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

[bshoc]

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.

Dirt poor immigrants come here all the time and generally become middle class or wealthy, so maybe we should be opening new scientific fields in racial intelligence? Because there is nothing inherit within the system keeping aboriginals attaining parity with others.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Dirt poor immigrants come here all the time and generally become middle class or wealthy, so maybe we should be opening new scientific fields in racial intelligence?

Dirt poor immigrants? I don't know about that, perhaps the generations after them. There is also the added social problems which the aboriginals are facing in Australia.

Because there is nothing inherit within the system keeping aboriginals attaining parity with others.

I agree, nothing in the government (others may disagree), but I'd say aboriginals are still discriminated against in society and this is what the government is attempting to rectify. Personally I don't think they're taking the right approach, I'd be more parental with them, throw less cash around.

If you're claiming aboriginals might just be dumber than non-aboriginals and therefore destined to forever be at the lowest rung of society, I would point out that it does not take a huge level of intelligence to do alot of work - Alot of aboriginals just do nothing.

 

[banco55]

I think it's at least partly cultural. In aboriginal culture they have what anthropoligists call "demand sharing". Which basically means that there is huge social pressure to share whatever you have. So in the old days if you did well hunting there'd be an expectation you'd share the vast bulk of it. So there's a disincentive if you live in a remote community to aspire to have too much because you will be expected to effectively give a lot of it away to people in the community. Plus the welfare system is seen as being consistent with demand sharing so there's no shame in taking hand outs ad infinitum. Most of you probably know the famous aboriginal actor who starred in walk about? One of the reasons he has no money these days is he was expected to share the material success he obtained with his community. He now says he's happier without any money etc. because there's no constant demands on him.

 

[withoutaface]

All I can say to all you conservatives out there is, you all are nothing but fascists

We have our first buzzword!

and give words such as discrimination a whole new meaning. To be frank, the word conservative should just be replaced with the word discriminatory,

So the sentence "I am a conservative" would become "I am a discriminatory"?

because practically it is nothing but a political form of discrimination.

Do you support affirmative action?

I mean what do you people run on, let me see:
1. Against gay marriage

I'm against gay marriage and I'm not discriminatory. Please tell me how my views discriminate against homosexuals any more than heterosexuals.

2. A current war that is based on faulty intelligence

While the war was bad policy, I can't see how it's discriminatory.

3. Religious beliefs that belittles other race and religion

You mean religious beliefs like wanting to have sharia law instated? The majority of real conservatives have a minimal influence from their religion, I think you're referring to theocrats.

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.

The market provides the best disincentive not to discriminate because if employer a does not hire a black man who is fully capable, his competitor gets the same man at a lower rate. Eventually employer b employs a whole bunch of ethnics at much lower pay rates than employer a. Is this bad? Probably, but within six months employer a goes out of business because his margins are slashed to ribbons by employer b, and new competition pops up that learns from the mistakes of the past, and does not discriminate.

 

[volition]

The market provides the best disincentive not to discriminate because if employer a does not hire a black man who is fully capable, his competitor gets the same man at a lower rate. Eventually employer b employs a whole bunch of ethnics at much lower pay rates than employer a. Is this bad? Probably, but within six months employer a goes out of business because his margins are slashed to ribbons by employer b, and new competition pops up that learns from the mistakes of the past, and does not discriminate.

I think this is especially true now (more so than it was in the past), with more and more competition making employers seek out the cheapest way to make stuff.

 

[Nousiainen]

You mean religious beliefs like wanting to have sharia law instated? The majority of real conservatives have a minimal influence from their religion, I think you're referring to theocrats.

Your use of the words "minimal influence from their religion" is interesting..

I'm against gay marriage and I'm not discriminatory. Please tell me how my views discriminate against homosexuals any more than heterosexuals.

.. because the majority that are against gay marriage tend to use religious reasons.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

I think it's at least partly cultural. In aboriginal culture they have what anthropoligists call "demand sharing". Which basically means that there is huge social pressure to share whatever you have. So in the old days if you did well hunting there'd be an expectation you'd share the vast bulk of it. So there's a disincentive if you live in a remote community to aspire to have too much because you will be expected to effectively give a lot of it away to people in the community. Plus the welfare system is seen as being consistent with demand sharing so there's no shame in taking hand outs ad infinitum. Most of you probably know the famous aboriginal actor who starred in walk about? One of the reasons he has no money these days is he was expected to share the material success he obtained with his community. He now says he's happier without any money etc. because there's no constant demands on him.

One of the reasons he has no money is because he spent it on grog.

Aboriginals generally can't handle their alcohol, its as bad for them as illegal drugs are for us.

 

[jdcb4]

To digress:
In practice do you think Radical Left ot Right is most promising? I am a self admitted conservative, so this probably will be (Spectacularly) biased, but nonetheless, in practice:

Extreme Right:
Nazi Germany
Facist Italy
Fascist Spain
All monarchys/autocracy from Rome through Russia pre WWI

Extreme Left:
USSR
Cuba
Vietnam
China

It seems to me that, although many human rights abuses occured in extreme right controlled countries, the Rights generally had better stability, economic prosperity and even (Thugh Nazism was shocking) better human rights than their left wing counterparts. (China and USSR both had mass killings that almost paled the Nazis genocide)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating either system or excusing the abuses under these systems, but do you find that Extrme Right generally came out better over extreme left?

My highest level of historical qualification is a bit of HSC Modern so I'm by no means trying to insist that this is right!

 

[dieburndie]

To digress:
In practice do you think Radical Left ot Right is most promising? I am a self admitted conservative, so this probably will be (Spectacularly) biased, but nonetheless, in practice:

Extreme Right:
Nazi Germany
Facist Italy
Fascist Spain
All monarchys/autocracy from Rome through Russia pre WWI

Extreme Left:
USSR
Cuba
Vietnam
China

It seems to me that, although many human rights abuses occured in extreme right controlled countries, the Rights generally had better stability, economic prosperity and even (Thugh Nazism was shocking) better human rights than their left wing counterparts. (China and USSR both had mass killings that almost paled the Nazis genocide)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating either system or excusing the abuses under these systems, but do you find that Extrme Right generally came out better over extreme left?

My highest level of historical qualification is a bit of HSC Modern so I'm by no means trying to insist that this is right!

Firstly, what's the point of this comparision in terms of making a case for either the left or right? What particular economic attributes about each regime caused the human rights abuses to be worse than those of the other side?

Secondly, Nazi Germany was hardly extreme right and Cuba, though questionable in it's lack of civil liberties, is nowhere near as oppressive as the others.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

When you get to the absolute extremes they're pretty much the same thing. Two sides of one coin.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well personally I'd take any of those 'extreme left' states over the extreme right ones... Maybe not the USSR at the height of stalinism or China at the height of the cultural revolution. Also interesting you didn't include Pinochet's chile.

 

[jdcb4]

Firstly, what's the point of this comparision in terms of making a case for either the left or right? What particular economic attributes about each regime caused the human rights abuses to be worse than those of the other side?

Secondly, Nazi Germany was hardly extreme right and Cuba, though questionable in it's lack of civil liberties, is nowhere near as oppressive as the others.

Yeah, Cuba is marginly better than most communist countries, much better than the worst cases. That's why it was in ther, to balance up the lists somewhat it was all I could think of interms of a reasonably sound Communist country

Nazism is certainly considered Extreme Right. Tight State Control, Violently opposed socialism, generally considedered to be the opposite of communism an a branch of fascism.
Sure, there's similarities between extreme right and left but that's not to say that they're the same or that Nazism isn't extreme right

I just find it interesting that generally Extreme Right at least shows potential to run a country whereas Extreme Left almost always results in collapse politically, socially, and economically.

"When you get to the absolute extremes they're pretty much the same thing. Two sides of one coin."
True, but they still retain important differences. Like the chance for provate industry. Anyhow I need to read up on Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and various other stuff before i try to argue with people who probably have much greater background knowledge of the topic than I do.
Adieu

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Nazism is certainly considered Extreme Right.

Not really, if you look at their economic policies they're pretty far from free-market capitalism.

Tight State Control

Since when is this a hallmark of the right? lol.

Violently opposed socialism

Also violently opposed the free market...

I just find it interesting that generally Extreme Right at least shows potential to run a country whereas Extreme Left almost always results in collapse politically, socially, and economically.

What are you talking about? China is doing quite well these days, cuba can't be criticised given the US imposed embargo, and vietnam is going fine.

 

[jdcb4]

I admit I do need to look up Nazisms economics. But I have a feeling they were far more 'free market' than Communism

Tight state control has always been a hallmark of the extrme right, more so control of the individual than the market. For example: any monarchy ever

'China is doing quite well these days' on GDP, divide by 1.25 Billion and you have the problem.
I have zero idea about Vietnam's situation economically, or standard of living wise.
Cuba I admit is an exception of sorts

But I think that generally the Right had better conditions for the general populous. Soviet workers were dirt poor under communism, workers under Nazism (as far as I can tell) were much better off
They lost most civil/political rights but so did the left

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Tight state control has always been a hallmark of the extrme right, more so control of the individual than the market. For example: any monarchy ever

Well... you see, there's a reason why 'Right-Left' isn't used on its own for politics. For E.g. Bismark was by our standards today (and back then) an extreme conservative, yet he established the first real system of nationalised healthcare. Anyway tight control has always been the hallmark of authoritarians, on the left and right. There are 'extreme' right philosophies that call for minimum government control.

'China is doing quite well these days' on GDP, divide by 1.25 Billion and you have the problem.

lol that's your analysis?

I have zero idea about Vietnam's situation economically, or standard of living wise.

Err well if you're going to look at standard of living, I think you should look at what they started off with and the conditions they've uniquely had to dealt with etc - Different countries will also do better under different systems.

But I think that generally the Right had better conditions for the general populous. Soviet workers were dirt poor under communism, workers under Nazism (as far as I can tell) were much better off

- Is it possible there were external factors?
- Nazi's utilised slave workers, as did in later times the soviets (gulags).

 

[jdcb4]

I'm liking this thread, clear arguments without 'shouting matches'.

Yes, i realise Rght-Left isn't the only identifier of politics, or even always clear. However I do think that Nazism and fascism are Extreme Right (Cetiany the majority view) While socialism, anarchism and communism (In all its variations) are extreme left

China is doing quite well these days' on GDP, divide by 1.25 Billion and you have the problem.
lol that's your analysis?

Yeah basically. Sorry, too lazy to look up the figures but although China has done well recently and in terms of GDP is way up there, looking at replacing Japan and Germany as 2nd or 3rd ranked country (I think) in the next 25 years, it still has a paltry GDP per capita. Its citizens still live in poverty. Most Extreme Right societies didn't have a lot of poverty, most people were employed in 'rewarding' jobs. A.K.A. hey could generally feed and house the family, its all relative i guess.

I guess to look at standard of living you do have o examine where they're coming from. I really don't know a lot about China or Vietnam in these areas but in Germany Nazism relieved mass unemployment and poverty (I realise there was a huge human cost to this) and in the Soviet Union Russian peasants benefited little, or in some cases were worse off under Communism than under tsarism. Esp War Communism, which I again reali is a extenuating circumstance as such

 

[jdcb4]

Hmm, i think I use boS too much, i'm disappointed to not recieve a reply at 2 in the morning

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Soviet Union Russian peasants benefited little

Really? Can you explain why the european 'middle' class began to disolve after the fall of the soviet union?

 

[jdcb4]

Nope, not really. didn't actually realise it had happened. More rich people? I'm guessing not. They could no longer exloit cheap labour in Russia, therefore had to actually do the work themsleves, making them working class rather than middle class? I'm too tired to even know if this is arguing for or against my point! But the fact you only picked me on one point does seem promising!
Note to self: Research topic prior to argument with someone who actually does understand the topic.

 

[jdcb4]

Well personally I'd take any of those 'extreme left' states over the extreme right ones... Maybe not the USSR at the height of stalinism or China at the height of the cultural revolution. Also interesting you didn't include Pinochet's chile.

But that's 2 of the biggest examples! How about Italy under Mussolini or (let's see you've ruled out China and Russia) Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh