TAKE A LOOK AT YOURSELVES! The Worrying rise of a conservative youth! (1 Viewer)

[_dhj_]

Damn idealistic Trotskyists and Gorbachevites...betrayers of socialism...

Stalin FTW!

 

[hazaar]

Law of Large Numbers GOD DAMN IT. FUCK I HATE PEOPLE THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND MATHS.

hahaha i hate maths!

 

[gerhard]

dont worry, industries such as gambling are dedicated to people like yourself

 

[wheredanton]

I'm in favour of the legalisation of owning firearms.

New Zealand FTW. They have fuck all restrictions and no one ever dies there.

Like one person dies a year in NZ, if that.

NZ doesnt have strong gun laws. However they were significantly tightened after this.

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

 

[Sofstar]

Hazaar, if you're interested in finding conservative people i suggest the forum in www.stir.org.au. And you're a new internationist reader! :-0. Not in a bad way.

 

[withoutaface]

1. I may have a Trotskyist philosophy as a means to an end, but I am a social democrat always. I believe in Government promotion and facilitation for the betterment of mankind.
Some examples:
-Medically acceptable drugs should be regulated, not criminalised. If they're gonna buy it, it should at least be safe and openly, like nicotine and alcohol.

Why regulation? The market is self regulating, in the sense that I'm not going to buy X brand heroin anymore after my best mate dies of an overdose because of inconsistent purity.

-The public sector should compete with private industry not eliminate it. Someone has to, or you risk exclusive services.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. In all seriousness, that is probably the funniest thing I've EVER seen on BOS. If you're going down that road why not let private enterprise compete with itself, but have anti-trust laws in place (and let's just pretend for a minute that 99% of monopolies don't come about from the government attempting to do good).

-The human race are idiot children locked in a big blue ball with dangerous toys. We need structure to make it to maturity.
---
2. Lesbians are cool. At least they know how to have fun, just like men *pow! insensitive remark*
---
3. Hey here's something:
Reductio ad Stalinum
Stalin did X therefore Commies like X
---
4. Libertarianism is just as silly as the next ideology, get over yourselves.

Yes, liberty is a silly concept. That's why every time you attempt to take myself, Dan, Jordan, or any of the other libertarians on this forum on, you get owned.

 

[KFunk]

Why regulation? The market is self regulating, in the sense that I'm not going to buy X brand heroin anymore after my best mate dies of an overdose because of inconsistent purity.

The point is trying to avoid having that kind of disaster occur in the first place. An alternative form of quality control (to government control) would be to make simple drug testing kits commercially available, as they have done with ecstasy. However, in many cases these tests are inadequate (also, not everyone will have access to them). Going down an ecstasy track, to show an example, say that instead of avoiding brand X because your friend had a bad experience you decide to buy brand Y because a friend had a good experience. Unfortunately in turns out that local producers who realised that the *insert colour* *insert symbol* pills were popular and decided to manufacture identical ones with B.S. ingredients - and Y turns out to be as bad an experience as X. That is just one example of the kind of complication that can arise when you have a black market without quality control. Of course, you could theoretically propose a cheap, easily distributed, accurate test - but is this really a viable option (given the number of compounds which can be added to a powder/pill/liquid)? My suspicion is that adequate drug regulation won't be achieved until they are 'legalised', in one sense or another (e.g. freely available, age restricted and/or prescription based).

 

[Rainbow Joanna]

All I can say to all you conservatives out there is, you all are nothing but fascists and give words such as discrimination a whole new meaning. To be frank, the word conservative should just be replaced with the word discriminatory, because practically it is nothing but a political form of discrimination.

I mean what do you people run on, let me see:
1. Against gay marriage
2. A current war that is based on faulty intelligence
3. Religious beliefs that belittles other race and religion.

It seems to me if you were not born to a family that has all the backbones already established, then you are always going to have to live on a day to day basis with trying to put up with crap that you don't need and can't control if fully living under your ideology. Like as a Caucasian, I know how granted it is to not have to put up with bigoted comments about my race or religion.

But, it seems what good is all that economic efficiency going to benefit people, if you are still regarded as a second class citizen at the end of the day due to uncontrollable issues like race, gender, sexuality and etc...

 

[aussiechica7]

"the deteriorating environment, poverty both abroad and domestically, and the loss of workers rights to big business"
I care about each of those things. However, I also want to buy a house straight out of university. My mum (who had me at 19) was a real fun, life of the party, type of girl. I seriously had the most unorthodox upbringing you can imagine. Very fun, and have been campaigning to end poverty/rape of the environment/etc. since a young age. However, the domestic things weren't a high priority in our lives. So we'd be at the forefront of all these campaigns, speaking with big names in NGOs and politics but we'd live in a rented house which was always messy. Doesn't matter too much in the short term, but 20 years later, my mum is still paying off somebody's mortgage. I don't want to be like that. I want to buy a house as soon as I can afford it. Also, I have just bought a range of storage stuff to keep my house neat and tidy.
Re: wealth creation. Did you know the richest people tend to be the stingiest? That's so not cool. I don't particularly want to be rich, however, in my line of work, if I stay in Australia, I will be very well off. If I do become rich, I want to be just as generous (if not more) as I am now. That's the point of having a strong economy. Being blessed to bless others. However, it starts with us. We can argue with the government to increase foreign aid to a measly 0.7% of our GNP (and so we should) however, we should also be supporting Opportunity International/World Vision/Doctors Without Borders/etc. out of our own pockets as well.

 

[banco55]

"the deteriorating environment, poverty both abroad and domestically, and the loss of workers rights to big business"
I care about each of those things. However, I also want to buy a house straight out of university. My mum (who had me at 19) was a real fun, life of the party, type of girl. I seriously had the most unorthodox upbringing you can imagine. Very fun, and have been campaigning to end poverty/rape of the environment/etc. since a young age. However, the domestic things weren't a high priority in our lives. So we'd be at the forefront of all these campaigns, speaking with big names in NGOs and politics but we'd live in a rented house which was always messy. Doesn't matter too much in the short term, but 20 years later, my mum is still paying off somebody's mortgage. I don't want to be like that. I want to buy a house as soon as I can afford it. Also, I have just bought a range of storage stuff to keep my house neat and tidy.
Re: wealth creation. Did you know the richest people tend to be the stingiest? That's so not cool. I don't particularly want to be rich, however, in my line of work, if I stay in Australia, I will be very well off. If I do become rich, I want to be just as generous (if not more) as I am now. That's the point of having a strong economy. Being blessed to bless others. However, it starts with us. We can argue with the government to increase foreign aid to a measly 0.7% of our GNP (and so we should) however, we should also be supporting Opportunity International/World Vision/Doctors Without Borders/etc. out of our own pockets as well.

I think one reason people are reluctant to increase aid to 0.7% gdp is there's a lot of evidence that aid has been really ineffective. The scandanavian countries pumped heaps of money into africa during the 70's and 80's and had very little to show for it. The countries that have moved from 3rd world to 1st world since WW II haven't been the biggest recipients of aid. It ends up being as much a feel good thing for the west as anythihng.

 

[aussiechica7]

P.S. I decided only to comment on the first post as there were A LOT of posts here and its a nice day today (don't want to be on the computer all day)

But in terms of liberal vs. conservative, I think history is cyclic, but one day we'll eventually reach an equilibrium of somewhere in the middle. Politically, any extreme is dangerous. I'm happy with the one we live in now- a little conservative, but if you want to go out and change the country/world you can.

 

[aussiechica7]

"I think one reason people are reluctant to increase aid to 0.7% gdp is there's a lot of evidence that aid has been really ineffective. The scandanavian countries pumped heaps of money into africa during the 70's and 80's and had very little to show for it. The countries that have moved from 3rd world to 1st world since WW II haven't been the biggest recipients of aid."

Yeah, I know. That's why I listed Opportunity International, I really believe in their work. I think we need more free trade + aid. And of course, better access to education and adequate health care.

 

[Tulipa]

Yes...that is one of the stranger aspects of American society.

Actually it makes sense. Back when the Constitution was drawn up there was still a great belief that the British were going to come over to the colonies and try to take them over.

For safety and protection, it was quickly written in to the Constitution that all men had the right to bear arms. It's never been changed because it's become such an engrained idea in American society.

Although they really need to restrain themselves in some cases. It does get exploited.

 

[bshoc]

All I can say to all you conservatives out there is, you all are nothing but fascists and give words such as discrimination a whole new meaning. To be frank, the word conservative should just be replaced with the word discriminatory, because practically it is nothing but a political form of discrimination.

Ok I'm not a bread and butter conservative, but I'll try to adress your idiocy and ignorance in an insightful manner.

To correct you first off however, fascism = control or oversight of the populace and most facets of society, usually restrictive, by a very large and all pervasive government, conservatism = a political philosophy that emphasises

I mean what do you people run on, let me see:

1. Against gay marriage

I don't see your point, "pro" gay marriage is essentially a left and far left position, it is generally opposed across the political spectrum from the center left to the far right. Being pro a popular staus quo is nothing discriminatory.

2. A current war that is based on faulty intelligence

Wrong. Some of the most vocal opponents of the Iraq War were hardline conservatives, Pat Buchanan etc. Although a conservative is far more likely to support staying "until the job is done" since this war has already been waged by people with Kantian (neocon) compulsions. You don't correct a mistake by making another one.

3.

Religious beliefs that belittles other race and religion.

Thats a far right/nationalist position, and can be as easily interwoven into the left as it can into conservatism.

It seems to me if you were not born to a family that has all the backbones already established, then you are always going to have to live on a day to day basis with trying to put up with crap that you don't need and can't control if fully living under your ideology. Like as a Caucasian, I know how granted it is to not have to put up with bigoted comments about my race or religion.

Well if you've never had to put up with it, how would you know how granted you are, idiot.

But, it seems what good is all that economic efficiency going to benefit people, if you are still regarded as a second class citizen at the end of the day due to uncontrollable issues like race, gender, sexuality and etc...

Yes people who work hard and put in the effort will usually end up better off than people who didn't do as much, fair outcomes will never occur in a fair system, this is a guarantee and the way it should be. There should be no "race" or "gender" promotion programs which people like you support, only an idiot would promote things like "50/50 presence in the workplace for women" without examining whether in fact those women have earned that equality. When you create "special" places for aboriginal students open to no-one else, or stipulate that companies have to hire x% of women, aboriginals etc., thats real discrimination.

 

[aussiechica7]

"When you create "special" places for aboriginal students open to no-one else, or stipulate that companies have to hire x% of women, aboriginals etc., thats real discrimination."

I have to agree with that.

Which brings up another point. Is all discrimination bad? Is there ever justification for it? Another word if for discrimination is discernment, or differentiating between two things. Why is it that in some cases that is acceptable (Aboriginal access schemes) but in others it isn't (men who have had anal sex in the last 12 months being prohibited from giving blood)?

 

[dieburndie]

Why is it that in some cases that is acceptable (Aboriginal access schemes) but in others it isn't (men who have had anal sex in the last 12 months being prohibited from giving blood)?

What is it that defines being acceptable or not in each of those cases?
I think you will find that a lot of people think the first isn't acceptable and the second is.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Which brings up another point. Is all discrimination bad? Is there ever justification for it? Another word if for discrimination is discernment, or differentiating between two things. Why is it that in some cases that is acceptable (Aboriginal access schemes) but in others it isn't (men who have had anal sex in the last 12 months being prohibited from giving blood)?

You believe non-aboriginals are being discriminated against? All indicators would show, despite some fairly good government efforts to help these people out, they still are not doing as well as their non-aboriginal counterparts. If we're going to envoke the concept of 'discrimination' in politics at all, I think it should only relate to overall standard-of-living differences.

 

[bshoc]

What is it that defines being acceptable or not in each of those cases?
I think you will find that a lot of people think the first isn't acceptable and the second is.

Actually the second one is more founded than the first, since a man who has had anal sex is 20 times more likely to be HIV posative than one who hasn't.

 

[bshoc]

You believe non-aboriginals are being discriminated against? All indicators would show, despite some fairly good government efforts to help these people out, they still are not doing as well as their non-aboriginal counterparts. If we're going to envoke the concept of 'discrimination' in politics at all, I think it should only relate to overall standard-of-living differences.

That seems flawed since those same standard-of-living differences can be used as a case to argue discimination.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

What do you mean? I have no problem with differences in standard of living being used as a case for descrimination. I do actually find fault with what I've just wrote though, on reflection, we definately do need to look at individual cases. People may be better off on the whole, but if they're being cheated out of say, a good education, I don't think the fact that they make up for it somewhere else makes the discrimination any less.

Perhaps my point is more that, with the aboriginals getting easier access to university thing. Despite such programs, they do not end up getting the jobs their non-aboriginal counterparts do so it seems, so I don't think just looking at small advantages people may appear (on the surface) to have here and there, when it comes to university level education, it's pretty easy to make a case that aboriginals have it worse.