus will be to enact the very changes needed to make for a better society.

Solving one problem by creating another is what the insipid call Progressive !

Indy I do not expect you to embrace progressive thinking, being a stick in the mud crusty old conservative as you are. In your whole life have you ever supported change of any kind, me thinks not.

The conservative approach to education in general has always been, it should be reserved for the elite, seeing themselves as the rightful elite of society.

"Free speech — the debate"

There has been public debate in Australia and elsewhere about protest action by academics and student groups which are said to demonstrate a worrying intolerance for the expression at universities of views which are considered harmful in various ways.
Contributors to the debate straddle the spectrum from the censorious, through the thoughtful and concerned, to the chronically angry libertarians. Both ends of the spectrum are capable
of over the top language in strikingly similar terms when complaining that a contentious view has been allowed or not allowed a platform on campus."

"The debate has often centred on notions of harm inflicted on vulnerable groups within the university or on society generally, often by what is called ‘hate speech’. The vulnerable groups may include racial, ethnic or national groups, and LGBTQI people. They may be victims of abuse or violence."

"In his essay ‘On Liberty’ John Stuart Mill said that ‘the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. That statement begs the question – what is ‘harm’? It begs that question acutely when it is applied to restrictions on freedom of expression. Harm is a concept in which contestable value judgements are intimately involved. What one person regards as harmful another may legitimately view as bearing no adverse consequence.

Indy I do not expect you to embrace progressive thinking,
Paul1405,
I've tried it but seeing how the term Progressive is so misused & experiencing the results of so-called progressive thinking, I found it to be the most direct route to mayhem of all sorts !
Without practical logic & common sense there is no such thing as progressive l
In an academic sense the term progressive is the ultimate but in actual reality & outcome it turned out to be the exact opposite. It's there for all to see on a daily basis !
That's why economic & social decisions cannot be left in the hands of the Progressives.
Unless of course mayhem & disaster is what people want !

individual,

You just used the term 'social decision'.

I've never run across this term so could you please give me some examples of a social decision?

ALTRAV,

Regarding this discussion?

I explained my purpose in my opening post. It
appears to be clear to the people who have chosen
to respond.

You say that the forum will not change as a result
of this discussion. That's not this discussion's
purpose.

As for political correctness and free speech?

What you call political correctness I call civility
and good manners.

I am appalled by your loudly saying repugnant things
you probably don't even believe in - in order to
enrage the "keyboard warriors" on this forum.
Because that impedes the search for truth and makes
your targets look decent by comparison.

Everyone should feel comfortable speaking their minds
as long as they're polite. In slogan form - Its not what
you say, it's how you say it.

Every child knows the basic of politeness. Talk nicely.
Don't yell. Don't call names. Listen and respond to what
people literally say. Don't personally insult people.
Don't take generalisations personally. If someone's
meaning is unclear don't put words into their mouths ask
them to clarify.

And of course don't escalate. If someone's impolite the
polite response is to end the conversation, not respond in
kind.

All this is referred to as "tone policing". And its'something
we all should do. But we don't unfortunately. I'm just as
guilty as anyone else and I also do react when pushed too
far. However, I do keep trying and will continue to do so.

"Keyboard warriors" are unfortunately - one-sided
tone policers. They fail
to police their own tones. Proper tone policing is what
makes conversation and discussion productive and
pleasant. That's why the forum has certain rules. And
compliance is important to make it pleasant
and safe for all. That's why in our society in general we
have the rule of law.

Yet still, the forum allows us so much lee way. We are able
to say what we think with very rare censorship. But pulling
us up on occasion is an attempt in keeping things pleasant
for all. And of course the more pleasant coversation is,
the more we're likely to constructively converse.

Hi Foxy,
Sometimes the best questions are the simplest ones.

"What do I like about this forum?"

The freedom to speak my mind and say more or less ANYTHING I want without censorship, I've never had a comment removed yet.
And I think sad that it's come to this in Australia.

I think the forum could use a fresh look and be updated.
But I also think it's kind of like an old pub in that when they do the renovations and bring in new people its never the same.

ALTRAV,

Just be aware -

I don't need your validation, or your approval, or
permission in how and what I post.

If you continue with your personal attacks you shall
be ignored and avoided.

So mind your manners.

I shall try to do the same.

Dear Paul,

I still get a lump in my throat when I drive past
a university of college remembering those "golden
times" . Criticisms of faculty and universities aside -
though valid, when I talk to young students today I
still think this country's future is in good hands.

Dear Individual,

Our country has always come good in the end.
Progressives, conservatives, or whatever, we seem
to get it right despite our differences.

Perhaps it's our ethos of a "fair-go" that underneath
all our ideologies drives and connects us all.

Dear Armchair Critic,

Nostalgia is a calming balm isn't it. It somehow removes
the rough edges from the good old days. We always remember
times as being better then perhaps they were.
Still we all need that - especially during difficult times.
For me, life is moving so fast. Too fast. And so many
things are changing - not always for the better.

some examples of a social decision?
Mr Opinion,
Economic rationalism is a social decision as it impacts mainly socially when one lot gets more for doing less than the other lot that gets less for doing more.
Robo Debt was one ! Negative gearing is another ! SSM too falls into that category !

Paying out Aged Welfare for the rest of their lives to the non productive is another example of a social decision, Indy missed that one.

Foxy, do you proof read your comments?
All that you say is not what you think you are saying.
For the record, you may feel that being nice is the way to go, well it turns out that ti is ALWAYS best to be honest and tell the truth about something, instead of concerning oneself with an unknown thing such as feelings.
Your particular brand of verbal intercourse may work well at coffee morning with the "girls", but in the real world, if someone is talking rubbish and continues to do so even after having been alerted to that fact, it is customary to become more aggressive to get ones point across.
As for your particular style of debate, you are most welcome to it even though it is like a broken record and ever so patronising.
I say all this because by challenging me you have given me the right of reply.
And I'm not sure if the part of the question that asks what I dislike about THIS forum, I have made it quite clear and OLO knows it, the record is full of my complaints and criticisms, but the other thing I don't like is when certain individuals decide they are superior in their attitude and speaking in platitudes.
I have made plenty submissions to counter such people or their submissions and attitudes.
So if you believe you have a valid case then you won't mind if you look at yourself as a case in point.
There I have been most generous and careful not to offend, that should make you and others happy, which is the kind of person I am.
In any conversation I respond in kind, that is human nature, so if someone does not like or agree with my particular form of discussion they are free to ignore me.
That's why I don't understand the gutless few here and in OLO who feel the need to intervene when the discussion has nothing to do with them.
The forum will self censure anyone who is seen as un-acceptable, by simply ignoring them.
See easy.

Paul1405,
No, I didn't miss the Old Age Pension because it's not Welfare. We bought it up front over a period of 50+ years. Unlike your Super which is provided by your long suffering employer !
Are you giving anything in return for it like we did ?

Indy, I have never given it a thought, but your right.
The aged pension IS payed for by us through taxes.
Where-as Superannuation is paid for by the employer.
What a scam?
It only strengthens my point of many years, and that is; The govt has slowly and systematically been passing more and more costs back onto the people, when in the past those same costs were covered by our taxes.
So all the billions of dollars they have accumulated and at the same time passed those same costs onto us, where are all these billions?
All I can think of is all these damn pathetic hangers on and welfare cheats, and after all that they keep finding new ways to steal even more money off us to give to other thieves, some of which are the govt and their mates.
These are the kind of things I complain about, but I'm a lone voice, apart from a few here on OLO, it appears that we are a country of entitled opportunists.
If one stops and thinks about it, the govt, over the years has diverted many costs from the govt and directly back onto the people, but have done nothing to lesson our original burden, either by lowering taxes and charges commensurate with the amounts they passed back onto us or any other form of financial relief.
In fact, the opposite has been the case.
Speaking of which,just one case in point.
Many years ago, here in WA, the govt added a 25$ fee to our vehicle registrations, which was supposed to run for a few years to recover the millions stolen/lost by a failed govt con job called WA Inc.
That fee was never removed.
This is only one example, there are so many more.
And some of you wonder why I am so pissed off with everyone and everything!

individual,

Thanks for those examples of what you call a 'social decision'.

I can see you are not a sociologist.

I can see you are not a sociologist.
Mr Opinion,
Thanks, that's the best News I've heard in years !

in WA, the govt added a 25$ fee to our vehicle registrations,
ALTRAV,
Talking to WA bloke only a couple of weeks back, I asked him about the rego on his 4 tonne camper-truck. He said just under $800. In Qld the same vehicle is $2000 Rego.

Indy, you do kid yourself into believing the Aged Pension is not welfare. You are motivated by your desire to bucket on welfare recipients, but at the same time excluding yourself, as you don't want to admit like so many others you are a government welfare titty swinger, all rather hypocritical on your part! If you paid tax sometime in the past, all well and good, which I don't know if you did or you didn't, the government at the time used a portion of that money to pay a means tested Aged Pension. The government of today is doing the exact same thing for you, as you were unable to provide adequately in your working life for your retirement, you are receiving what is called the welfare safety net. A social decision as you would put it.

Il Duce, if you want to back Indy up, so be it, but you don't have to make things up to do it; "The aged pension IS payed for by us through taxes. Where-as Superannuation is paid for by the employer."

Yesterdays taxes paid yesterdays pensions, today's taxes pay today's pensions. Compulsory superannuation was achieved by workers forgoing pay increases. There was no sudden generosity from the employers. How you like to twist things, in 1991 the contribution from workers was 3% of their wage, it has progressively increased to 9.5% today.

individual,

The bad thing about that is that it proves you don't know anything.

Who says you can't learn a great deal from this forum.

ALTRAV,

You certainly have cleared up a lot about yourself
for us all.

1) Always be honest. Tell the truth.
Don't concern yourself about someone's feelings.

2) Being polite and civil may work well in "girls"
coffee mornings - not in the real world.

3) When anyone talks rubbish - aggression is the
way to get your point across.

4) Foxy - is patronising (not awesome or perfect).

5) ALTRAV - is most generous and careful not to offend.
He does not start arguments. He merely responds in
kind.

6) Superiority complexes - and platitudes unlike
inferiority complexes or insecurities are - bad.

7) Only gutless people feel the need to intervene when
the discussion has nothing to do with them. Altrav
is definitely not one of those.

8) Forum will self-censure - by ignoring.

I guess we can all judge people by who they avoid.
Or ignore.

Hi Foxy,

When replying to Il Duce, like me do you feel you are in the presence of greatness?

Yesterdays taxes paid yesterdays pensions, today's taxes pay today's pensions.
Paul1405,
Yes, that's the plan. Do you expect old Age Pensioners to pay for their Pension when they're on the Pension ??

Compulsory superannuation was achieved by workers forgoing pay increases.
So, who then pays it into the account then ? Not the recipient !
No, it's the bulk of other taxpayers not on generous Super.
For the recipient it's simple Welfare !

Foxy,

On this topic, I have to say how valuable OLO is, if only to experience such good-hearted and courageous people as yourself :)

Love,

Joe

The bad thing about that is that it proves you don't know anything.
Mr Opinion,
There's help available for delusions of adequacy !

individual,

Convince me.

Dear Paul,

You asked - do I feel I am in the presence of greatness
when replying to Il Duce?

Well, he's as great as a man can be without morality.
(doesn't know the difference between good and bad
behaviour).

Dear Joe,

Thank You for the lovely compliment.

I agree that this forum is very valuable because we
get to meet so many incredible people. People from
all walks of life. Good-hearted people and so knowledgeable.
People like yourself, and so
many others too numerous to mention.

I've learned so much over the years. It's forced me to do
research on subjects that I would not normally have
been interested in. It has broadened my knowledge base.

Dear Individual,

Entire careers have been built out of anxiety and issues
surrounding achievement and adequacy.

individual you're not getting what Paul is saying.

The money you've paid in taxes didn't go towards YOUR pension. It went to pay the pensions of those already on the pension while you were still working.

The government doesn't have a special bank account* where they stored a portion of your tax contribution to pay back to you in the future if you yourself end up on the pension. Not a cent of the pension money you receive did you pay for in tax. In fact, it is even worse than that- not only did you not contribute a single cent of tax towards your pension, but the government actually takes on debt to pay a portion of it.

Paul is absolutely correct in saying that the age pension is a form of government welfare.

Also, regarding super payments. Yes, the employer does pay it, but they pay it as part of the deal of employing someone . Ie., it is part of the contract of employment (all-be-it a non-negotiable part) where the employee provides labour and in return for that labour the employer pays ways+super+other benefits. If you were to outlaw the payment of super tomorrow, all that would generally happen is that wages/salaries or other benefits increase to replace the forgone super. This is because the cost of labour is more or less set by supply and demand (except instances of non-free-market factors, for example: where some people get paid more than they are worth -worth in the economic sense- because of the minimum-wage requirements of the various industries.)

* actually I once read that many,many decades ago they did infact keep age pension money separate but I'm not confident in the veracity of this claim.

[PS: It's probably appropriate to point out that, that from the comments Paul1405 has made over time that him and I are on different sides on many/most topics. However, I'll be the first to admit that he does how the political/social/economic system works and is obviously quite well educated]

I am overwhelmed by your summary of me.
You have me pegged to 'T'.
I had no idea you were so "into me", that you have been thinking about me and studying me so much, you know me better than I know myself.
Suddenly a feeling of love and warmth come over me; so much so I felt myself tear-up, I did not know you cared so much.
Oh, I'm sorry, I don't think I can go on, so I must now go and come to terms with this new revelation.
This has come as such a shock, I'm sorry I didn't know you cared so much about me.

Hi thinkabit,

History of Aged Pensions in Australia.

1900 NSW, Qld & Vic introduce an aged pension 10/- ($1) week, means tested and paid from consolidated revenue.

1901 The Constitution gave the Commonwealth explicit power to legislate for provision of old age and invalid pensions.

1909 Following the Pensions Act 1908 First Commonwealth Aged Pensions paid to those aged 65 and over both means and charter tested. 10/- ($1) week. Paid from general revenue. Reduced to 60 for women in 1910.

1912 Means test revised, removing the family home as an asset.

1928 National Insurance bill introduced to parliament to replace Aged and Invalid Pensions, but lapsed 1929 with the defeat of the Bruce government.

1945 Chifley government introduced levy on personal income and payrolls to fund a National Welfare Fund with the view to forming a national superannuation to replace the Aged Pension. The fund had no direct link to pension and benefits, in practice a government accounting device until its abolition in 1985.

1973 Means test for pensioners 75 years of age and over abolished.

1975 Means test removed for persons aged 70 to 74 inclusive. Established than the Aged Pension be set to 25% of average weekly earnings, to be indexed annually.

1978 Fraser government introduces Aged Pension indexing only once a year in November, previously twice a year. Those 70 years and over the pension is again means tested, but no income test applied to those 70 and over.

1979 Government reverses decision and Aged Pension is again index twice a year.

1984 Assets test reintroduced to all Aged Pensions, family home excluded with some provisions.

cont

cont

1985 Assets and income test applied to all Aged Pension, including those aged 70 and over. Aged pension at 25% of average weekly earning, no longer set as a target, rather an aspiration.

1985 For both the Labor Party and the ACTU Nation Superannuation became the objective.

1989 The Government's 'Retirement Income Policy Statement' established a policy in Australia based on the "twin pillars" of the Age Pension and private superannuation, specifically rejecting the option of a National Superannuation Scheme.

1992 National superannuation contribution set at 3% of ordinary income introduced from 1st July that year.

1994 Pension age for eligible women to be raised to 65, in a phased process.

1997 Aged pension to be formally maintained at 25% of average eekly earnings.

1998 Age pension means test for retirement income streams revised. Pension Bonus scheme introduced. A person could accrue a pension bonus payment by deferring claiming the pension while still working.

2007 Aged pension assets test threshold raised, making up to 300,000 more Australians eligible for a full or part Aged Pension.

2009 pension supplements consolidated into one payment. Aged Pension benchmark revised to 27.7% singles 41.76% couples, of average weekly earnings. The Pension Bonus Scheme was abolished, replaced by a work bonus.

2017 The qualifying age for the Age Pension increases by six months every two years until it reaches 67 years of age on 1 January 2024.

Even though Australians were some of the earliest beneficiaries of Aged Pensions (first pain in 1900). The value of superannuation was seen as early as 1915 when the Federal governments Income Tax Assessment Act provided for tax deductibility of employer contributions made on behalf of employees, and for the exemption of superannuation fund earnings from taxation. In 1923 the Bruce conservative government established a Royal Commission to examine the possibility of having a comprehensive national insurance scheme for retirement, sickness or disability. A 1928 bill for that purpose was introduced into parliament, but a Labor government let the bill lapse in 1929, at the start of the Great Depression. In 1945 the Chifley Government hoped to establish National Superannuation through a National Welfare Fund. The long reign of conservative governments killed off any thought of a National Superannuation Scheme through the 1950's and 60's. The Whitlam Government had notions of national Superannuation in the early 1970's but nothing got off the ground. In 1983 the Hawke Labor Government expressed support for the principles of employee superannuation, but little else. Not until 1991 when Treasurer John Kerin announced that from 1 July 1992 , under a new system to be known as the Superannuation Guarantee (SG), employers would be required to make superannuation contributions on behalf of their employees, did National Superannuation become a reality. The fact is post war Conservative governments have little stomach for notions of universal superannuation for all workers, content to simply pay pensions through taxation and do little else.

ALTRAV,

Not at all.

Just quoting what you said.

You described yourself.

And who knows you better than you.

You cleared up a lot about yourself for us all here.

Kudos!

Indy, in reference to your mate with the 4 tonne camper-"truck", with the operative word being truck, he is paying a commercial rate.
I have been in the industry, amongst other industries, and I can tell you that, by example your mate was paying a commercial rate.
One of the vehicles I had was a Kenworth SAR prime mover, with an 800hp KT 19 engine.
The registration fee for that vehicle, (only a prime mover, not a normal truck with a tray body or pantechnicon body on it's back) was, to round out, around $10,000 a year.
Now in WA if a vehicle is registered as a "mobile home", it receives substantial discounts sometimes, but rarely up to 90%.
Because, it was reasoned that these vehicles were not used as an every day commute, therefore were justified in having a lesser registration fee than their commercial and equivalent counterparts.
I can go one better.
All states have some form of vintage/veteran car clubs.
Our major VCC is such a club.
I have several cars that qualify for acceptance to the WAVCC, as did I.
Those cars, instead of paying $700 odd a year cost me $70 a year.
My membership costs me $30 a year, last time I looked.

Lucky you ALTRAV. In Queensland my club rego is $250 a year. Still a lot better than the $980 the TR8 was costing me.

Better still, when I advised Shannons of the change to club registration, they knocked a big chunk off my insurance too.

Hasbeen, and some wonder why I hate this place.
The idiots who say stupid things like, "what are you complaining about, there are other places in the world much worse"'
And that's supposed to make me feel better, or justify getting ripped of or abused by a greedy and self serving system/govt.
We have had ALL our public assets GIVEN to these slimy bastards and their political puppets, where they can gouge and overcharge us as and when they want.
It's like when that weasel Keating said that electricity prices were too low, and we should be paying more.
What he was doing was to raise the profit of the electricity company to sell to private interests.
What the people don't know is, when the power company was offered for sale, the prospective buyers looked at the numbers and basically said, "it's not making enough profit, and when it is we will look at it again".
And if any of you recall, the price of electricity went up rather quickly over a relatively short time, and of course not long after it was sold.
I have said for years, that the govt should TAKE BACK, not buy back, all the previously owned public assets, and then reduce or subsidise the cost to the consumer.
They are, after all OUR assets.
It is like when we began extracting gas over here.
We were told by the then govt that 15% of the gas would be committed to WA consumers and industry at a reduced or discounted price.
Yeah, sure, another load of lies and BS from a disgustingly dishonest bunch of lying thieves.
And yet all I hear from those around me is, how wonderful these crooks are, with pathetic blinded fools and their adoration of them referring to them as "The Honourable, the Minister".
You fools!

Hey ALTRAV,
It's like how they promote free trade and the TPP.

The claimed benefits are questionable.
What it means is there's no recourse for citizens by the governments who represent them against multinational corporations who exploit them.

It's not free for us, but free of red tape for them.

Many things are done for interests other than what the public thinks.
I've just been watching this video and it explains the Marshall Plan wasn't for the purposes of rebuilding Europe, it was to give Rockefeller hegemony over Europe.

McDuff’s Mindfields, ep. 52: "William Engdahl on BLM, Color Revolutions, and The Atlantic Council”
http://youtu.be/Qn0AWM7bWwU

I go with second post on first page by runner.

An open forum, with all views.

I only wish we could attract more regular posters, including academics and similar who can use their real name.

One thing I like about olo threads is the unexpected. The first post from runner on this thread was unexpected. I appreciate it, runner. Thank you. Because you generally differ from me I have built up a picture of you in my mind which apparently is unfair.

One thing I dislike about olo threads is the frequent assumption that people with a particular political viewpoint different from that of the poster are more liable to lie or have other character faults which those who agree with the viewer are less likely to have. I am guilty of that also.

It went to pay the pensions of those already on the pension while you were still working.
thinkabit,
Yes, that was the plan as I said earlier. We paid for those Pensioners before us & now the younger generation is paying for us as their successors will pay for them. It's a perfect system !
If only we could have a Flat tax, all would be better off !

So far on this thread we have explored the left and right of political views, the uselessness of academia, the welfare system. and registration of vehicles by State. That exposes us to a wide range of topics within a subject, whether on topic or not. The most educated persons on this forum do their research, and read widely on their subjects. They are known not by sprouting their University Degrees, but their contribution of facts to the discussion.

DAVID F...Always the voice of reason, and most probably the most intelligent contributor on OLO, followed by FOXY and her amazing intellect and research skills.

What do I like about OLO? The colourful characters, and the clear delineation between the Left and Right. The cerebral sparring, and the occasional bluster & bombast from people like me. When all mixed together, makes for an interesting session, I reckon. A panacea that just might keep dementia at bay for another day?

I am so happy that this topic appears to have taken
off in ways I hoped for but wasn't quite sure it
would. We're actually talking to each other. Yay!

Keep it up!

This may sound a bit cheesy - but I can honestly say
that in their own ways, each person has contributed
so much to this forum. Even fights and disagreements
have left many of us re-thinking certain things.

Basically, I believe that people are decent and good
underneath the facades that are often put up. And that
is something I have learned here. And that I'm sure I
shall keep on learning.

Anyway -

Take care.
Stay safe.

And thank you for taking the time to comment.

it should be about fights.

win-win solutions don't really exist, but debate can make a policy idea/outcome more palatable to more, perhaps even to an overwhelming majority sometimes

Dear Chris,

I'm still learning.

And there are skills that take time to develop.

We all have obstacles to over come, and life often
throws curve balls and difficult people at us.
And of course there are just toxic people that not
matter what you say or do - you'll never please.

As I've learned - best to avoid situations that drag
you done. Nobody deserves to always be wrong.

Besides - as the saying goes - there's no point in
watering dead plants!

excuse my typos.

It all depends on our personality.

Yes, we should strive to be civil al of the time.

But, for myself, politics is very much about the issues that divide, albeit at times the same issue of debate can evolve into greater consensus or division.

This is true of most important policy issues.

At the moment, I am preparing a piece on race, a very topical and difficult subject.

In the end, I will annoy some, and hopefully please some.

But we shall see.

The main thing with politics, is to address all sides of the debate as best as one can.

CHRIS LEWIS...My friend, I was a former professional pug in my earlier days in the coppers, and I'm here to tell you if you wish to juxtapose a verbal debate with that of a legitimate 'stink; a blue, or a knuckle on', any of the former will always prevail? It's so much more difficult trying to verbally debate an issue, with a mouth full of busted teeth.

Myself, I'd prefer to employ words like a brawling, or bruising dialogue, or a fierce discussion, rather than that of a 'fight'. After all, it has so many connotations none of them is especially helpful on an august site such as this? I know, I've been thoroughly berated even ostracized for being so aggressive in the past. Moreover, you win no friends, and you lose the respect of your peers.

Foxy,

What I like most is that I can let people know what I THINK about certain topics, whether I am right or wrong. Mr Opinion cogito ergo.

Try doing that in your beloved China, Bronwyn, LOUDmouth and Shadow Minister and see how far you get!

Not that this has anything to do with the current topic but anyway:

Individual, my last post was referring to many of your previous posts on the website on various threads and especially this quote of yours on this thread- "No, I didn't miss the Old Age Pension because it's not Welfare. We bought it up front over a period of 50+ years. Unlike your Super which is provided by your long suffering employer !"

You have repeatedly declared in your past post history that you have already paid for your pension, which as has been pointed out by Paul often enough, is not factually true. (Indeed, even if the Government did set aside a portion of tax-payers tax to return to them later in retirement- we have no proof that you've actually paid any significant amounts of tax. I'm willing to bet, because of the fact that you are an aged pensioner, that you never made much money in life and thus haven't paid much in tax anyway).

However, between this quoted post of yours above and my post, you then did a complete back-flip. With this quote: "Yes, that's the plan. Do you expect old Age Pensioners to pay for their Pension when they're on the Pension ??", you admitted that you haven't actually paid for your pension and agreed with Paul that today's tax-payers are paying your pension. I missed this comment of yours and was replying to your previous posts.

-continued below--

Umm, a debate is also a fight for the hearts and minds of others. You have to fight for your rights, or party

--from above --

But you didn't stop there, you then went on to later say that this is the "prefect" system. Well I disagree that it is the prefect system. The prefect system in my opinion is that everybody take responsibility for themselves and save for their retirement and pay their own way. The next best system is that the government force mandatory savings from their income for their retirement since people won't do it themselves. The worst system is that people don't care/don't plan for their future, live life in the moment and deliberately choose to depend upon the government (which has to collect tax from others and also go into debt) to pay for their retirement. For me, living on the pension should never be the retirement plan for anybody who is fit and intelligent enough to work, but rather the backup safety net if unforeseen events occur in their life that destroys their wealth.

Ok, now back to the topic:

Everything people have said about being free to state their opinions I agree with and like about this forum.

What I don't like is the limits on posts. The 350 word is a bit short I feel, 500 would be better.

What I feel would make this forum better, is if you had a personal account setting to hide the main body of comments of particular commentators of your choice so that only the the first 1/2 lines would show with the option to expand. Also if their was a tally system where account holders could give a thumbs or down to individual posts (although on other web-sites that do this the system lends itself to be abused).

Dear thinkabit,

Gosh, if we could give a thumbs up or down to
certain posters. Some would never get a say.
I don't think that would be really fair.

Then this place could become very dull and boring
indeed. Especially if we all agreed. I wouldn't be
interested in being part of an echo chamber.
And I'm sure neither would you.

Foxy,

The thumbs up or down doesn't stop people from saying stuff.

Many web-sites use such a system, eg: youtube.

Foxy,

The important thing is that people be permitted to say what they THINK.

The LOUDmouths and the Bronwyns and the Shadow Ministers of the world don't like that idea. They want people to think like they do. What they seek is the exercise of power over what others think. That's why they don't see China as a threat because China is doing exactly what they want to do themselves.

Foxy,

Yes, it's preferable to be civil even with those with very different opinions. After all, I'm quite happy for Misopinionated to drop into Adelaide any time so that I can correct her misunderstanding of my views on China - I think it's a totalitarian state, striving to get back a fictitious status (foreigners (Mongols, Manchus) rule China for most of the last thousand years,) with a vicious and violent history of exterminations (the 500 years of total war between 500 and 0 BCE), and I suspect that China is much closer to financial and demographic collapse than is commonly assumed.

Apart from that, I have the greatest respect and affection for Chinese people that I have known - it's vitally important, to avoid slipping into ban easy racism, to distinguish between the government and the people of any country.

She and I could have a civilized coffee together, or sample SA's world-famous wines and then, as my dear old English grandma would suggest, she can kiss my hairy arse.

Joe

i have never known a bad chinese person either, although the chinese fishing in Manhattan's Hudson river were not that keen for a chat when I asked them what they were catching

Chris,

You said you "have never known a bad Chinese person".

You should try getting out more often.

thinkabit, I believe you are referring to another of my forums, and that is Quora.
I find that it also is restrictive and very vague in it's terms of reference, such as they are.
Their policy is "Be nice, Be respectful".
I have constantly attacked them for not being clear about their policy.
I find these two forums to be far too "wussy", and the adjudicators far too inconsistent.
They all appear to react according to what kind of day they're having.
I do not engage in praise, (well not often, and even then it is to acknowledge something worthy of praise, if it is an exceptional point or comment).
Unlike this and other forums, don't kid yourselves, it IS an echo chamber, when the comments and commentors all jump on the virtue band wagon telling each other how wonderful they are.
NOT in keeping with the theme or intent of any forums that I know of if I understand the point of forums in the first place.
If someone makes a winning point and I feel it deserves praise, I will say so, but briefly and not get all warm and fuzzy about it.
If I think the comment is flawed in some way or wrong I will say so.
If the author continues their stance after having been explained why they are wrong, then I will not apologise for any negative comments I might feel necessary to restore the situation to it's correct path.
I have been researching the establishment of a visual, and possibly inter-active electronic medium, something like a pod cast or other similar variants.
The reason being I am disgusted with the sheep mentality of people today, in so much as they have lost their way and allowed PC to take over their lives, and they attempt to spread this disease as far as they can.
I intend to base my medium on the truth and forbid ANY activity or comments based on PC.
In fact it will be the main platform of this medium that only NON-PC comments and commentors may engage or interact.

It looks to me like ALTRAV could use a hug.

Come on folks - lets give him some praise.

Perhaps then he won't feel so excluded,
rejected, and isolated.

After all we all seek validity in what we
express and we all want our self-worth recognised
and appreciated.

There's nothing worse than being on the outside
looking in.

It's a sad image.

Mr Opinion,

tbh, I don't many that well.

The ones I knew were educated, and most shared the same disdain for communism.

my gut feeling is that most people are decent.

Chris,

I don't talk of individual Chinese.

When I use the term Chinese I am referring to the Chinese nation and my comments are generalisations.

When that Chinese businesswoman in Sydney was overheard saying "Aren't the Australians dumb!" I'm quite sure she wasn't talking about individual Australians but was making a generalisation.

And of course I'm sure you would agree with everybody else of OLO that she was't including me in that bunch.

Dear thinkabit,

I forgot about Youtube.

However, as you pointed out people could abuse the system.

I prefer our system - where you're able to suggest
deletion (giving reasons for, of course) which seems
fairer.

Mr O,

People on this forum do say what they think. They're given
a great deal of lee-way.

However, are you suggesting that Joe (Loudmouth), Bronwyn,
and Shadow Minister not be allowed to express their views
about China?

Then aren't you trying to restrict them from being able
to say what they think?

That's a bit hypocritical.

Joe,

I agree we need to separate regimes from people.

For example, my parents who fled from the Communist
Soviet Regime never blamed the Russian people.
The Russian people suffered just as much and in many
cases, even more than anyone else from that regime.

Therefore we need to do the same with the Chinese
people.

Dear Chris,

Good hearts work magic!

thinkabit,
you're not making any sense whatsoever. We paid in to a Pension fund which was gradually eroded so as to have the deductions usable for other things not just the pension.
The Pension fund deduction/contribution was 7.5%. Some of the older wage earners would still remember that showing on the pay slips.
Also, you argue that the Pension we're getting now is being paid for by the taxpayers now. Yes, just as every taxpayer from before us & those after us are paying taxes, some of which go towards the Old Age Pension. You don't seem to understand that this is not a generational contribution/benefit. It is a system to which most people contribute from the day before they start earning wages until they stop earning wages & beyond. Every wage Dollar earned & spent attracts tax, not just income tax ! That goes on for 365 days/year for each Generation which is deemed at 30 years. So, people such as I have paid Tax for 52 years which is over 1⅓ Generations. Do you now see how much money Govt have at their finger tips ? Sadly, incompetent & greedy, useless bureaucrats squander huge sums of our taxes on either themselves or each other.

Foxy,

Are you suggesting that LOUDmouth, Bronwyn, and Shadow Minister should not be allowed to express their views about China?

Why would you want that? They're entitled to say what they think about the Chinese.

If what Indy is saying was true, then ALL taxpayers would qualify for a UNIVERSAL pension. Not so, a person can receive a pension regardless of tax paid in the past. Likewise a taxpayer who has saved for his/her retirement, above and beyond taxation is penalised by a means test on assets and may not receive a pension at all. I would say I have paid as much, or even more tax than many pensioners, yet at 67 now, due to asset testing, fail to qualify.

A simple example, two people with identical incomes, identical age, paying identical tax. The 1st saves nothing throughout his life, pisses it up against the wall as they say. The 2nd saves and invests, at retirement 1st is granted pension welfare as he has no support, 2nd is means tested and denied a pension, too many assets The AGED PENSION is welfare support for the needy, nothing else. Talk of a so called non existent pension fund (are some having their contributions withheld at retirement for no reason) contributed to in the past is a diversion to justify what is a welfare payment.

When one attacks other welfare recipients, like Indy does, for receiving government la graisse, then holds himself up as "holier than thou" whilst receiving government welfare himself, I call out the hypocrisy of it all.

The AGED PENSION is welfare support for the needy, nothing else.
Paul1405,
NO, the Aged Pension is support for people who no longer receive a wage !
As I said often enough, we've paid for that support up front !

I must admit not knowing a lot about this thread, by thread I mean, OA pensions, welfare, or any other form of financial assistance.
I have never availed myself of ANY govt offerings, because I am a proud and righteous person and because I believe I am not entitled to anything, even though by law, I am.
Reason being, because I am a proud person, as someone already pointed out, I accumulated my own wealth and created my own means of income, through properties, both industrial and even some residential, by way of rents, and when the banks were not as greedy as they are today, even interest on cash in the bank.
Well now the more intelligent source of income is taking the cash and building some houses, thereby creating a win for the people needing cheap rents, and denying the banks the many filthy and greedy activities they engage in.
And believe me there are many.
The only thing I think my wife and I have, and I'm not sure whether our older son might have orchestrated it, is a 'seniors card', which I believe we have used the odd time we have gone to Sizzlers.
We don't use ANY govt facilities, or services like bus, train, etc, so we are totally self sufficient and the only discounts or benefits I ALWAYS seek is from the business or industry, and that is my right to get something as cheap as I can, and seeing that they are not govt entity's, I am entitled, and it is incumbent upon me to get the best price I can.
When buying something from these businesses, I don't ask, 'how much is it', I say 'what is your best price', because I know there is a profit in it and I know that there is a good chance it is over-priced.

The old Age Pension is & should always be for wage earners. Self-funded retirees have had the support of Govt by way of tax breaks, write-offs etc. So, it's only reasonable that they should not be eligible for the Old Age pension.
Wage earners do not get these concessions throughout their working life. We wouldn't have an economy if everyone were to have a business so, we therefore have employers & employees.
In the majority of cases, the employers are financially better off than employees who, in the majority of cases do not earn enough to be self-funded in retirement. Govt make no provision for such ability !
I know people who proclaim loudly & proudly how they're 'no burden' on the Govt but what they don't proudly & loudly proclaim is the fact that they were a burden on the rest of us all their lives by way of tax breaks, negative gearing & write-offs etc etc.

Good points Individual.

Yes, some people do get tax breaks throughout their working lives through various tax concessions.

As someone has already pointed out, tax breaks aside, if you don't plan ahead and drink, smoke, go night clubbing, pubs, the footy and generally piss your money up against the wall, trying to live the "good life", you won't have anything to show for it later in life, when you really need it.
Don't think for one minute I am some kind of business mogul, I am, and always have been a "blue collar worker", like everyone else.
If you've followed my comments and attitude here on OLO, you will agree, I don't talk/think, like some glorified academic mogul like Packer or anyone you describe as getting tax breaks and living in the top end of town.
No I've said it before, those of you, which consists of the majority of Aussies, believe in the mantra, "I work to live", unlike myself who has lived by the words, "I live to work".
Now I realise that the mind set of most people is to "have fun and enjoy life", well I hope you had fun and enjoyed your life, but hows it looking for you now?
It's a shame that people have wasted their lives away when they were young and viable, to now having to struggle and find themselves living a very dependent lifestyle, now that they are old and infirm or unable to work.
I have never seen the OA pension as a generational thing but more a practical thing, but based on a mix of charity and necessity.
So if I can do it, and I'm just another average Joe with knuckle rash and an attitude, then there is no reason why everyone else can't do it, but for the fact you all preferred to have fun spending money, instead of enjoying accumulating it.
And believe me, it is enjoyable accumulating it, if only for the feeling of security and independence knowing you never have to go "cap in hand" just to survive or stay alive.

Altrav, if I had my time again, I would have also saved and invested in housing.

As it stands, i have done ok, but will probbaly eventually get a part-pension, albeit the rules for pensions will keep changing over the next few decades

ALTRAV,
Your idea is sound provided everything else is perfect, alas ! People have accidents, get sick, lose money to corruption, to crime, things break, etc ete etc. Many simply don't get paid enough to save ! In many cases Govt fails to set an economic environment for people to plan ahead.
That's why I believe in an Old Age Pension scheme for every wage earner.
I also agree that people should refrain from blowing it into the wind & pi$$ing it against the wall & some penalising should be in place for that.
I have neighbours who I have never seen going to work yet they receive about $300 a month more than normal Pensioners. The system is so flawed that it allows them to exploit Welfare & the bureaucrats in Welfare aren't doing their job despite handsome Public Service salaries !
I find it somewhat puzzling how those Regressive who constantly bleat fairness & compassion are in fact the very first to condemn the Old Age pension !

How did we get from discussing the forum - onto
discussing old aged pensions?

I guess that just proves how fair this forum is.
Instead of making us stick to the topic - we're
allowed to go off in various tangents as the
conversations take off - proving that once
again we really are given a great deal of lee-way
here. Something we should all appreciate.
And possibly the reason we all keep coming back.

Foxy,

You asked "How did we get from discussing the forum - onto discussing old aged pensions?"

Haven't you heard of the 'common denominator'?

Indy, just for the record, I too have had set-backs, not only those you mentioned, but much bigger.
How about just one being I died, (so they said, through loss of blood) from an Aortic Dissection.
If your not sure what that is look it up.
Most of the other set-backs were all due to the regressive attitudes of the govt and the people in general, being closed minded and lacking imagination and vision.
I don't believe the govt should be allowed or involved in your ability to create wealth, which is what I am referring to.
As for relying on saving from your wages, well it is possible but in and of itself, it will never be enough to live off.
No I'm referring to extra curricular activities.
In other words instead of wasting time and money, find something to DO that will generate income.
Whether it means your time instead of down the pub or the footy, or simply creating a means that will generate wealth, WITH or WITHOUT involving your physical time, and effort.

Mr O,

You ask have I heard of the "common denominator?"

Of course. But this is not a feature shared by all
member here. Only a very small few.
Hence my question. And as I pointed out - this forum
allows this lot to get their views across which is
the point being made. More than fair.

Indy, if you have a 'Seniors Card' you can get a free sugar coated doughnut from 'Doughnut King' to go with your sugar coated view of aged Welfare.

If after WWII Australia had gone along with the Chifley Labor Government and established a National Superannuation Scheme then, we would be in a much better position today. With an ever ageing population the unsustainable burden of direct pension payments would be lifted off the taxpayer. Unfortunately the Menzies Conservative Government took office in 1949, national superannuation was seen as socialism, and the idea was dropped. The conservative view of superannuation is it is a private benefit only for the elite amongst workers. It took until Labor introduced National Superannuation in 1992, over 40 years were lost, and then too many concessions were made to business to get their fingers in the pie to make it as effective a it should be. Conservative governments not only hate public superannuation, but they also hate the social welfare system in general. If they had their way there would be no Aged Pension, but they are also smart enough to realise such a measure would see them out on their ear at the next election if not sooner!

Foxy,

You could have fooled me.

Paul, scoff if you like, but my point is/was that, as you put it, the sugar coated doughnut was from a private industry source, which by your attitude, should make you very happy that I'm not "sponging" off the govt.
As for your beef about the antics with govt and super, I must say that, even though there would have been SOME money in the kitty, it would never ever be enough to live off for the rest of ones days.
Unless retirees, get REAL discounts and REAL money saving benefits, and not the tokenism that is the current offerings, it will never be possible to live comfortably without some kind of income booster or topper-upper.
My wife and I live very frugal lifestyles.
We actually enjoy being together and never felt the need to seek other forms of enjoyment or interaction.
Apart from family, we each only have one or two friends (of our own) who we get together with once a week, me for lunch, (that's why I mentioned Sizzlers, because their good value for money, because their business model is 'buffet' or 'all you can eat'), and she for coffee with her friends.
No fancy pompous going out to dinner at some so-called fine dining rip-off, sure we still go out for dinner, but it's very rare and it would be for an occasion mostly to do with the family.

Mr O,

You said - "You could have fooled me".

No. that was not my intention.

Besides, it's better to let people think you're
a fool. Then to speak and confirm it! :-)

So watch what you post.

What ALTRAV & Paul1405 appear to not think about is that if everyone were to manage as they do, who would do the menial, low paid work that doesn't afford saving ?
Look at housing for example. Can anyone seriously say the rents are realistic ? Just because people cough up exorbitant rents does not equate to a reasonable standard of living.
If we really want fairness at a level that enables people to save sufficiently for old age then we must first curb the excessive charges businesses demand in return for low quality service.
Let those who "don't sponge off the Govt" actually not sponge off the Govt & see how they manage !

Foxy,

Trust me, I'll be the first to admit what I am and happy to do so. Nothing gives me more pleasure than being what I am. How many people can say that?

Mr O,

You may be happy with how you are, but "self-love"
only goes so far.

How do others feel about you?

After all you don't live in a bubble and our
inter-actions with others reflect on us and how
we're perceived.

Kisses on the mirror is not a good look for most people.

Mr Opinion wrote: "Trust me, I'll be the first to admit what I am and happy to do so. Nothing gives me more pleasure than being what I am. How many people can say that?"

Dear Mr Opinion,

Everybody can say that. However, I think very few people may know what they are. What I am depends partially of how I come across to others. I can't admit what I am because I keep changing. Sometimes I am happy being what I am. Sometimes I am very dissatisfied being what I am. When I was much younger I was bragging about myself. A man heard me and said, "Self-praise stinks!" That remark has stayed with me.

david f,

It's good to see you are on the ball.

Now go and have a look at my last post in Articles section under 'The China Syndrome'.

Mr O,

I told you in that discussion to contact Canberra
with your concerns. You replied that you thought it
better to contact Gladys Liu or Mr Andrew Forrest
instead.

No. I think you'd be better off getting in touch with:

Ambassador Cheng Jingye
at the - Embassy of the People's Republic of China
15 Coronation Drive
Yarralumla ACT 2600

Tel: (02) 6228-3998

Or your local Chinese take-away.

Your choice.

Dear Mr Opinion,

I looked at your post in the China Syndrome and don't see its relevance to my comment.

david f,

I'm sorry to hear that.

But the good news on the TV tonight is that Soot Morrison is hiring 500 cyber agents to combat China's cyber hacking attacks so there could be a job for you in the making.

Mr O,

David F., is an Oxford Professor in his 90s.
We are privileged to have him on this forum.
He doesn't need a job. But you could definitely
learn some lessons in manners.

Dear Foxy,

I am 94 and was a professor but not an Oxford professor. I met my wife at Cambridge but was not a Cambridge professor either. Just taught in the USA.

david f,

That is excellent.

Are you from the Arts?

Dear David F.,

Sorry I got mixed up. I'd forgotten that you'd
told us all this. Does your wife still write?
You used to give us glimpses of her work at times.
I really enjoyed it. As I enjoy reading your posts
on this forum.

Hi david f,

Hopefully you can post a little more on the forum. Your posts make for a refreshing change from some of the dribble posted by us regular pretend know-it-all's, me included. Anyway its a good forum, a bit like the Sydney Domain on a Sunday afternoon.

John Webster (December 1913 – 15 December 2008), aka Mo(u)hammed Jon Webster, or more simply just "WEBSTER", was a soap box orator and public speaker who principally plied his trade at Speakers' Corner near Marble Arch at Hyde Park, London and beneath the Moreton Bay Fig trees of The Domain, Sydney from the early 1950s till the late 1980s. He also made sorties into the then wilds of Arabia, Tasmania, Melbourne's Yarra Bank and various other outposts of the erstwhile British Empire. Webster, who almost exclusively referred to himself in the third person, cultivated a provocative oratorical style of delivering a wide-reaching and eclectic philosophy in a hybrid carny barking cockney/Australian accent. He was the most prominent and listened-to of all long term speakers at the Sydney Domain. Journalist John Edwards wrote in 1971 "The only (modern) force is the inimitable (sic) Webster who, lately returned from England, is responsible for most of the popularity of the (Sydney) Domain." Nene King observed of a day spent at the Sydney Domain "Webster (no first name, no mister) commanded the largest audience as he waved a verbal flag for the British Empire - 'We Englishmen are God's gift to the whole world.'"

We young rabble rouser's were seen as the Communist element hell bent on destroying the British Empire of 1970! We seen Webster as a latter day Hitler, or at the very least an Oswald Mosley with his British accent. The verbal exchanges from atop his ladder with a heckler could be legendary, a somewhat fiery exchange, with the heckler usually coming off second best. Heaven help any other would-be orator who got there early and took Webster's "spot". such was in for a verbal shellacking of no end.

Hi Paul,

What an interesting life you're lead.

Why not start a discussion of those times?

It would be great to re-live some of those for
the rest of us here on this forum.

You'd get many joining in, I'm sure.
And the rest of us would drool just reading.

Foxy,

Isn't Paul1405 giving an account of John Webster's life, not his own?

Are there any reactionaries left in the world? Definitely no more Fouriers or Marxes and I think people like Webster would have been in the last bunch.

Mr O,

You ask if - "Are there any reactionaries left?"

Of course there are. You have only to look around
you.

There's the "Black Lives Matter" movement.
There's the "Indigenous Rights" groups.
There's the "Climate Change" activists.
There's the "Anti-Domestic Violence" brigade.
There's the "Team Australia" bunch.
There's the "Pro Life", advocates.
There's the " Lesbian and Gay Rights" activists.
Thee's the "Palestinian Rights", group.
There's the "Zionist" advocates.
There's the "Justice for victims of child sex abuse".
There's groups for single - mothers, the homeless,
people with disabilities, aged-care. You name it.

The list is long and never ending. As people find
new causes to fight for and support.

Interesting times we live in.

Mr O,

You would probably support the "Anti China"
brigade?

Foxy dear Foxy,

Look what Scott Morrison has gone and done:

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/pm-warns-australians-to-prepare-for-a-more-dangerous-more-disorderly-world/ar-BB16b0IC?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds

He has taken my ideas and made them his own.

Mr O,

I guess Mr Morrison felt that this country's defence
forces will need to be prepared for any future,
no matter how unlikely.

Foxy,

PS. Scott Morrison said "We will never surrender this. Never."

That statement might go down in the history books along side a note that says: The PM who had to surrender Australia to the Chinese.

Foxy,

Putting prejudices to one side I think you must agree that things aren't looking too good.

I think a successful invasion of Australia by China would be seen by the Chinese diaspora as the jewel in the crown for China's global empire under Xi.

Mr O,

I'm actually rather busy with my life at the moment.
I have so much on my plate just dealing with
family, grand-children, and community groups.
Rightly or wrongly
China is the least of my concerns at present.

Perhaps you have too much time on your hands.

Foxy,

If it happens it happens and everyone will just have to get used to being part of a Chinese empire.

I have been saying for a long time that I think Australia has a Chinese future and the way things are going I might be proven to be right.

Hi Foxy,

Tell the grandkids to relax, tell them to think of how good life was for them back in the good old days of the 1950's Play them their favourite Perry Como record, tell em' its a 78 they'll understand that. If you haven't got Perry's latest, just borrow it from ALTIE or Hassy, they have his complete collection from the 1950's. None of that newfangled subversive rock n' roll rubbish for those guys! Its Perry or nothing!

Paul1405,

Foxy is in shock after learning that Scott Morrison has been stealing my ideas on China and putting them up as his own.

Everyone knows that when Mr Opinion warns about the threat of China it is because he is a dummy but when Scott Morrison (today) warns about the threat of China it is because he is smart.

I can handle being the dummy and I am happy to let Scott Morrison take my ideas on China and put them up as his own. Everyone on OLO knows that he took his ideas off me.

Paul, I think I might have to pull back on criticising you hence forth, here-after.
I feel responsible for your current strange and inexplicable and somewhat less coherent or erratic commentary.
Some of your last posts have seemed a little vague and expose a very unstable and unsure conviction of the topics you refer to or comment on.
Just thought I'd mention it in case you are struggling.
I can't afford to lose you as you are one of the few on here I disagree with so much.
It would leave us with mainly you know who, and that would not do as they are not very challenging at all.

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the advice.

I'll look into it.

Have you given a discussion on the 1950s any more
thought?

It would be interesting to read how our forum members
remember those times. Especially what they remember.
What made an impression on them. And why.
It's always good to see from both sides of a coin so
to speak - but not only both sides - but to take a look
around the edges as well.

Everyone has a story to tell.

They're all worth telling.

Take care.
Stay safe.

Hi Foxy,

Yes we have oodles of past experience on the forum to draw from. Most will present an idyllic picture of joy and contentment, seeing the past through their rose coloured glasses. I much enjoyed Clive James and his 'The Kid From Kogarah' a lighthearted look at Clive's growing up in suburbia and other insights. Thanks for suggesting the topic.

Thanks Foxy for suggesting the topic.

Paul1405,

How realistic do you think Clive James was being?

I concur with you that there are a lot of posters on OLO who see the world through rose coloured glasses. Unfortunately there are a lot of evil people in the world who take advantage of them. Which begs the question: Are people inherently evil and it is good that must be enculturated within the social context? Rather than the proposition that people are inherently good. This is something religions have grappled with: How can we account for the coexistence of good and evil?

Could it be that people are neither inherently good nor inherently evil? Could it be that humans react to circumstances like any other animal? Good and evil are human constructions defined by humans. Possibly, both Hitler and Stalin thought they were doing good.

I think my best year was 1929. I was a little boy who loved my grandmother.

https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4977 contains a picture of me as a little boy.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You ask a simple question, but the reply is not so simple.

I’ll narrow mine down to the following.

I see the Forum as a laboratory of ideas, beliefs and opinions and a wealth of information and personal experiences. I come here to bounce my ideas off the critical minds of whoever accepts the challenge, reciprocating with a similar service whenever I have something to offer in return.

Instead of a laboratory, the swinging doors tend to create quite a different atmosphere, more like that of the local pub where the exchange is more robust, the language more rugged and less polite, less respectful. Just plain confrontation to put it mildly.

Pushing the heavy oak doors of the Forum, sometimes gives me the impression of having entered the nave of a house of worship with people praying and reciting verses from holy scriptures, while the high priest sings psalms to some hypothetical God from the pulpit.

On other occasions, the Forum seems to be taking place in the streets where crowds of people are demonstrating and parading about with banners and flags and drums, gesticulating and waving and shouting slogans. Who are these people ? Is the Forum "awash with Lefties" ? Greenies ? Or are they Nazis, fascists, anti-Semitics, white supremacists, monarchists, or just fairly harmless “conservative old men" ?

Whatever it is, not too many “ordinary people” on this Forum, I guess.

.

Dear Paul,

I think that the 1950s era would make an interesting topic
of discussion for quite a few on this forum.
And a lesson for others.

Dear David F.,

What a sweet picture.

Thank You for sharing.

I've always been interested in history. In ancestries.
Where our families came from. I often watch the TV show -
"Who do you think you are?" It never fails to entertain.

You loved your grand-mother. That's wonderful.
My grand-children love coming to my home. They also
bring me so much joy. Family means a great deal.

Hi David,

What a little angel ! I'll bet ;)

Keep writing articles for OLO ! You have so much to contribute !

Cheers,

Joe

david f,

It is one of insoluble questions that are great to try and work out an answer.

The problem is that it exists and unfortunately a lot of our species fit the category.

We are the only species on Earth that kills and destroys other things for greed or pleasure. Not all of us, but definitely a lot of us.

Misopinionated,

It might be a good idea, before you get too far up yourself, to try to find some new idea that hasn't occurred to almost all of us many times.

You might have to wait until you've finished high school first: so read and observe and learn.

Joe

Dear Banjo,

Thank You for your summation of the forum.

You've put it very well.

Tolerance for all sorts of views
should be key to all discussions. However when
labelling and name - calling starts it lowers the
bar for everybody. Then one begins to question -
"Who on earth are these people, and where do they come
from?" Some appear to live in sewers from the way they
talk. Others are just plain bullies. But here as in
life, I guess it takes all sorts and in the forum's
case anonymity certainly eggs some on.

But then we get to be more selective in who we inter-act
with and who we avoid. There's enough choices on this
forum. So we can find common ground.

I am grateful
to people like yourself, and many others. You keep me
coming back. The others - don't really matter much in
the general scheme of things. They have their own
problems to contend with. I can leave them to it and not
let them affect me one way or another.

There's several here who have certain traits and
psychological make-ups that will never change.

Not much any of us can do. Except possible note how not
to behave

Mr Opinion wrote,‘We are the only species on Earth that kills and destroys other things for greed or pleasure. Not all of us, but definitely a lot of us.’

Dear Mr Opinion,

We are animals, act like other animals and other animals act like us. There are other species on Earth that kill and destroy other things for greed or pleasure.

https://www.quora.com/Do-any-animals-kill-for-fun?share=1

Domestic cats. Domestic cats are often fed by owners, so they don’t need to hunt animals for nutrition. However, their instincts make them hunt animals anyway. They will kill small animals and leave the bodies lying around. Usually they play with the animal beforehand, torturing it long before they finally kill it. Domestic cats are killing so many wild birds for fun that many species are endangered. Again, they leave the bodies around to rot. They are not doing it to eat. They are doing it for fun. Cats, domestic and wild, kill animals for fun. The mothers will often wound an animal, taking it back to their kittens to play with.

Domestic dogs often chase squirrels during walks. The owners feed them. However, their instinct is to chase and kill small animals.

Just about all mammalian carnivores hunt other animals for fun.

Sea otters kill seals leaving their bodies to rot. However, they have this other behavior of raping seals, before or after death.

Some squids gather together to mate. Sharks will swim through the swarm, eating squid as they go. This is for nutrition. The sharks will gorge until they are stuffed. They will then vomit up the squid meat emptying their stomachs. They then swim through the swarm some more, eating more squid. I count that as ‘fun’, since they really didn’t have to eat so much squid.

david f,

Very interesting.

I'm a sociologist not a zoologist but I do find the sciences fascinating and like learning from them.

I do have a question: Is the animal behaviour you're describing instinctive behaviour where the cat for example is biologically programmed to do these things and cannot decide whether or not it should behave in this manner? Humans can: we can decide whether or not to kill for pleasure. I don't think the animals you describe above can do that. I think they act on instinct.

Dear Mr Opinion,

I don't think we can separate instinctual behaviour from pleasurable behaviour. Behaviour may become instinctual because it is pleasurable. A cat torturing a mouse may get pleasure from torturing a mouse. Before Linnaeus humans used to produce bestiaries which would describe species of animals but not include humans. Linnaeus described humans as animals. Humans are classified as mammals because humans have the same distinctive features found in all members of this large group. Humans are also classified within: the subgroup of mammals called primates; and the subgroup of primates called apes and in particular the 'Great Apes'. We lack some of the ways of showing pleasure that other animals are capable of. We don't purr.

david f,

I think the thing that sets us humans apart from the animals you listed above is that humans make conscious decisions re killing for pleasure and exercise free will in deciding whether to kill or not whereas the animals do not behave in that manner and as such are behaving instinctively not being able to exercise control over their action irrespective of whether or not they gain pleasure from the act. Therefore I think I am correct in saying that humans are the only ones that kill for pleasure or greed when the act is predicated on the conscious decision to kill for pleasure or greed.

Dear Mr Opinion,

You think you are correct. I don't think you are correct. I don't wish to continue the discussion.

Dear Mr Opinion,

I don't want to continue this discussion.

Interesting debate last few posts (David and Mr O).

IMO, we are an animal, but the most complex of all given our potential to influence and dominate.

I think we are all capable of trying to dominate for the hell of it, but some more than others, and some more unlikely due to good ethics handed down from generation to generation.

Even then, some of the most dangerous come from middle or upper income backgrounds and behave contrary to their education experience.

As my prime interest is politics/policy, I think we are mostly self-interested, driven by our immediate desires, but that most of us know that it is in our interest to cooperate, to get on, and to get things done for the society's benefit most of the time.

Of course, I only offer my opinion, and plenty of others may argue we are social animals.

Chris, could you clear up or expand on your comment;
"even then, some of the most dangerous come from middle or upper income backgrounds and behave contrary to their education background".
I ask because even though I want to agree, I can't quite, because my experience throughout MY life, and the interactions I have had, coupled with both anecdotal and empirical evidence, has presented a broader base of people or types of people that fit your example, than you have mentioned.
I would ask why you did not include, if not focus more, on the lower income?

Chris Lewis and ALTRAV,

You are both heading in the right direction.

I'm disappointed david f decided to throw in the towel re our little discussion. I'm assuming it dawned on him from what I was saying that humans behave culturally whereas animals behave instinctively. It's been said that the only thing instinctive about human behaviour is childbirth.

Mr O,on the face of it, it sounds reasonable when considering the full emotional spectrum of humans and their antics.
Just to pick up, or correct other commentors previous points, animals do kill for pleasure and I would suggest that the best people to speak to and are most familiar with this subject, are farmers.
They'l tell you of the senseless slaughter of lambs and other livestock by other animals.
And NOT for food!

ALTRAV,

What animals kill farm animals for pleasure?

Misanthrop,

Dingoes. Wild dogs. Wild cats. Probably wild pigs.

I lived in a self-determining Aboriginal community which had 8000 acres of land and a stud flock of Merinoes. They were having trouble with dogs getting into the sheep, so they got rid of the sheep.

Joe

Altrav,

i think one of US mass murders at high school, the parents of the youth were award winning state school teachers.

At the time, this was a shock to me.

The youth felt neglected by his parents, and that he often felt ridiculed.

Even with what seems caring and well informed parents to most of us, a person can go haywire and commit some serious sick crimes for his or her own reasons.

Then there are others, much less fortunate in life with low income and less obvious advantages, that turn out to be great or competent individuals and/or societal examples.

LOUDmouth,

Dingoes. Wild dogs. Wild cats.

Are you aware that these animals hunt prey for food? They are hunters and kill to survive.

They have evolved as hunters. They eat things that eat other things. They act on instinct which tells them to kill in order to survive. They don't have any choice in it, they are compelled by evolution to do it. Every kill represents a meal whether or not it is consumed.

killer whales kill whales, eat their tongues and leave rest to rot.

Does that count Mr O?

Chris,

Might be that whale bodies are a totem for the killer whale clan. Or whale tongue might be a delicacy to killer whales - do they eat it with caviar?

But one thing for sure: I'm damn glad not to have been born a krill.

not sure about caviar, but they are smart so may well do.

if a killer whale enters an area with white pointers, the latter will try and flee.

the killer whales simply charge them fom below and turn white pointers upside down, when they become rather useless.

here is more on the fear of the poor white pointers.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/great-white-sharks-are-completely-terrified-orcas-180972009/

Chris,

I'm petrified of killer whales. And if I'm afraid then I bet those white pointer sharks must be shaking in their boots!

Misop,

Only those killer whales in the Caspian Sea.

Joe

https://aeon.co/essays/fish-are-nothing-like-us-except-that-they-are-sentient-beings?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a50585273f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_06_29_04_12&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-a50585273f-68658997 is an article which tells of scientific experiments which show fish are sentient creatures. They do not operate solely by programmed behaviour or instinct. The difference between humans and other animals is a difference in degree not in kind. A smaller proportion of human behaviour may be based on instinct than the behaviour of other animals but the difference is of degree not kind. I think all animals including humans have both instinctive and sentient behaviour. I have three children. The behaviour that led me to have three children is basically the same which leads the male fox to engage with the female fox to produce cubs. We are programmed to do it.

Evolution works by small changes. Animals have developed which depend to a greater degree on sentience or conscious behaviour than other animals. However, it is likely that the behaviour of all animals including humans is a combination of instinct and sentience.

Mr O, do you like Chinese, comes in Sweet N' Sour to suit all tastes.

The 'Old Man', of his 5 kids everyone said I was the closest. For all those who hate my political thinking on the Forum, blame Daddy, he was the biggest influence on me from an early age, sharing a beer in later life and talking politics among other things was a favourite of his. The 'Old Man' was a "Langite", devotee of Jack Lang (1876-1975), he was one of Lang's young men, and knew the 'Big Fella' well. Always claimed Lang was Australia's greatest politician, I would agree, but add the proviso "never to be Prime Minister". Pulled 200,000 to a political rally in Centennial Park when Sydney's population was about one million.

For Mr O, the Old Man's take on Chinese; "The Chow (his description) is a fair bloke, do you no harm." Remains to be seen these days. Life during the Depression, the no-go areas in the slums of Paddington and Surry Hills, (gangs and crime) the opium dens around Haymarket (drugs). People lining up at the Town Hall, to get a government handout, a cabbage off the back of a truck (Jobseeker). Men on relief shovelling sand, (work for the dole). The new burb that sprung up called Fly Flat, (the first unofficial name of Sydney Airport) where many of the evicted built shanties, no running water or power, eventually the government sent around the water cart to help out, shacks built from materials people had pilfered from unoccupied rental houses, gal iron, doors etc. Families on the streets with all their belongings, outside the house where they once lived, the landlord had evicted them for non payment of rent. Children on a cold winters day, with a thin dress and no shoes, freezing cold. Not all peaches and cream for everyone in those days.

david f,

It's fascinating stuff and I'm interested to hear your take on instinct in humans.

What things would you say are instinct re humans?

Mr O,

The question of "instinct" in humans is an interesting one.

Most modern psychologists agree that human beings do not
have any "instincts". As "instinct" is a behaviour pattern
with three essential features. It is complex, it is unlearned,
and it appears in all normal members of the species under
identical conditions.

For example, all members of some bird or insect species will
build complex nests of exactly the same type, even if they
have never seen such nests built before, as soon as the nesting
season begins. Any instincts we once once had , however, have
been lost in the course of our evolution.

The idea that we do not have instincts is difficult for some
people to accept, because it seems to run counter to "common
sense". One reason for the difficulty is that the word
"instinct" is often used very loosely in ordinary speech.
People talk about "instinctively" stepping on the brake, or
"instinctively" mistrusting someone, when these actions and
attitudes are, in fact culturally learned.

Another reason is that much of our learned behaviour is
so taken for granted that it becomes "second nature" to us.
The behaviour seems so "natural" that we lose the awareness
that it is learned, not inherited. But if you think about it,
you will see that there is no human behaviour that fits the
definition of instinct above.

We do have some genetically determined types of behaviour, of
course, but these are "simple reflexes" involuntary muscular
responses, such as starting at an unexpected loud noise,
throwing out our arms when we lose our balance, pulling back
our hand when it touches a hot surface and so on.

We also have a few inborn, basic "drives" - organic urges
that need satisfaction, such as our desires for self
preservation, for food and drink, for sex, and perhaps for the
company of other people. But the way we actually satisfy these
drives is learned through cultural experience.

Most people, of course, learn to fulfill their drives in the
way their culture tells them to.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Mr O,

We are not programmed to satisfy our drives in any particular
way. If we were, we would all fulfill our drives in a rigid,
identical manner. In fact unlike all other species, we can
even override our drives completely. We can ignore the drive
for self preservation by committing suicide or by risking our
lives for others. Protesters can ignore the drive for food and
go on hunger strikes, even if it means starvation.

The clergy and others can suppress the sex drive and live out
their lives in celibacy. Hermits can override the drive for
human company and live in isolation.

Within very broad limits, "human nature"
is what we make of it, and what we make of
it depends largely on the culture in which
we happen to live.

One of the most liberating aspects of the sociological
perspective is that it strips away myths about our social
behaviour, showing that what seems "natural" or "instinctive"
is usually nothing more than a cultural product of a specific
human society at a particular moment in history.

Foxy, I would say that we don't learn how to have sex, rather we learn how not to have sex.

I seems to me that typically a male and female don't need to told how to have sex. But rather they need to be told who they can't have sex with (eg: close relatives) where they can't have sex (eg. on display in public), etc. The way to have reproductive sex, ie. actual mechanics of it, I think they can figure out all by themselves.

Also, I would have thought that actions like a mother breast-feeding her baby are rather instinctive.

Foxy,

That is an excellent account. I like your breadth of knowledge and critical thinking.

There might however be one human instinct as one anthropologist said: childbirth.

Thinkabit,

There are many different ways to have sex - we don't all
do it in the same way or with the same people. Same as
not all mothers breast-feed. All of those things are
learned behaviours. And we can chose whether we do it or
not and how we do it, and with whom.

con't from previous:

I will agree with you though that we can override our urges. Eg, a mother may not breast feed her baby and let it starve to death. But I'm pretty certain that the basic required series of actions to let a baby suckle doesn't need to be shown to her in most cases*, although they can be taught/instructed how to improve their technique. Also, the baby "knows" how to suckle without actually being taught. A baby maybe taught to improve its suckling perhaps- but the basic action is inbuilt.

*Sometimes there can be complications and the mother does need help- there's even heath care professionals that specialize in this very endeavour- but generally the mother at a basic level just "knows" what to do.

Dear Mr Opinion,

It’s hard to say what is instinct since we rationalize. We find logical reasons for merely following our instincts. We still have the instincts of our tribal ancestors. It is instinctive to regard someone who looks different from us as the enemy since in tribal times he might be as members of other tribes might be the enemy. In multicultural, multiethnic Australia we have to disregard those feelings if we want to live together. I think racism and prejudice are built into us as a heritage from our tribal ancestors.

I think the belief in the mumbojumbo of religion in also built into us. If we look at such religious beliefs as life after death, virgins having babies, dietary laws and other nonsense with the cold light of reason they don’t stand up. They should be rejected. However, it kept the tribe together, and it still exploits tribal feelings.

Governments, businesses and advertisers appeal to our instincts to buy what we don’t need, equate cars with sex (sometimes there is a direct connection.), risk being killed or kill people we have nothing against and ignore our instincts that tell us it is nonsense.

“The greatest mistake that we can make, however, is to assume that principles which once were true remain true forever.” Edward A. Filene, December 9, 1936

thinkabit,

Not all mothers have this "basic level" that you speak of.
And many prefer bottle-feeding to breast feeding for a
variety of reasons. So breast feeding is not an "instinct".
But learned behaviour - especially when taught by a nurse
as to how to do it - or not. If it was "instinctive"
then every mother would do it. And they don't.

How on earth did go from what we think about the forum, to the topic of "instincts"?
Well seeing as we are here, I must add that there are some things which are instinctive in ALL animals, and that is the NEED for sex.
In what we generally regard as animals, (the ones that don't look like humans) the urge to have sex is instinctive, and in the animal kingdom, it is a natural and instinctive act to "rape", so as to fulfill or quell what is natural and instinctive.
For those little sensitive wall flowers out there, get out more often and you will see animals, like cats, getting raped as a matter of course.
Then you get another type of animal, like horses and cows, who instinctively and again naturally engage in a practice referred to as "presenting".
This is where the female, (cow or mare) instinctively know when they want to be "mounted", and they perform a ritual whereby they display their rear end or flaunt it, in the front of and close up to the stallion or bull.
Although in both cases the male takes control and instinctively mounts the female, without any objections, (not always though, the female might be having a bad hair day or who knows what).
Humans are no different, because we are animals too.
The men have not changed, in that they are always horny and given the opportunity will "hump"anything that moves.
Historically we also used to rape the women as a matter of course,
Heck, in Italy it was the custom, up until the mid 20th century, and still may be in some regions, to kidnap a girl and marry them, even though I imagine that is no longer the case or a very minority today.
One thing that is instinctive in women is the sudden urge to want to procreate.
Any woman who suppresses this urge is fighting nature, and we all know that never ends well.
Once a child is born, it follows that the mother is "naturally" and normally instinctively designed to nurture and rear them.

Foxy, breast feeding IS instinctive!
Those who choose not to don't because of some impediment.
If the impediment is physical, then it's a given, and the baby may be fed by, (I forget what you call them) another woman who is lactating and as it turns out women can begin lactating because of certain physiological and psychological triggers.
But the fact that a normal healthy (at least physically) woman chooses not to breast feed is an affront to nature, and a dereliction of duty to THE child.
Mothers milk is a necessary food for a baby, especially the first few feeds where the milk contains a special ingredient that is of utmost importance to the baby in many ways, not just assisting in the creation and strengthening of the immune system, but so much more.
I'm no expert, but an expert will explain the absolute importance of breast feeding, especially in the beginning, and that does not include expressing breast milk for later consumption.
The breast milk losses many properties by expressing and storage.
Nature designed it that the milk goes straight from breast to baby, that's it, end of!
It is a matter of record that a lot of the problem with kids AND adults of today, can be attributed to them being reared on anything but mothers milk, such as formula and the like.
You can prattle on aimlessly about how the baby formula's of today have all the vitamins and blah, blah, blah.
It's very simple, unless you can create that child's mothers milk, it's crap, not only is it crap, you are in fact harming the baby in stunting it's development and introducing health deficiencies that will affect it for the rest of it's life.
Not too many people want to be seen as the bearer of bad news and in fact be virtue shaming these so called career women of today, who stupidly think they can have it all and not have any consequences.
Another way of looking at it is that those early years are the most important, for the baby/child, not you!

Of course we do have a few inborn basic drives but the way we
actually satisfy these drives is learned through cultural
experience. Most people, learn to fulfill their
drives in the way their culture tells them to. We are not
programmed to satisfy them in any particular way.
If we were, we would all fulfill our drives
in a rigid, identical manner.
We don't. In fact, as stated earlier, unlike other species, we
can even override our drives completely.

Hi ALTRAV,

Not so sure about breast feeding being instinctive.
Especially for the mother. Many women don't succeed
at it. And in the United States formula-fed babies
are popular. Don't get me wrong I'm all for breast
feeding. And I do think it's best for baby. However,
in today's society it's another choice that women make.
To some it does not come naturally - no matter how hard
they may try. I was lucky. It worked for me.

We've just had another example of why the forum
is popular. We may start out with one subject and
before we know it it's gone off on a different
tangent alltogether.

But no complaints. That's how we learn, and grow,
doing research on subjects we may otherwise not
have looked into. Plus the challenges we throw out and
are thrown to us by various people all add to making
this a more enjoyable experience .

mhaze put it so well when he posted - words to the effect:

"I come onto this forum to bounce my ideas
off the critical minds of whoever accepts
the challenge, reciprocationg with a similar
service whenever I have something to offer in return."

Instinctive does not mean universal. For a species to survive there must be a certain number who feel an urge to mate with a member of the species of the opposite sex. However, the species can survive without every member of it having the instinctive drive.

Foxy,

You don't seem to have read my post properly. I'm not saying that people can't override what I call in "instinctive" behaviour. Indeed, I freely admitted that mothers can override breast-feeding. But what I'm saying is that there are complex behaviours that humans know how to do without being taught.

Now, it may be that we differing on what an instinctive behaviour is. I'm using the word to mean complex behaviour that most people (sometimes of just the same sex) can do/know how to do if not explicitly shown/taught. Whereas you seem to require that the behaviour is more-or-less inevitable once certain precursors are triggered (which is what some scientists mean).

But regardless of our difference on what we mean by instinctive behavious, what is complete rubbish is your claim that ALL complex human behaviour is learnt.

Here's just some behaviours, off-the-top-of-my-head that are very common to humans that don't need to be taught-

For babies (and sometimes continuing on):
suckling,
the grab response (ie, babies often reach out to grab things held in front of them),
thumb sucking,
interacting with other humans with facial expressions and noises (especially their mother or other babies)

For children and onwards:
Masturbating,
Playing/Fighting,
The snake detection response (this may also apply for babies, I don't know). This is very complex and inbuilt since it requires the person to identify something as a snake even if they haven't seen a snake before- it is a common response across all primates.

Now some of those listed for babies may be considered more as reflexes, but the point is is that they are complex sequence of actions and not just a simple knee-jerk like reflex (ie. all of these require processing by the brain to coordinate the actions involved).

david f,

I think the clue lies in the fact that we humans have very large brain capacities vis-a-vis the rest of the animal kingdom which enabled us to replace instinct with culture as a survival mechanism.

From simple stone tool kits to agriculture to machines and space exploration we have been able to displace other species that are governed by instinct.

Hi thinkabit,

Some sociobiologists claim that very specific human behaviours
are genetically determined. Others merely suggest that
genetic influences provide the limits and possibilities for
our behaviour. A position that social scientists already accept.

The work of the sociobiologists is provocative, but they have
yet to show that a single example of human social behaviour is
under the control of a specific gene or genes. So far, their
work on the subject consists almost exclusively of speculation,
and the future direction of the discipline is unclear.

Dear Mr Opinion,

How do you think we got such a large brain capacity?

David,

Are you including Misopinionated in that 'we' ?

So kind :)

Joe

david f,

Please let me introduce you to LOUDmouth who is our resident Neanderthal.

david f,

The physical evolution to larger brain capacity is in the archaeological record.

Why have we got superior brains is like asking why did we evolve as a particular species. It just happened.

Why did dolphins make a decision to return to the sea after establishing themselves to survival on land? It just happened.

Can you add anything?

Misanthrope,

I understand that Neanderthalers had larger brains than some of you common-or-garden homo 'sapiens' wimps. And that East Asians have no Neanderthal ancestry.

I'm disappointed, I would like some East Asian ancestry, like my wife had and our kids have, Hokkien I'm told.

So ..... perhaps you're their cousin of sorts ?

Joe

david f,

Please forgive LOUDmouth for his antics.

He would have liked to have been an Arts grad in all those interesting things like anthropology, history, sociology, archaeology, philosophy, etc., but unfortunately he only completed school up to 6 grade.

But his heart is in the right place and that's what counts.

Mr opinion wrote: "Why have we got superior brains is like asking why did we evolve as a particular species. It just happened."

It just happened is not a reasonable answer. Evolution takes place because there is some pressure causing change. An attribute of a species does not just develop without cause or reason. Predators become more efficient in their operations, and prey become more efficient in escaping them due to the fact that those better able to perform those functions are better able to survive and produce young.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/23/17377200/human-brain-size-evolution-nature yields several hypotheses re the reason for our big brains. The article concludes:

"For now, the ultimate answer to the size of our brains is elusive. But scientists suspect there is an answer. The human brain is so unique, and so densely complicated, it’s unlikely to have developed by truly random chance."

david f,

I know there is a cause-effect relationship but we will never know what that was that set our species down the evolutionary path we took.

That's why I say "it just happened." We can speculate about what happened but the evidence is gone forever.

So I find it easier to say 'It just happened" and get on with looking at things that can be explained otherwise we end up wasting our time looking for answers that are no longer there.

I know that some environmental factor existed at some point in time that made the DNA send a message or code to some cells in a creature that caused a mutation towards higher brain capacity in order to enable the creature to adapt to the environment but we do not know and will never know what that environmental factor was because it is indiscoverable.

So I say "It just happened" and let's move on.

Sorry to sound like Dave Chappelle but (you guessed it) it just happened.

Foxy, what answer would you have for individuals who are separated from parents at birth or shortly after yet exhibit the same behavioural traits as each other? There have been numerous studies which have confirmed the genetic inheritance of behavioural traits.

jimmy2shoes

i think you are spot on in that some genetic traits are passed on.

I was taken away from my dad at age of four, and did not see him much.

But, in my teens, I noticed a lot of similarities between myself and him, escpecially personality and temper.

I think it is pretty safe to conclude that we all are infleunced by genes and environment, albeit the extent of the influence of each will differ

Chris,

I think most of us can claim to be a 'Mini Me' of someone and/or have a 'Mini Me' of ourselves.

There has been a lot of research into this area especially cognitive anthropology and cultural anthropology if you'e interested but I do warn you that it is extremely complex reading.

However I would definitely suggest Ruth Benedict's 'Chrysanthemum & the Sword' for an introduction into this stuff.

The long evolutionary process made us what we are: an
almost hairless, bipedal, tool-using, talking, family-
forming, self-aware, highly intelligent social animal.

Our physical adaptations and the behavioural flexibility
offered by our huge and complex brains have made us the
most creative species in the planet's history.

Homo sapiens have spread to every continent, frequently
driving other animal species to extinction in the process.

We have become the most widely dispersed species on the
planet, occupying mountains and valleys, deserts and
jungles, shore-lines and tundra, yet always finding some
specialized means of living in these widely different
environments. The total weight of all living members of
the species far exceed that of any other animal, and the
human population is now growing rapidly and if current
rates persist it will continue to do so.

What accounts for the unprecedented success of our species?
As I said previously - culture. Our shared culture is what
makes social life possible. Anyway I won't go into any more
detail. I've already covered this previously.

Suffice to say that our behaviour is a product of an
inter-action between our basic biological heritage and
the learning experience experiences of the particular culture
in which we happen to live.

For example, we have the biological capacity to speak, but
which language we use and how we use it depends on our
environment. We have the biological capacity to laugh,
to cry, to blush, to become angry, but the circumstances
under which we might do any of these things are learned.

Nature provides us with legs, but we are not obliged to use
them only for walking. We can use them to kick a ball, or to
kick other people, or to ride a bicycle, or to do a dance, or
to cover with slacks, or to sit cross-legged while
contemplating.

And of course we do have some genetically determined types
of behaviour. And a few inborn basic drives. But the way
we actually use these and satisfy these drives is learned
through cultural experience.

I am not really into fancy theories.

At end of the day, we have our genes, with our traits and potential, and we get on as best as we can, hopefully influenced by the environment around us in a positive way.

Problem is, given we ae self interested imo, our ability to cooperate has limitations.

Hence, it remains to be seen what the future of humanity will be in these interesting times.

Dear Chris,

The future is exciting.

New technologies are going to be made and are
transforming our lives. Who knows what lies
ahead. Predicting the future is risky at the best
of times.

Foxy,

Yes, we humans are pretty smart but like the rest of the living world we are still just a bunch of feeders and just as I said elsewhere that is what Life (the entity) is all about.

But it is amazing isn't it? The absolute variety of Earth's feeders, past and present. And it all happened when one type of molecule was able to alter its state in response to its environment. And as they say, the rest is evolution.

yes Foxy, we should sit back and embrace all life.

Maybe, but i wont be embracing china because i know it is evil.

I will leave optimism to people like you.

I have been warning about china for over ten years, and will do so forever because authoritirian governments are scum. End of story really.

China uses technology too to get its way, as of 2020.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-30/china-forces-birth-control-on-uyghurs-to-suppress-population/1240491

Yes, we r lucky to live in Australia, despite all of the whingers that tell us how bad we are.

Chris,

Do you think the CCP encouraged its nationals to migrate to Australia as a goodwill gesture?

More realistically in the light of the truths coming out about China it's more likely that they were sent here to colonise Australia, creating a pro-China enclave that could pressure our politicians, bureaucrats and business people to be subservient to China's whims.

I think China's plans would have worked if the WuFlu pandemic hadn't come along. It stopped China short of its ambitions and has turned most of the First World against it. (After falling out of use after 1989 I think the terms First, Second and Third Worlds will come back into fashion in the wake of the WuFlu pandemic.)

That is an interesting question.

just what is the sentiment of chinese living in Austalia, i would be fascinated to know.

my gut feeling is not as cynical as yours Mr O, but nothing would surprise me.

It appears that this discussion has veered way off topic
and has now run its course. I'd like to Thank everyone
who took the time to contribute.

I look forward to seeing you all on another discussion.
I may even start one on China - to keep this conversation
going.

A new discussion would be more appropriate on this topic
elsewhere.

Again - Thanks to all.

Well I've started a discussion on China - whether people
see the country as an invader and a threat and whether
co-existence is possible in our future.

Go and post to that discussion if the subject is of
interest and more importantly where you see our future
lies.

Foxy,

Do you think there is any chance that Andrew Forrest might put his two bits in?After all he does have a lot at stake and I think keeping China in the good books would certainly be to his advantage.

Mr O,

Why don't you contact his office?

Perth or Beijing?

Mr O,

Flip a coin.

And what if I wing the wong number? I'll be in trouble then!

Mr O,

I'm sure wrong numbers are nothing new to you.

Mr O,

we don't need greedy mining magnates that will dumb down our debate.

Chris,

We should always listen to the views of the other side. It's only fair.

yes, I am all for free speech, unlike the CCP.

and CCP supporters

And don't forget the pro-China camp especially those with vested interests in an Australia-China compact.

We should always listen to the views of the other side. It's only fair.
Mr Opinion,
We have, for too long already. It's time to tell them !

Yes, on the CCP issue, Australians do need to tell their politicians enough is enough.

Fortunately, more and more are.

this forum appears to be chock full of right wing kooks and conspiracy theories. Not many appear to be capable of basic research or posting actual fact.

Dear jimmy2shoes,

You are not the only one of that opinion.

Many others in the past have expressed the same
concerns. And of course, many have also left.
It would be good if a balance was maintained and
rational discussion dominated.

We can agree or disagree - as long as its rational
and does not get insulting or personal. Of course
people do respond and get off the rails when the right buttons are pushed.
It's simply best to either ignore and avoid what you don't like.

cont'd ...

I am used to discussions at university - where discussions
attempt to persuade through rational and critical judgement
supported by evidence and if one tried to downside the
other in order "to win" this kind of arguing was not
considered appropriate.

At university it was not important who won - what mattered
most was the quality of the argument itself.

The whole point was when you engaged in discussions you
were developing your ideas, advancing and clarifying your
knowledge and learning to think critically.

A discussion can change your attitude and ideas. It gives
you a chance to hear the thoughts and ideas of others.

It's an opportunity to put forward an opinion through the
process of reasoning supported by evidence.

People with just drive-by comments, insults, and labelling
of others were not taken seriously - at least not at
university.

Foxy,
I am beginning to see what your base is and where your coming from, which helps to understand you and your mindset.
Universities are educational mediums, this (OLO) is a social medium.
To make matters worse and further muddy the waters, it's mission statement is encapsulated in it's name; On Line OPINION.
Opinions are not objective and based on fact, but subjective based on an individuals knowledge and experience, but in a general/domestic sense, not in a professional sense.
At Uni, people discuss and debate, armed with knowledge of the topic in question, through the process of learning.
Some mis-understand the material, most do not, but ultimately one would hope that the mis-informed will, at some point have been educated/informed to understanding the truth on the topic in hand.
Unfortunately, OLO does not have the people or mindset necessary to cultivate and maintain a level of intelligent commentors with a full gambit of what they discuss.
I find you last posting ironic and humorous in that, as I read I realise it is you, you are criticizing.

ALTRAV,

Depends on what one does at university.

Some go to uni to become scholars studying all those fascinating Arts subjects like history, sociology, archaeology, anthropology, philosophy, etc.

Others choose to do the fascinating Sciences to study how our physical world works.

But most people just do vocational degrees like engineering, law, medicine, architecture, etc. in order to get a job and earn a livelihood.

Mr O,

Ha, Ha, good one.

I wonder what, you know who, studied.

I suppose we can probably guess.
We should make that a topic of conversation, although I'm thinking she would probably be the only commentor, (as usual).
What would be even less interesting, is, if she graduated?
If we take her performance here on OLO, and the fact that she has to look everything up, plagerise, or just repeat the same boring points over and over again, I would not hold my breath, as I'd expect a NO as the answer.
TOUCHE'.

ALTRAV,

I am a graduate of two
universities - I come from an academic family who lost
everything during WWII when they fled from the Soviet Regime.
To them education was important - and not graduating
from a university for me was not an option.
I was born in Australia. And -
I have worked in prominent universities both in this country
and in the US.

cont'd ...

Did you finish high school?

Hi Foxy,

There is an element among the extremest that despise the educated. They see such people as dangerous "trouble makers", and for them they have good reason. Those that can articulate an argument, and see through the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the extremes irrational point of view, these thinking people must be neutralised or the extremists will fail. Hitler, Stalin other despots could all see that, and took the most reprehensible action against the inteligencia of society.

On the Forum do you not notice a certain clique with a far right philosophy that are always disparaging towards those they perceive as educated the ones they like to refer to as the "academics" of society. They see their own dumbness as a badge of honour. ALTRAV is a typical badge wearer!

As one with a greater intellect than I, has said to me many times; "Why do you bother with those silly old men on that forum?....cause I know you're one of them! Its full of rubbish, so is the bag under the sink....so take it out to the bin, quick, quick, its your job!" Was that other "Einstein" made take out the rubbish? Me thinks not, otherwise no man on the Moon! Unfortunately that reply don't cut no ice with my Aroha.

Dear Paul,

There are those on this list who disparage education, reflection and thoughtful responses. However, you wrote. "Was that other "Einstein" made take out the rubbish? Me thinks not, otherwise no man on the Moon."

The person who was more responsible for the man on the moon than Einstein was that highly educated, intelligent, morally bankrupt Nazi, Wernher von Braun.

Dear Paul,

I've not struck some of the mentality that I've encountered
on this forum elsewhere. Perhaps because I've been lucky
with the people that I've encountered thus far along my
life's path. They've all been decent human beings. From
whom I've learned a great deal. Yes, there have been
some"typical thug bogan nasties" - but they've been in a
minority. And most normal people would consider them not
of a sound mind.

I admire anyone who's studied anything - be it at TAFE,
college or uni. Because I know that studying for anything
is not easy. But I
also admire self-made and self-educated people - they've
been some of my greatest teachers as well.

One of my
previous administrators had no official qualifications as
such to speak of - but he was the best manager I've ever
worked with. On the other hand when I worked at the State
Library of Victoria - their hierarchical structure drove
me crazy. And I was glad to get back to normal in another
institution where everyone simply got on with getting
the job done.

Anyway, Thanks for your encouragement and kind words.
It's people like yourself, Steele, Banjo Paterson, Joe,
David F., Saltpetre, and quite a few others, that keep me in this
forum.

Foxy, no I didn't I was accepted into uni at the end of 3rd year, to do an engineering degree, I left to pursue a better course, ply my skills and profit from it, by earning a living making money at what I did and came naturally to me, or natural talent I was born with.
You see, I realised early on that if someone is naturally talented in some way/field, they in fact can teach or show others how/what to do, as I did.
As a student I was sometimes selected to choose and design the project for the class for them to construct, as part of their curriculum.
Anyway, enough about me, as you say, I'm not very interesting.
I do have a point to make about education in general.
Using me as case in point (that's all), because I was talented and had a very good understanding of all things engineering, I found I have never worked a day in my life, because what I was doing was merely an extension of my hobbies and did for fun, except i was getting paid money for enjoying myself.
I have always believed the old saying; you can learn to paint, but you can't learn to be an artist!
According to my critics and those who matter, whether govt's or public, I am the latter.
What I have been doing all my life, not just for Australians from all the states and territories, but other counties as well was being approached to use my TALENTS, as requested or required by others.
Foxy, what I learned at teaching institutions, was already familiar to me, so unlike the majority of people who have no skills or talents, they have to LEARN, just to understand the basics, and even then don't really understand it at all.
I have already covered my background in previous postings, the details have been on OLO for ages if you wish to confirm my details.

Paul, your quite right about my disdain for those with a piece of paper or who arrogantly go around flaunting the fact that they are qualified at something.
This conclusion was not of my doing, but that of the academics themselves.
I found that they lacked a true understanding of their chosen vocation.
So it became obvious that they could only be trusted or relied upon to perform the minimal of tasks, relying heavily on those who demonstrated a much greater knowledge and natural talent for the position they supposedly were qualified to perform.
These people, as it turned out were mostly without qualifications, but had some more important and relevant things to offer, such as;
talent, experience and passion.
Paul, did they teach you all those things wherever you, and Foxy for that matter, went?
No I didn't think so.
And why I know is because I make it my business to know.
Here's another hint, those bosses or company owners, jusy give a cursory glance over your CV, then set it aside, because we know most of it is BS anyway.
No we ask a few simple questions, such as; how long have you been doing this job? Who have you worked for before? and one or two others relevant to the job they seek.
So you see, you can get off your high horse, and come back to earth amongst the real people, down here you're nothing special or different from the rest of the plebs.
Your story is one of twenty odd million in this useless sh!te-hole but if you like it down there with your head up your own ego, be my guest, I certainly won't stop you, in fact I wish you well.

Foxy, so what natural talent did you possess, or were you like everyone else who had to learn something to actually become a viable person in society.
You say you value those who have studied or are educated, of course you do, DUH, you are one of them.
The typical thug bogan nasties you speak of are people just like the rest of us, but for the fact that you think you are the exception in that description.
It is merely YOUR opinion that they are not nice.
It is obvious from your history, as you yourself have reported, that you have not been exposed to the real world, and the little you have witnessed has incensed your delicate sensibilities.
You are confused, you say to be nice to everyone but not to some.
You believe in something, but not always.
Foxy are you a person or a computer?
You are inconsistent in your views, and that means you are not stable in your stance about things, or another way of describing your mindset is, you are mentally unstable.
This is not an unusual trait or problem, as all too many people suffer from the same thing, and judging by the comments by some here on OLO, I believe they speak for themselves.

ALTRAV,

Perhaps you should read what I actually write.

I take people as I find them. And grunters exist
everywhere - amongst the educated and not the educated.
I don't judge people by their qualifications. I've
known some big grunters (pigs with attitude) amongst
all sorts of people.

So my advice to you is - don't be a grunter or you'll end
up all alone with only the support of other grunters whose
only flairs are in their nostrils.

As for what talents I have?

I'm too busy being awesome to list everything here for you.
I have not lead a cloistered life. On the contrary - I've
travelled all over the world - working and living in several
continents - meeting all sorts of people and I dare say -
my outlook and experience would far out weigh anything
of yours. But this is not a competition - and you're the
one who seems insecure. But don't worry - I'm sure the
grunters on this forum and your own family love you to bits.

So chin up - stop grunting and looking for problems where
there aren't any. Don't be a grunter - and you'll do better.

Foxy, I can't let you get away with some of your imaginary achievements.
There is NO WAY you have any advantage over me, grunter or not.
I know my contribution to society, and not just Australia, but internationally would put your holiday stories to shame and pale into insignificance by comparison.
But as this is not a competition, I won't press.
Suffice to say, I have done, seen and contributed far more to this world than you, so I deserve a sizable amount more respect from you and your ilk, until or unless you cam match or exceed me.
You and your running mates, hate it when someone actually comes off ahead or above you, and you say it's not a competition?
I will never cede to those who seek to gain unjustified favour or positions far above their natural state or ability in life, and I will not start now.
So to be clear, anyone who has one of these flowery pieces of paper that implies they have a degree in social and other 'soft'subjects, like an arts degree, or vocation, well you know what you can do with them.
I say to them, try studying for something useful.
TOO HARD, I hear you say.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere

ALTRAV,

Here you go again - grunting as usual.
Behaving like the proverbial pig with attitude.

Why are you so insecure? You don't need my validation
or approval - why should it matter to you what I think of you.
Frankly, I could care less
what you have or haven't achieved.

My own achievements I
am fully aware of. As are my colleagues, friends,
and family. You are not part of my inner circle.

And, you have no idea - and that's as it
should be on an anonymous forum such as this one.

And any attempts to try to out do me or any one else for
that matter - would be pointless. Firstly -
your achievements or lack of them - don't really
matter one way or another to anyone else but you.
You know what you have or haven't achieved. Be happy
with that. It shouldn't matter what any one else thinks.

Look to your own
family and close friends for validation. A forum such as
this one is not the place to try to do it.

You have nothing to prove to anyone.
And your persistence in telling people how great you
are - only smacks of a huge insecurity. We're not here
to massage your ego. Get your wife and family to do that.

There's a good chap.

Foxy, I definitely am not looking to you for validation but more of your cheap comebacks, so don't presume that I am trying to seek anything FROM you, as we all know what you have to offer is not worth having.
All that you have mentioned in your last post is of your fabrication and contrivance.
I was responding to your low brow attack on myself.
You, on the other hand freely and willingly exposed yourself and offered to demonstrate to us all on OLO, your true character and emotional make-up.
You are the one feeling insecure and threatened by the truth, and your posts clearly confirms it, time and time again.
I don't have anything against you; and your right, we are in a forum which, like any forum, is never a good idea to reveal ones residential details, only to explain or expound on personal details if asked.
Foxy, I suggest you do not read my posts any more, because I can still see that you get upset and very emotional, which is not good for your health and well-being.
I do not wish to imagine you in any way other than skipping through the tulips, with flowers in your hair, sniffing them as you go.
Go in peace, oh sensitive little butterfly.

ALTRAV,

Thank You for those beautiful last couple of sentences.
Most unexpected. But a pleasant surprise.

When I was growing up my mother explained to us as children
what miracles were. I reminded her - and wrote the following
to her on her 90th Birthday. Because of your kind words to me
I would like to share the thoughts with you:

As beautiful as the most awesome of sunsets
As vast as a clear, cloudless sky
As bright as the first twinkling star in the evening
As rare as a jewelled butterfly...
As wondrous as blossoms unfolding their splendour
As wise as the tallest of trees
As grand as the mountains that reach to the heavens
As free as a light-hearted breeze
You're the best of God's gifts -
His most precious creation -
A one-of-a-kind, perfect you:
And here in this strange little forum
is a time to give
thanks and remember
That you are a miracle too.

Keep up the kind thoughts!
This forum needs more of them.

I want to take back the poem I shared previously.

I have just read ALTRAV's recent post to David Fisher
on his Institute for Peace discussion. ALTRAV - wrote to
David (who's of Russian Jewish ancestry) his feelings
about elite Jews. It's so discusting and anti-Semitic -
it's shameful - and I feel ashamed that I ever contemplated
that ALTRAV was even capable of being normal.

He's not. And he should be avoided by every decent poster on
this forum.

Thanks, Foxy, all the best :)

Love,

Joe

Let's not get sucked in to what is an emotional and subjective opinion, based on emotion and intentional mis-representation.
If one is interested in the truth, it will be found in my posting, not in the emotional utterings of a bias view.
If anyone on OLO or beyond for that matter, is prepared to condone the antics of the Illuminati, the Jewish elite, please come forward and explain to me why I cannot hold them in contempt and disgust?
I, unlike those who dare to criticise me should research this group and what they have done, what they stand for AND what they have in store for us, and I mean the world, not just Aussies.
This is not a critique of the Jewish people, and I have always made that clear, just look back at my postings.
It is about a particular group, and if I am not allowed to give an OPINION on them based on literature and articles going back decades, then there is no hope for those who would seek to silence me, or the purpose of this forum and if so will be the hand of their own undoing.
I can take getting closed out, my life does not revolve around OLO, BUT can you all in good conscience, stand by and let a wrong be silenced, especially when it will affect us all negatively?

Dear Joe,

Thank You for your support.

As always it is appreciated.