Extreme secret agenda aims to change our society

Current Events, World Discussion, Opinions etc
58 posts Page 2 of 3
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


venatrix wrote :
Ps anyone who would like to live on this planet beyond the next 20-50 years should bloody well be anti-free trade, anti-capitalism, anti-wealth and anti-growth.


thats just completely retarded. youd fit in well in the sociology department at my uni. :P

i find it annoying how people who benefit and take for granted the products of capitalism, wealth, growth and trade bag it out and call for it to be halted or stopped entirely. youre just lucky to live in a society in which capitalism has resulted in enough wealth and growth that you have the capability to criticise it while mistakenly crediting the government as being responsible for your current standard of living.
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


itchy - i liked your post on the hypocrisy of the global warming advocates. so true. remember the copenhagen conference which all the world leaders travelled to in their private jets and 100+ limousines? yeah they really take that cutting carbon emissions stuff seriously dont they. hehe

maybe if all these jokers led by example people would actually take them seriously enough to want to voluntarily reduce their carbon footprint rather than expecting a supposedly benevolent bunch of politicians and bureaucrats to solve the problem for them by making more bullshit laws which control peoples behaviour and give them more control.
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


Dude, seriously? I expected more from you. A lot more.

Just a few questions...

tripn wrote :
while mistakenly crediting the government as being responsible for your current standard of living.


If the government is not responsible for the standard of living in the country it governs then who is?

tripn wrote :
itchy - i liked your post on the hypocrisy of the global warming advocates. so true. remember the copenhagen conference which all the world leaders travelled to in their private jets and 100+ limousines? yeah they really take that cutting carbon emissions stuff seriously dont they. hehe


What is your suggestion for an alternative mode of transport which, say, our PM should have used to travel from Australia to Copenhagen?

tripn wrote :
maybe if all these jokers led by example people would actually take them seriously enough to want to voluntarily reduce their carbon footprint rather than expecting a supposedly benevolent bunch of politicians and bureaucrats to solve the problem for them by making more bullshit laws which control peoples behaviour and give them more control.


So you think the cause of and solution to global warming is the general public turning off a few lights and walking to the shops instead of driving? Really?
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


venatrix wrote :
Dude, seriously? I expected more from you. A lot more.


sorry to dissapoint you :P

venatrix wrote :
If the government is not responsible for the standard of living in the country it governs then who is?


the people who are responsible for the standard of living are the people who create real wealth by producing things which people need and value. the people who bake your bread, grow your vegetables, make your clothes, dig up metals and cut wood to make your furniture, buses, trains, cars, speakers, computer etc.

these evil capitalists are the ones who are repsonsible for your standard of living. make no mistake about this. the government does not produce anything itself. it only takes from those who produce and redistributes it to other sectors of the economy which serves the interests of those who vote them into power. nothing is gained in terms of wealth creation or jobs when that happens, in fact its usually the opposite.

venatrix wrote :
What is your suggestion for an alternative mode of transport which, say, our PM should have used to travel from Australia to Copenhagen?


let the prick get a quantas flight and then carpool from copenhagen airport with some of the other politicians if they are so worried about carbon emissions that they need to all meet in copenhagen to discuss it in person. in fact better still, dont setup a meeting in copenhagen at all. they are more than capable of doing a video conference nowadays which would not only result in less carbon emissions but also save millions of taxpayer dollars which could then be invested in R&D into green technology rather than pissed away on all these private jets, limos, hotels and security.


venatrix wrote :
So you think the cause of and solution to global warming is the general public turning off a few lights and walking to the shops instead of driving? Really?


dont go making straw-man arguments with me. i see through that shit yo. :)

i dont know anything about climate science so i have no idea what causes global warming or what the solution is. but im fairly knowledgable when it comes to economics and these carbon taxes that the greens are proposing are meant to do exactly that. ie. to force people to use less carbon by making things like driving and consuming electricity more expensive. in general, whatever you tax you get less of and what you subsidise you get more of so if the aim of a government is to reduce carbon emissions then a tax is probably the simplest way to do it. but this will fuck the economy good and proper and make everyting more expensive. and guess what.. they are not going to be reducing anybodies personal income taxes in order to compensate for them having to pay a lot more for all the basic necessities and they arent going to reduce taxes on businesses in order to compensate for the extra burden theyd be placing upon them in the form of higher costs and lack of competitiveness in the global marketplace.
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


tripn wrote :
the people who are responsible for the standard of living are the people who create real wealth by producing things which people need and value. the people who bake your bread, grow your vegetables, make your clothes, dig up metals and cut wood to make your furniture, buses, trains, cars, speakers, computer etc.

these evil capitalists are the ones who are repsonsible for your standard of living. make no mistake about this. the government does not produce anything itself. it only takes from those who produce and redistributes it to other sectors of the economy which serves the interests of those who vote them into power. nothing is gained in terms of wealth creation or jobs when that happens, in fact its usually the opposite.


I suppose that's why the millions of people (adults and children) in China, India, the Philippines, Taiwan etc who work in sweatshops and rice paddies and fishing trawlers who 'create real wealth by producing things which people need and value' are so wealthy. They sure do produce a darn lot of stuff, particularly stuff we need and value like the latest fashions. I can see now how they are the ones responsible for their own standard of living, and not their governments who have the power to regulate and legislate things like working conditions, minimum wage, minimum age for children to legally work, and police those regulations. I can also see how all the African countries have such a great standard of living, what with all those diamond mines and petroleum reserves. And don't get me started about those wealthy farmers in the Ivory Coast producing thousands of tonnes of cocoa beans so you can have a McLatte and a Snickers for a couple of bucks. Remember that next time you're tipping the waitress on your holiday in America. I mean really she should just work a little harder or get a better job. It's certainly not the government's responsibility to set a minimum wage that is above single digits.

tripn wrote :
let the prick get a quantas flight and then carpool from copenhagen airport with some of the other politicians if they are so worried about carbon emissions that they need to all meet in copenhagen to discuss it in person. in fact better still, dont setup a meeting in copenhagen at all. they are more than capable of doing a video conference nowadays which would not only result in less carbon emissions but also save millions of taxpayer dollars which could then be invested in R&D into green technology rather than pissed away on all these private jets, limos, hotels and security.


Are we talking about everyone heading to a doof, or a global conference of world leaders? Just checking. I mean, talking to people on msn video chat is pretty neat. But it's not quite the same as meeting them in the flesh, if you know what I mean ;)

tripn wrote :
dont go making straw-man arguments with me. i see through that shit yo. :)

i dont know anything about climate science so i have no idea what causes global warming or what the solution is. but im fairly knowledgable when it comes to economics and these carbon taxes that the greens are proposing are meant to do exactly that. ie. to force people to use less carbon by making things like driving and consuming electricity more expensive. in general, whatever you tax you get less of and what you subsidise you get more of so if the aim of a government is to reduce carbon emissions then a tax is probably the simplest way to do it. but this will fuck the economy good and proper and make everyting more expensive. and guess what.. they are not going to be reducing anybodies personal income taxes in order to compensate for them having to pay a lot more for all the basic necessities and they arent going to reduce taxes on businesses in order to compensate for the extra burden theyd be placing upon them in the form of higher costs and lack of competitiveness in the global marketplace.


I know you don't know anything about climate science, so I won't get too technical (don't want to baffle you), but if you change something it gets different. If you change something heaps, it gets heaps different. So if you change the air by doing a big stinky fart it stinks and is not nice to breathe. If you change the air by dumping shitloads of this stuff called carbon, and a whole bunch of other nasty things like toxic industrial waste, it changes the air in really complicated sciency ways which are kinda bad. Air is a pretty important part of our planet. It also has lots of water and dirt. If these things get all yukky it won't be a very nice place to live, and if it gets really yukky we all fucken die.

You can help by doing things like not buying a McMansion and running a hefty air conditioning system in summer and a heater in each of the 12 rooms during winter. You could catch the bus to work, or even plant a tree or two in your backyard. But really this won't do jack shit if businesses and companies and multinational corporations don't stop producing the things (as mentioned in my first point) that really impact our planet and our quality of life.

In conclusion, if you're not a scientist, and you don't know anything about climate science, it's really probably better if you just trust the climate scientists and sit down and shut the fuck up. Protip: reading a scientific paper or conference or symposium transactions is not the same as reading a headline in the Telegraph or the Herald. The newspapers will tell you all sorts of things about what the scientists think and research and prove but sometimes they tell whoppers and porky pies. Best to go to the source.
tract
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 6:45 pm


tripn wrote :
thats just completely retarded. youd fit in well in the sociology department at my uni. :P

i find it annoying how people who benefit and take for granted the products of capitalism, wealth, growth and trade bag it out and call for it to be halted or stopped entirely. youre just lucky to live in a society in which capitalism has resulted in enough wealth and growth that you have the capability to criticise it while mistakenly crediting the government as being responsible for your current standard of living.


I find it irritating when people drivel simplistic shit.

Unregulated capitalism is unsustainable and a complete and utter failure, it's all very well to bandy about terms like 'wealth' and 'growth' but I'd rather billions of tax dollars not go on bailing out a bunch of failed unregulated corporations and financial institutions who went bust and then came begging for public money and loans. The GFC stands as a monument to the failure of unregulated capitalism. Now more than ever Governments need to regulate, intervene and rein in the free market to ensure economic stability.

Capitalism without regulation invariantly leads to homogeneity and the erosion of choice in the market place. We experience a drastic reduction in the standard of living due to a culture and over reliance on credit and living beyond our means; the free market needs to be monitored, regulated and controlled by government at every level and to a much greater degree. We are long past the time for entertaining and permitting grossly irresponsible, idiotic free market thinking. The model has repeatedly failed and it is only government and increased intervention that will prevent economic collapse and guarantee the standards of living we have all come to enjoy.
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


venatrix wrote :

I suppose that's why the millions of people (adults and children) in China, India, the Philippines, Taiwan etc who work in sweatshops and rice paddies and fishing trawlers who 'create real wealth by producing things which people need and value' are so wealthy. They sure do produce a darn lot of stuff, particularly stuff we need and value like the latest fashions. I can see now how they are the ones responsible for their own standard of living, and not their governments who have the power to regulate and legislate things like working conditions, minimum wage, minimum age for children to legally work, and police those regulations. I can also see how all the African countries have such a great standard of living, what with all those diamond mines and petroleum reserves. And don't get me started about those wealthy farmers in the Ivory Coast producing thousands of tonnes of cocoa beans so you can have a McLatte and a Snickers for a couple of bucks. Remember that next time you're tipping the waitress on your holiday in America. I mean really she should just work a little harder or get a better job. It's certainly not the government's responsibility to set a minimum wage that is above single digits.



nice intentions but the reality is that without foreign direct investment these countries will not raise their standard of living beyond their current level. its usually government corruption which prevent companies from entering these foreign markets and bidding up wages by accepting bribes from corporations in order to prevent competition. raising minimum wages does not raise standards of living. if minimum wage laws create wealth then why not raise it to $50 an hour or even a $100 an hour? see what happens. the african countries remain poor because of corruption and the fact that their governments have policies which deter foreign investment and trade and dont ensure property rights and the rule of law for their citizens. the standard of living in india and other countries has risen in direct proportion to how open their markets are. just look at china and the east asian tiger nations as an example.
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


tract wrote :
tripn wrote :
thats just completely retarded. youd fit in well in the sociology department at my uni. :P

i find it annoying how people who benefit and take for granted the products of capitalism, wealth, growth and trade bag it out and call for it to be halted or stopped entirely. youre just lucky to live in a society in which capitalism has resulted in enough wealth and growth that you have the capability to criticise it while mistakenly crediting the government as being responsible for your current standard of living.


I find it irritating when people drivel simplistic shit.

Unregulated capitalism is unsustainable and a complete and utter failure, it's all very well to bandy about terms like 'wealth' and 'growth' but I'd rather billions of tax dollars not go on bailing out a bunch of failed unregulated corporations and financial institutions who went bust and then came begging for public money and loans. The GFC stands as a monument to the failure of unregulated capitalism. Now more than ever Governments need to regulate, intervene and rein in the free market to ensure economic stability.

Capitalism without regulation invariantly leads to homogeneity and the erosion of choice in the market place. We experience a drastic reduction in the standard of living due to a culture and over reliance on credit and living beyond our means; the free market needs to be monitored, regulated and controlled by government at every level and to a much greater degree. We are long past the time for entertaining and permitting grossly irresponsible, idiotic free market thinking. The model has repeatedly failed and it is only government and increased intervention that will prevent economic collapse and guarantee the standards of living we have all come to enjoy.


all youve done is regurgitate the official response used by governments in order to justify more control and regulation while ignoring the real problems underlying the issue. its almost like youve read the newspaper article wirtten by mainstream economist like paul krugman and just repeated it word for word without even thinking about it. of course when shitty government policies create a global crisis they are going to try and pin it on the free market and unrestricted capitalism but the truth is that unregulated free market capitalism as never actually been allowed to operate so there is no way the current predicament has been caused by the free market. irresponsible monetary policy is what caused it.

i also disagree completely with the bailouts of companies and financial institutions. the fact that these companies could play the "too big to fail" card and knew they would be bailed out is partly what led to them being so irresponsible in their business practices and speculation.

youre right about the over reliance on credit and living beyond our means being a problem. but that is all due to excessive credit being pumped into the system by central banks and the government keeping interests rates artificially low. in a true free market the price of money would have risen and it would not have gotten to this point. i dont agree that increased government intervention is the solution. the neokeynesian policies which government are currently employing will only prolongue the crisis and make it worse and probably result in hyperinflation. there isnt much governments can do to get out of this one. the growth that has been experienced in recent decades has been artificial and unsustainable and the imbalances in the market need to naturally adjust in order for sustainable growth and wealth creation to resume. this will inevitably result in a temporary recession whilst all the malinvestments created by easy and cheap credit are purged from the system. what is likely to collapse is the whole fiat currency system experiment which has allowed this mess to occur.
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


tripn wrote :
nice intentions but the reality is that without foreign direct investment these countries will not raise their standard of living beyond their current level. its usually government corruption which prevent companies from entering these foreign markets and bidding up wages by accepting bribes from corporations in order to prevent competition. raising minimum wages does not raise standards of living. if minimum wage laws create wealth then why not raise it to $50 an hour or even a $100 an hour? see what happens. the african countries remain poor because of corruption and the fact that their governments have policies which deter foreign investment and trade and dont ensure property rights and the rule of law for their citizens. the standard of living in india and other countries has risen in direct proportion to how open their markets are. just look at china and the east asian tiger nations as an example.


tripn wrote :
all youve done is regurgitate the official response used by governments in order to justify more control and regulation while ignoring the real problems underlying the issue. its almost like youve read the newspaper article wirtten by mainstream economist like paul krugman and just repeated it word for word without even thinking about it. of course when shitty government policies create a global crisis they are going to try and pin it on the free market and unrestricted capitalism but the truth is that unregulated free market capitalism as never actually been allowed to operate so there is no way the current predicament has been caused by the free market. irresponsible monetary policy is what caused it.


Well I can only guide you so much, the rest you have to do yourself. I know first year is an exciting time. I've been there myself.

I'll leave you with a couple of thoughts.

1. How do you explain the Northern Territory Intervention and the living conditions of Indigenous Australians in terms of not being controlled by the government but being controlled instead by direct foreign investments (or lack thereof)?

2. How do you reconcile your opinion that unregulated free market capitalism have never actually been allowed to operate with the successive reforms that George Bush Snr brought in over a number of years which resulted in deregulation of the financial and banking industry which is not an opinion but historical fact which can be proven?

You don't have to answer or reply to these, it's just food for thought.
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


venatrix wrote :

Well I can only guide you so much, the rest you have to do yourself. I know first year is an exciting time. I've been there myself.



dont be so smug. ive been studying economics and political science for many years on my own before i even considered going to uni to study it. ive examined all sides of the debate including your line of thinking many times over and tend to go where the objective evidence leads. what ive mainly noticed is that when we talk about capitalism we are not even talking about the same thing. im am referring to capitalism as people exchanging products, services, labour, etc voluntarily in a free market, whether that be on a large or small scale, within or across borders. you and dan are talking about the neo-mercantilism neoliberal fascistic model that most people refer to as capitalism nowadays. otherwise you wouldnt have asked me that second question about george bush. some aspects of the banking sector were de-regulated but that means fuck all when the currency is completely monopolised and manipulated. without the commodity called money and its price and issuing being determined by the free market there will not be a true free market. i wont get into all the regulation and policy which caused the perverse incentives which led to banks lending money to people with no jobs, created the housing bubble and the subprime crisis. i think ive mentioned it before on one of your facebook threads a while back.

im not sure i understand that question about the indigenous situation. are you saying the government is in control or not? and what do you mean about foreign direct investment in that regard?
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


tripn wrote :
dont be so smug. ive been studying economics and political science for many years on my own before i even considered going to uni to study it. ive examined all sides of the debate including your line of thinking many times over and tend to go where the objective evidence leads.


Honestly, I don't know if you have learned or been taught how to think critically. I really don't. On the one hand, you honestly sound like rather like Wade (in that he regularly posted about his extensive study of philosophy, comparative religion, political history etc) . Clearly his private study was an exercise in confirmation bias and resulted in a crude understanding of the issues he claimed to be an authority on. I'm not saying you demonstrate the same (low) level of understanding, just that it is unclear whether your responses are the result of critical thinking and analysis.

You can read as many or as few academic texts as you like, but if you don't possess the ability to critically engage with the sources then you are well read but essentially still ignorant about their meaning, influence, and credibility. As I said, I do not know if you have learned or been taught critical thinking and analysis. On the one hand, yes you can deduce fact from objective evidence. On the other hand, it is virtually impossible to give an objective response to anything as any response will inevitably be produced through your unique, personal, experiential lens. I don't want to wrangle with modernism and postmodernism/poststructuralism right now because it strays from the point.

tripn wrote :
what ive mainly noticed is that when we talk about capitalism we are not even talking about the same thing. im am referring to capitalism as people exchanging products, services, labour, etc voluntarily in a free market, whether that be on a large or small scale, within or across borders. you and dan are talking about the neo-mercantilism neoliberal fascistic model that most people refer to as capitalism nowadays. otherwise you wouldnt have asked me that second question about george bush. some aspects of the banking sector were de-regulated but that means fuck all when the currency is completely monopolised and manipulated. without the commodity called money and its price and issuing being determined by the free market there will not be a true free market. i wont get into all the regulation and policy which caused the perverse incentives which led to banks lending money to people with no jobs, created the housing bubble and the subprime crisis. i think ive mentioned it before on one of your facebook threads a while back.


I don't mean to be reductionist, but a neo-mercantilism neoliberal fascistic model of capitalism is still capitalism. Economic theory is incredibly complex, but at it's root it boils down to positioning wealth and profit at the top of a hierarchy which essentially devalues and eliminates all other possible competing or relevant interests, be it health, education, the environment, social security, equal pay, ethical renumeration for goods or services rendered, or actual need for production.

tripn wrote :
im not sure i understand that question about the indigenous situation. are you saying the government is in control or not? and what do you mean about foreign direct investment in that regard?


This really depends on how much you know about the NT intervention, it's consequences, it's efficacy as a policy (and on how you measure its efficacy), and how you position that with the existing natural resources and future economic potential of the NT, physically (environment, based on the estimated wealth of it's natural resources), culturally (the value of the cultural wealth such as indigenous history, tangible and intangible) and social (the value and significance of the existing indigenous and non-indigenous population). In terms of facts, people who identify as Indigenous Australians who qualify for government financial assistance are subject to extreme government regulation regarding how they can utilise their financial assistance in a way which no other Australian citizen black or white is subject to. In light of this fact I am asking how their standard of living is nothing to to with the government and everything to do with production and foreign investment.
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


hey itchytripn, catch an eyeful of this

tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


venatrix wrote :
Honestly, I don't know if you have learned or been taught how to think critically.


