Superthread LXVI: Honouring Whinging Dragons Fans

[Misanthrope]

High five if you succeed

Thank you in advance, sir. It's been a work in progress for a while. Stupid Georgia keeps getting herself boyfriends and taking herself off the market.

I don't think you can divorce religion and spirituality like that. I would also argue the bigotry is human intervention, so to speak. But we can expand on that if you wish.

Oh, it's undoubtedly poisoned by human intervention. I don't recall Jesus preaching homophobia, sexism, or racism. It's all an invention of scared old men. Hence my distancing myself from organised religion.

Again, I disagree. Teachers specialise, right? You don't get a maths teacher to teach English, right? They study for the subject. Now, I recognise you can study the subject of religion and teach it objectively (which I am fine with); but I am suggesting religion is best taught by those practicing it. It is more than just an objective subject.

Actually, high school teachers, while having a focus from their university days - are typically put wherever they're needed.

I'd agree that religion is best taught by somebody who practices it and studied it, except that chaplains don't study religion broadly - they just study their own.

Currently, schools support a secular worldview because, in good sense, it is working and we live in a multicultural environment where plurality of beliefs exist. I'm not upset with the current methodology or approach. But I am saying it isn't fair to now take that a step further and completely divorce any teaching /access of religion from schools as that will be to support secular worldview to the exclusion of religious worldview.

Oh, I have no issue with religion being in schools. I just don't see why it's being funded by tax-payers while important social services are being cut and other areas are already criminally under-funded.

But we're in agreement on that.

At that point, society has swung to a new spectrum I'm not comfortable with.

How so? Not being argumentative, I'm generally curious. I find society, as a whole, to be a f**king mess.

 

[muzby]

When I got my first paying job I got 2 mates to be my references.

I know somebody who finished uni and got a middle management job when the only thing that was true on his resume was his degree. His 8 years of experience were made up, his references were made up. It's a joke.

the risk you do run there is that if found out, it's terms for immediate termination.

 

[whall15]

The problem with teaching religion in school is to do it in a way that would do it justic would offend a large segment of the community.

 

[BunniesMan]

[youtube]sy9FRli7ODg[/youtube]

And here's my response to that:
[youtube]xVdz985HTJk[/youtube]

Ironically, "Liberal" basically means "not-Liberal" in this country.

Being for big government or small government is stupid. Better than both is GOOD government.

 

[God-King Dean]

I think the next Superthread should honour Tony Abbott.

 

[ek999]

Thank you in advance, sir. It's been a work in progress for a while. Stupid Georgia keeps getting herself boyfriends and taking herself off the market.

Women can be so selfish sometimes

 

[BunniesMan]

the risk you do run there is that if found out, it's terms for immediate termination.

Indeed. This is the sort of lie that is only possible in some situations. But these days some employers insist on experience when experience isn't actually necessary and not everyone can afford to start on unpaid internships. If you see a job that you know you can do, where you have the qualifications but not the experience, that's where little white lies come into play.

If you survive the first week or two without f**king up you'll be fine.

 

[Misanthrope]

Women can be so selfish sometimes

I know, right? Like a weekly dinner in exchange for sex wasn't enough of a commitment.

 

[Bazal]

JM aka Mr Libertarian. Do you see any suitable role for government?


By "ways" I'm sure you mean paying $24.99 on steam...

48% of GP appointments in Canberra are bulk billed. Obviously people comfortable enough to pay $35+ for GP visits won't be affected by a $7 gptax. Nobody has ever said they will.

But that doesn't represent everybody. It might be hard for you to imagine but for some people $35 represents 20% of their weekly income. For some people who after the bills are paid have precisely $0 left at the end of the week a new $7 expense is huge.

It is these people that will suffer in the short term, and we'll all suffer in the long term when we pay for somebody's major surgery instead of the skin check/blood pressure test/cholesterol check we could have paid for.


I did receive the $900.

And I fundamentally disagree. If our taxbase was extreme before those taxcuts I'd agree that they were necessary to create a suitable public/private balance.

But those taxcuts meant the government entered the GFC in a weaker position. Our tax base shrunk too much and we became one of the least taxed people in the OECD. Much less taxed than the standout northern european countries. The system was out of balance and we went deeper into debt than we had to.

But more importantly the structural deficits we now have are in large part because of those irresponsible tax cuts.

It is fundamentally awful economics to spend money you don't have. It is irresponsible to spend temporary income on a permanent cost. And that is what those tax cuts were.


Or buy a media company that brainwashes people into being useful idiots.

48% of gp appointments in Canberra are not free. They weren't in 2012 when that article was written and they aren't now. All bar two practices that I can now think of make you pay the cost without the Medicare rebate. Some bulk bill pensioners. That's it. Take the word of someone who lives here and sees a doctor up to 8 times a month or don't. No point arguing with the blind if you won't see it.

 

[Misanthrope]

I'm not sure why you and BM are harping on about GP costs in Australia's least populated territory.

 

[ek999]

I know, right? Like a weekly dinner in exchange for sex wasn't enough of a commitment.

I would expect her to make you dinner more than that actually...

 

[Jason Maher]

JM aka Mr Libertarian. Do you see any suitable role for government?


By "ways" I'm sure you mean paying $24.99 on steam...

48% of GP appointments in Canberra are bulk billed. Obviously people comfortable enough to pay $35+ for GP visits won't be affected by a $7 gptax. Nobody has ever said they will.

But that doesn't represent everybody. It might be hard for you to imagine but for some people $35 represents 20% of their weekly income. For some people who after the bills are paid have precisely $0 left at the end of the week a new $7 expense is huge.

It is these people that will suffer in the short term, and we'll all suffer in the long term when we pay for somebody's major surgery instead of the skin check/blood pressure test/cholesterol check we could have paid for.


I did receive the $900.

And I fundamentally disagree. If our taxbase was extreme before those taxcuts I'd agree that they were necessary to create a suitable public/private balance.

But those taxcuts meant the government entered the GFC in a weaker position. Our tax base shrunk too much and we became one of the least taxed people in the OECD. Much less taxed than the standout northern european countries. The system was out of balance and we went deeper into debt than we had to.

But more importantly the structural deficits we now have are in large part because of those irresponsible tax cuts.

It is fundamentally awful economics to spend money you don't have. It is irresponsible to spend temporary income on a permanent cost. And that is what those tax cuts were.


Or buy a media company that brainwashes people into being useful idiots.

In ideological terms, no. I'm pretty much an anarchist. In slightly more practical terms, I'd happily live in a minarchist society (police, courts, and defence only, where defence means precisely that - defence).

In direct policy terms, I favour stringent means testing of government assistance for individuals, and complete cessation of any and all assistance for businesses. I favour completely open borders. I favour unilateral dismantlement of trade barriers. I favour complete legalisation of all banned or controlled substances. I favour non-involvement in any future wars of aggression. I favour a significant increase in the tax free threshold and a single flat rate of say 20% beyond that. I favour a reduction in the company tax rate to the same 20%. I favour the abolition of "sin taxes" on cigarettes and alcohol. I favour the abolition of all manner of other indirect taxes, including he fuel excise, capital gains tax, payroll tax, taxes on savings and superannuation. I favour the selling off of many public assets, including Australia Post (the private sector already offers a vastly superior service except where it is prohobited by law from competing), the ABC, SBS, and the road and rail networks. I favour the deregulation of health and education, so that private sector competition can bring about better service at a reduced cost (as happened with telecommunications). I favour deregulation in general. Regulation in every sector of the economy favours large and established interests who are better equipped to meet compliance costs than their smaller competitors or new start ups. I favour IR deregulation, including but not limited to the abolition of minimum wage laws, unfair dismissal laws, and government imposed conditions. I favour the abolition of marriage laws. I favour the abolition of censorship laws and laws against prostitution.

In short, I favour freedom. I believe in the power of people to build a better society on their own, without the interference government. I believe that governments only ever impede progress. And I believe no-one has the right to tell other people how they should live or what they should consume, and to attempt to enforce these opinions with the power of the state. I also believe no-one has a legitimate claim to the property of someone else, including the proceeds of their labour. You want money from someone, you ask them for it, you don't take it from them by force. Not even if you are the government.

 

[Drew-Sta]

Oh, it's undoubtedly poisoned by human intervention. I don't recall Jesus preaching homophobia, sexism, or racism. It's all an invention of scared old men. Hence my distancing myself from organised religion.

Agree.

Actually, high school teachers, while having a focus from their university days - are typically put wherever they're needed.

I'd agree that religion is best taught by somebody who practices it and studied it, except that chaplains don't study religion broadly - they just study their own.

Untrue. Well, at least, not in protestant circles. I've spent a lot of time learning about different denominations and different religions and faiths. We do it in apologetics and interfaith dialogue. We have to. It's a non-negotiable.

I can quite happily discuss with you the stark differences between Islam and Christianity, or the finer points of Presbyterianism to Anglicanism.

We can't afford to be ignorant. I'll admit I wouldn't teach an Orthodox / Catholic class as I don't feel it is honest for me to represent something that is quite different to what I believe, but I know a lot about it.

How so? Not being argumentative, I'm generally curious. I find society, as a whole, to be a f**king mess.

Any time any society preferences a worldview, it begins a slippery slope to that culture giving it preference and dividing against those who don't hold that view. The primary place this happens is in the education system.

When a society preferences a worldview against other worldviews, it generates laws in their own worldview which often marginalize those with a different worldview, or create a divide. An example of this is in France, where secular laws have outlawed the Islamic scarf being worn. The alternate is Indonesia or Iran, where it is illegal to be Christian or espouse Christian beliefs. This is, essentially, religious intolerance on a state level and the marginalization of peoples belief system in the country they live in. They're faced with either conforming to the laws of the land thereby compromising their belief system, or being persecuted under state law for holding firm.

If the secular worldview in Australia excludes religion from holding fair say, then I suspect it will be a slippery slope to a point where those of any religious affiliation will find it quite uncomfortable to exist. Now, I don't think its getting to that point, but idiots like Abbott make it easy for those observing to get quite cranky with any interaction between faith and state at all and are likely to rebel if he keeps on the path he is heading now.

 

[Drew-Sta]

The problem with teaching religion in school is to do it in a way that would do it justic would offend a large segment of the community.

Eh? How? Like teaching secularism isn't going to offend a large segment of the community? Your own argument folds in on itself.

In ideological terms, no. I'm pretty much an anarchist. In slightly more practical terms, I'd happily live in a minarchist society (police, courts, and defence only, where defence means precisely that - defence).

In direct policy terms, I favour stringent means testing of government assistance for individuals, and complete cessation of any and all assistance for businesses. I favour completely open borders. I favour unilateral dismantlement of trade barriers. I favour complete legalisation of all banned or controlled substances. I favour non-involvement in any future wars of aggression. I favour a significant increase in the tax free threshold and a single flat rate of say 20% beyond that. I favour a reduction in the company tax rate to the same 20%. I favour the abolition of "sin taxes" on cigarettes and alcohol. I favour the abolition of all manner of other indirect taxes, including he fuel excise, capital gains tax, payroll tax, taxes on savings and superannuation. I favour the selling off of many public assets, including Australia Post (the private sector already offers a vastly superior service except where it is prohobited by law from competing), the ABC, SBS, and the road and rail networks. I favour the deregulation of health and education, so that private sector competition can bring about better service at a reduced cost (as happened with telecommunications). I favour deregulation in general. Regulation in every sector of the economy favours large and established interests who are better equipped to meet compliance costs than their smaller competitors or new start ups. I favour IR deregulation, including but not limited to the abolition of minimum wage laws, unfair dismissal laws, and government imposed conditions. I favour the abolition of marriage laws. I favour the abolition of censorship laws and laws against prostitution.

In short, I favour freedom. I believe in the power of people to build a better society on their own, without the interference government. I believe that governments only ever impede progress. And I believe no-one has the right to tell other people how they should live or what they should consume, and to attempt to enforce these opinions with the power of the state. I also believe no-one has a legitimate claim to the property of someone else, including the proceeds of their labour. You want money from someone, you ask them for it, you don't take it from them by force. Not even if you are the government.

The absence of rules or controlling body is not freedom, Jason. It's lunacy. There's no historical society that has ever lived in an minarchist manner. And none will ever survive.

Your version of government is 'the rich get richer, the poor get the picture'.

Your policies identify you to have no sympathy or idea of the greater good helping the weak, poor or elderly. Its sickening.

 

[afinalsin666]

I want full democracy. I want to be able to vote Brad down the road, rather than choose between an incompetant bigot, or an incompetant idiot.

 

[afinalsin666]

In ideological terms, no. I'm pretty much an anarchist. In slightly more practical terms, I'd happily live in a minarchist society (police, courts, and defence only, where defence means precisely that - defence).

In direct policy terms, I favour stringent means testing of government assistance for individuals, and complete cessation of any and all assistance for businesses.

I favour completely open borders.

I favour unilateral dismantlement of trade barriers.

I favour complete legalisation of all banned or controlled substances.

I favour non-involvement in any future wars of aggression.

I favour a significant increase in the tax free threshold and a single flat rate of say 20% beyond that.

I favour a reduction in the company tax rate to the same 20%.

I favour the abolition of "sin taxes" on cigarettes and alcohol.

I favour the abolition of all manner of other indirect taxes, including he fuel excise, capital gains tax, payroll tax, taxes on savings and superannuation.

I favour the selling off of many public assets, including Australia Post (the private sector already offers a vastly superior service except where it is prohobited by law from competing), the ABC, SBS, and the road and rail networks.

I favour the deregulation of health and education, so that private sector competition can bring about better service at a reduced cost (as happened with telecommunications).

I favour deregulation in general. Regulation in every sector of the economy favours large and established interests who are better equipped to meet compliance costs than their smaller competitors or new start ups.

I favour IR deregulation, including but not limited to the abolition of minimum wage laws, unfair dismissal laws, and government imposed conditions.

I favour the abolition of marriage laws.

I favour the abolition of censorship laws and laws against prostitution.

In short, I favour freedom. I believe in the power of people to build a better society on their own, without the interference government. I believe that governments only ever impede progress. And I believe no-one has the right to tell other people how they should live or what they should consume, and to attempt to enforce these opinions with the power of the state. I also believe no-one has a legitimate claim to the property of someone else, including the proceeds of their labour. You want money from someone, you ask them for it, you don't take it from them by force. Not even if you are the government.

Cleaning that up, it made me sad to look at.

 

[muzby]

personally i think the government should hand over control to me.

i'm clearly the best candidate to run the country.

 

[BunniesMan]

In ideological terms, no. I'm pretty much an anarchist. In slightly more practical terms, I'd happily live in a minarchist society (police, courts, and defence only, where defence means precisely that - defence).

In direct policy terms, I favour stringent means testing of government assistance for individuals, and complete cessation of any and all assistance for businesses. I favour completely open borders. I favour unilateral dismantlement of trade barriers. I favour complete legalisation of all banned or controlled substances. I favour non-involvement in any future wars of aggression. I favour a significant increase in the tax free threshold and a single flat rate of say 20% beyond that. I favour a reduction in the company tax rate to the same 20%. I favour the abolition of "sin taxes" on cigarettes and alcohol. I favour the abolition of all manner of other indirect taxes, including he fuel excise, capital gains tax, payroll tax, taxes on savings and superannuation. I favour the selling off of many public assets, including Australia Post (the private sector already offers a vastly superior service except where it is prohobited by law from competing), the ABC, SBS, and the road and rail networks. I favour the deregulation of health and education, so that private sector competition can bring about better service at a reduced cost (as happened with telecommunications). I favour deregulation in general. Regulation in every sector of the economy favours large and established interests who are better equipped to meet compliance costs than their smaller competitors or new start ups. I favour IR deregulation, including but not limited to the abolition of minimum wage laws, unfair dismissal laws, and government imposed conditions. I favour the abolition of marriage laws. I favour the abolition of censorship laws and laws against prostitution.

In short, I favour freedom. I believe in the power of people to build a better society on their own, without the interference government. I believe that governments only ever impede progress. And I believe no-one has the right to tell other people how they should live or what they should consume, and to attempt to enforce these opinions with the power of the state. I also believe no-one has a legitimate claim to the property of someone else, including the proceeds of their labour. You want money from someone, you ask them for it, you don't take it from them by force. Not even if you are the government.

I agree with some of your points. And some I do not.

You favour small government. I favour good government. You want almost no rules. I think a reasonable amount of rules are necessary for a healthy society. The GFC is what happens when deregulation goes too far. When the lack of rules enables humans to do what is in our nature, be greedy and hoard.

For example, drug laws are dumb. They should go. They are illogical and unproductive.
Minimum wage laws are vital to protect the weak from being abused by the strong. They must stay. And a non private media source is absolutely vital for a functioning democracy IMO. A privatised ABC would hurt us all.

All money should decide is who is rich and who is not. Money should not decide how much you can be educated. It should not stand in the way of upward social mobility for those willing to work hard enough. And it should not be the difference between being sick and being healthy. Having a lot of money should buy you the luxuries in life. It should not buy you health and education.

I think the Scandinavian model of a socialism-capitalism (but with a sprinkle of libertarianism thrown in when it comes to personal freedoms such as drug use) hybrid is the ideal for the western world. Low company taxes to enable businesses to grow and innovate. But a strong safety net to protect the poor and the weak. The rich don't stop being rich but the poor are given genuine oppurtunity to better themselves. The last bit is very hard in a libertarian world.

Basically I think the best parts of socialism, capitalism and libertarianism can co-exist to create the best possible modern society.

 

[Rhino_NQ]

muzby for pm!

 

[Bulldog Force]

Correct Muzby. This means you'll need to move here