both. in the past 5 years or so ive become fairly good in the art of bullshit detection, analysing peoples reasoning, evaluating arguments, etc. then when i started uni i did a philosophy unit on critical thinking as soon as i got there and got a HD for it. so i must be doing something right. :)


venatrix wrote :
On the one hand, you honestly sound like rather like Wade (in that he regularly posted about his extensive study of philosophy, comparative religion, political history etc) . Clearly his private study was an exercise in confirmation bias and resulted in a crude understanding of the issues he claimed to be an authority on. I'm not saying you demonstrate the same (low) level of understanding, just that it is unclear whether your responses are the result of critical thinking and analysis.


well its pretty obvious wade is not a critical thinker hehe

venatrix wrote :
You can read as many or as few academic texts as you like, but if you don't possess the ability to critically engage with the sources then you are well read but essentially still ignorant about their meaning, influence, and credibility. As I said, I do not know if you have learned or been taught critical thinking and analysis.


i certainly dont take things for granted. whenever i learn of a certain position ill always seek out its counterarguments and then responses to those counterarguments etc. most people just accept whatever point of view or "evidence" confirms their existing feelings or beliefs on a particular matter and filter out any new information which doesnt conform to that. i dont.

venatrix wrote :
On the one hand, yes you can deduce fact from objective evidence. On the other hand, it is virtually impossible to give an objective response to anything as any response will inevitably be produced through your unique, personal, experiential lens. I don't want to wrangle with modernism and postmodernism/poststructuralism right now because it strays from the point.


i know that. and im aware that the social sciences are even less objective than the natural sciences. but i tend to gravitate towards conceptual structures which explain reality better than others. ie. the scientific method.


venatrix wrote :
I don't mean to be reductionist, but a neo-mercantilism neoliberal fascistic model of capitalism is still capitalism. Economic theory is incredibly complex, but at it's root it boils down to positioning wealth and profit at the top of a hierarchy which essentially devalues and eliminates all other possible competing or relevant interests, be it health, education, the environment, social security, equal pay, ethical renumeration for goods or services rendered, or actual need for production.


i disagree entirely with that first sentence. thats like saying national socialism is capitalism. this is the fundamental misunderstanding which plagues the world today. especially amongst the anti-globalisation movement and marxist groups. but also amongst those who claim to be in favour of free market capitalism such as the australian liberal party (what a joke of a name) and the republican party in the US. for example, republicans are just as much anti-capitalism as their opponents when you look at their track record on government spending and the use of military force to ensure US business interests overseas.


venatrix wrote :
This really depends on how much you know about the NT intervention, it's consequences, it's efficacy as a policy (and on how you measure its efficacy), and how you position that with the existing natural resources and future economic potential of the NT, physically (environment, based on the estimated wealth of it's natural resources), culturally (the value of the cultural wealth such as indigenous history, tangible and intangible) and social (the value and significance of the existing indigenous and non-indigenous population). In terms of facts, people who identify as Indigenous Australians who qualify for government financial assistance are subject to extreme government regulation regarding how they can utilise their financial assistance in a way which no other Australian citizen black or white is subject to. In light of this fact I am asking how their standard of living is nothing to to with the government and everything to do with production and foreign investment.


i dont know very much on this subject so i wont pretend to have an answer. but from what you are said it sounds like youre implying that it is government regulation which further disadvantages indidgenous people by treating them unequally and preventing self-determination with regard to their finances. i know that they are prevented from owning their own homes in many regions. but apart from that i dont have much to say on the topic. havent really looked into it enough.
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


tripn wrote :
i certainly dont take things for granted. whenever i learn of a certain position ill always seek out its counterarguments and then responses to those counterarguments etc. most people just accept whatever point of view or "evidence" confirms their existing feelings or beliefs on a particular matter and filter out any new information which doesnt conform to that. i dont.


Are you saying you're immune to confirmation bias?

tripn wrote :
i know that. and im aware that the social sciences are even less objective than the natural sciences. but i tend to gravitate towards conceptual structures which explain reality better than others. ie. the scientific method.


This is unclear, are you trying to say that social sciences are not objective which is why you prefer to explain reality using the scientific method which is objective?

tripn wrote :
i disagree entirely with that first sentence. thats like saying national socialism is capitalism.


Ah no, it's really not. At all.

A form of capitalism is exactly that.

tripn wrote :
this is the fundamental misunderstanding which plagues the world today. especially amongst the anti-globalisation movement and marxist groups. but also amongst those who claim to be in favour of free market capitalism such as the australian liberal party (what a joke of a name) and the republican party in the US. for example, republicans are just as much anti-capitalism as their opponents when you look at their track record on government spending and the use of military force to ensure US business interests overseas.


The fundamental misunderstanding which plagues the world today is that exponential greed, consumption, and the pursuit of money above all else is a good thing, and the collateral damage (such as the destruction of the environment and the quality of life of the people who have been dispossessed, injured, poisoned, or murdered) is the means justified by the end which is a tiny group of unimaginably wealthy men laughing at how much money they have, or how stupid the government was to bail out their banks, or to allow their corruption to facilitate the passing of laws and loopholes which let them destroy for profit.


venatrix wrote :
i dont know very much on this subject so i wont pretend to have an answer. but from what you are said it sounds like youre implying that it is government regulation which further disadvantages indidgenous people by treating them unequally and preventing self-determination with regard to their finances. i know that they are prevented from owning their own homes in many regions. but apart from that i dont have much to say on the topic. havent really looked into it enough.


Ask Marisa about it. Or look into it yourself. Start by looking into welfare quarantining and the impact is has on people's everyday lives. Look into the alcohol and pornography bans. When you read into it though, try to pretend that it's not happening to brown Abos but white Europeans. People seem to be happy to justify practically any inhumane treatment of people with brown skin but flip out if the same treatment is forced upon white people.
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


fuck this quoting business. ill respond to your points like this instead because im a lazy shit. :)

1. no
2. all i meant was that social science is not as objective as the natural sciences due to experimental control factors and the fact that the social scientist can influence the outcome of social experiments.
3. not really. i gave you the correct definition of capitalism. if you want to believe that mercantilism is capitalism then you are simply wrong.
4. i dont think we disagree on the problems. only the solutions.
5. from my conversations with marisa and from what youve said i think we see pretty much eye to eye on the indigenous issue. no argumemt there.
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


1. Ok, but that's exactly what it sounded like you were saying.
2. Thanks Captain Obvious, but you didn't answer the question. Also where does this leave the humanities (as opposed to the social sciences) since the humanities, while still using an evidence-based approach, do not use the scientific method?
3. 55/100 for the definition. Unclear, poor structure, and lack of sources maketh this a very near failboat. Pls come again.
4. Wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong. You're wrong. We disagree on the problems and the solutions. Capitalism caused the problems, it's sure as hell not going to provide any solutions.
5. If we see eye to eye on the indigenous issue then how to you reconcile that with your beliefs considering your beliefs support the past and current treatment of Aborigines and at the same time absolves the government of any responsibility for their treatment and living conditions despite these things being entirely the fault of the government?

Merry Christmas and a Fappy New Year :love:
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


venatrix wrote :
1. Ok, but that's exactly what it sounded like you were saying.
2. Thanks Captain Obvious, but you didn't answer the question. Also where does this leave the humanities (as opposed to the social sciences) since the humanities, while still using an evidence-based approach, do not use the scientific method?
3. 55/100 for the definition. Unclear, poor structure, and lack of sources maketh this a very near failboat. Pls come again.
4. Wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong. You're wrong. We disagree on the problems and the solutions. Capitalism caused the problems, it's sure as hell not going to provide any solutions.
5. If we see eye to eye on the indigenous issue then how to you reconcile that with your beliefs considering your beliefs support the past and current treatment of Aborigines and at the same time absolves the government of any responsibility for their treatment and living conditions despite these things being entirely the fault of the government?

Merry Christmas and a Fappy New Year :love:


2. dont know. what was the question again?
3&4. forget it. my description of what capitalism is was very clear. but you obviously want to pretend it is something else and then blame all the worlds problems on it. im not going to expend any more energy trying to convince you otherwise. that would be like arguing with wade about religion. you believe what you want.
5. i dont see how my beliefs support the past and present treatment of aboriginies at all. please point out why you think that. i dont agree that the government should be treating them as lesser human beings than everyone else. normally i would say that the govt shoould stay the hell out of their lives but its not that simple since the government is who fucked them up in the first place so kind of has a duty to help them. but its seems it does more harm than good in its attempts.

same to you. you going to the new psycle party for NYE?
itchytriggerniggerfingers
Posts: 2288
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 9:39 pm


tripn wrote :

same to you. you going to the new psycle party for NYE?



I'm not going to weigh in on the econmoics 101 cos that's not my forte, but will I second & third the New Psycle idea. Hedonix 10.30pm Midnight = :killah:
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


tripn wrote :

5. i dont see how my beliefs support the past and present treatment of aboriginies at all. please point out why you think that. i dont agree that the government should be treating them as lesser human beings than everyone else. normally i would say that the govt shoould stay the hell out of their lives but its not that simple since the government is who fucked them up in the first place so kind of has a duty to help them. but its seems it does more harm than good in its attempts.


1 through 4: It's hot and circles make us dizzy.

5. In short, you said the government is not responsible for the standard of living and capitalism and foreign investment is responsible then said some weird stuff about bakers and furniture and stuff:

tripn wrote :
i find it annoying how people who benefit and take for granted the products of capitalism, wealth, growth and trade bag it out and call for it to be halted or stopped entirely. youre just lucky to live in a society in which capitalism has resulted in enough wealth and growth that you have the capability to criticise it while mistakenly crediting the government as being responsible for your current standard of living.....

the people who are responsible for the standard of living are the people who create real wealth by producing things which people need and value. the people who bake your bread, grow your vegetables, make your clothes, dig up metals and cut wood to make your furniture, buses, trains, cars, speakers, computer etc.

these evil capitalists are the ones who are repsonsible for your standard of living. make no mistake about this. the government does not produce anything itself. it only takes from those who produce and redistributes it to other sectors of the economy which serves the interests of those who vote them into power. nothing is gained in terms of wealth creation or jobs when that happens, in fact its usually the opposite.


So if the government isn't responsible for the standard of living of Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory then it must be the capitalist investors and the miners and train builders and stuff who are providing them with opportunities to produce things and get wealthy like you said.

tripn wrote :
same to you. you going to the new psycle party for NYE?


Would love to but sadly don't think I can make it this time :( Have a mad party dude :killah:
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


itchytriggerniggerfingers wrote :
I'm not going to weigh in on the econmoics 101 cos that's not my forte, but will I second & third the New Psycle idea. Hedonix 10.30pm Midnight = :killah:


rofl that's pretty much what it sounds like ;)

Boys you will have to make do with me being there in spirit... ie make me proud with your shenanigans and hijinks :killah: :mrgreen: :trip:
tripn
Posts: 6721
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:28 pm


oh i see what you mean now. thats not contradictory to my opinion at all since i think the government is responsible for diminishing the standard of living and getting in the way of the free market, which is what increases wealth in society. in the case of indigenous population they have become completely dependant on govt handouts and are treated like children and prevented from having having property rights etc. ask marisa about that. she knows the story better than i do since she lives on palm island.
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


I see what you're saying, but either the government is responsible for the standard of living or it isn't. It can't be both.

Similarly the free market should either be allowed to operate in all aspects of life because it is responsible for creating and increasing wealth in society, or it should not because it is not responsible for creating and increasing wealth in society.

As an example, if the free market was allowed to control universities in Australia as it is in the USA then you are advocating a system where the government does not offer Commonwealth-funded university places and interest-free loans to pay for university fees. Instead the student bears all the costs which run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Students would not be eligible for government assistance such as Youth Allowance, Austudy, or government travel concessions, and would have to pay for accommodation and all other living costs themselves.

Only the incredibly wealthy would have access to tertiary education, and you would not have the opportunity to attend university. So either you support the free market controlling tertiary education, or you don't. You can't have it both ways Sven ;)
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


Also,

Image
herbsandspices
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 pm


The working class is shaped a bit like a prawn.
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


Prawned ey.
58 posts Page 2 of 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests