Feminism v Family (Was Re: Reforming Telstra (long))
Andrew D
+Andrew D wrote:
+> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote: [...]
+> +Andrew, much as I respect your right to be a Liberal Party
+> +hack...
+>
+> ???
+> I merely asked the question because almost everyone I saw on the news
+> (from economists to unionists) was condemning the "solution" as
+> unworkable. I have no opinion either way as it isn't an issue I follow.
+Oh, fair enough. I withdraw the comment.
Okay then. Don't let it happen again.
[snip]
+> I'm not exactly your stereotypical "privatise everything" conservative (I
+> don't even have private health cover). In fact, if the Labor Party weren't
+> opposed to the single-income family model, I probably wouldn't be very
+> conservative at all - and as far as I've been able to ascertain, that
+> applies to an awful lot of "ordinary" families who can see no value in ALP
+> "family" policies
+I'm with you up to this point. We both are annoyed by the symptoms.
+Something I've noticed in the times we've argued here is we have
+radically different views on the cause.
+> which are usually little more than "women's" policy with
+> a different name and which do nothing to promote freedom of choice on how
+> married couples divide their family duties. Read their "Family Futures
+> policy document and see how much is devoted to "working" mothers and
+> "childcare" and see what they "offered" to single-income families.
+Now y'see, while you're quick to blame feminism, I'm more interested
+in why it is that we now have a class of working poor for whom ownership
+of the basics (food, shelter and clothing) are not affordable unless both
+partners are in the workforce.
I don't blame "feminisism" as such, I blame fundamentalist feminism - the
form of feminism that insists that the wishes of female elites must also
be the wishes of all other women. Since fundamentalism is the visible face
of feminism it is perceived by many as feminism.
When I condemn feminism, I am really condemning today's political face of
feminism which has more to do with breaking any and every tradition and
little to do with delivering freedom to average women who may well have no
intention, desire or ability to become a lawyer, professor, politician or
media commentator. (Why is it that while most men have "jobs", women
always seem to have "careers"?). Some women see motherhood as a great
challenge offering terrific rewards yet it is held in less regard than
street sweeping these days.
Also note that whenever anyone proposes ways of reducing the financial
burden suffered by one-income families, there is an outcry from the
"feminist lobby", the ALP, Democrats and pro-feminist media commentators
that any relief would result in women being chained to the kitchen sink.
Even if feminism isn't the original cause of the problem, today's
"feminists" certainly have a hand in maintaining it.
In the seventies average families survived on one income and paid little
if any tax. Today, if one partner works, then that partner pays tax AND
the other partner loses benefits and concessions (one partner is
essentially an individual yet the other partner isn't). If you can explain
why or how this change has occured (and why it should continue) without
reference to feminism then please feel free to educate me. ;)
Take a look at the views of the Women's Action Alliance for a different
perspective on how a great many women feel about the issues of choice and
equality and the failure of "feminism" to deliver either. Compare WAA's
views on family, childcare and taxation with the views of Australia's peak
"feminist" lobby, WEL. Ask yourself which group sees fulltime housewives
and mothers as legitimate "working women" and which group sees them as
"oppressed".
+> Ask David Moss if he thinks I'm a Liberal Party Hack? I'm not even close.
+David Moss is the epitome of the "Liberal Party Hack" these days. A
+truly sad decline to witness, considering the quality of his writing
+here in earlier days.
Must admit, I was deeply disappointed when David staunchly defended
Howard's proposed tax increase on single-income families via the now
defunct Timor Levy.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Synic
of yours ;-).
Andrew D wrote:
> Synic (revers...@indigo.net.au) wrote:
[...]
> +> which are usually little more than "women's" policy with
> +> a different name and which do nothing to promote freedom of choice on how
> +> married couples divide their family duties. Read their "Family Futures
> +> policy document and see how much is devoted to "working" mothers and
> +> "childcare" and see what they "offered" to single-income families.
>
> +Now y'see, while you're quick to blame feminism, I'm more interested
> +in why it is that we now have a class of working poor for whom ownership
> +of the basics (food, shelter and clothing) are not affordable unless both
> +partners are in the workforce.
>
> I don't blame "feminisism" as such, I blame fundamentalist feminism - the
> form of feminism that insists that the wishes of female elites must also
> be the wishes of all other women. Since fundamentalism is the visible face
> of feminism it is perceived by many as feminism.
Hmmm... No. You're condemning 1950s-1980s feminism, actually.
Increasingly, the trend has been away from that form of feminism since
about 1985 or so, at least in academia. The works of Lynn Segal are to
be highly commended for blazing this trail. They burst the myth of
female solidarity and are very much focussed on the rights of women
to choose what they want to do; whether that be the workforce or the
family. This is by far the most common feminist belief these days.
> When I condemn feminism, I am really condemning today's political face of
> feminism which has more to do with breaking any and every tradition and
> little to do with delivering freedom to average women who may well have no
> intention, desire or ability to become a lawyer, professor, politician or
> media commentator. (Why is it that while most men have "jobs", women
> always seem to have "careers"?). Some women see motherhood as a great
> challenge offering terrific rewards yet it is held in less regard than
> street sweeping these days.
You're actually condemning something which is very passe and out of
date. It's a bit like Scott Hillard still ranting against Communism.
You're flogging a dead horse long after its flesh has left the world.
> Also note that whenever anyone proposes ways of reducing the financial
> burden suffered by one-income families, there is an outcry from the
> "feminist lobby", the ALP, Democrats and pro-feminist media commentators
> that any relief would result in women being chained to the kitchen sink.
Examples, please.
> Even if feminism isn't the original cause of the problem, today's
> "feminists" certainly have a hand in maintaining it.
Only crackpots, and there aren't many of those in positions of power.
> In the seventies average families survived on one income and paid little
> if any tax. Today, if one partner works, then that partner pays tax AND
> the other partner loses benefits and concessions (one partner is
> essentially an individual yet the other partner isn't). If you can explain
> why or how this change has occured (and why it should continue) without
> reference to feminism then please feel free to educate me. ;)
It is simply a plausible reason to take more money; like Austudy loans,
HECS repayments, Payroll tax, tobacco and alcohol excise, etc. Once the
ATO has a tax or some other measure that takes lots of money, they're
loathe to give that up and fight strongly against any movement for
change. It's the way of the world.
Further... try to think who it is who benefits from slugging single
parent families and keeping workers poor enough that they must send
both partners out to work. Hint for you: the same groups pushing for
greater "labour market flexibility", workplace agreements and the
increasing casualisation of the workforce. A bigger labour pool means
more demand for jobs and lower wages.
> Take a look at the views of the Women's Action Alliance for a different
> perspective on how a great many women feel about the issues of choice and
> equality and the failure of "feminism" to deliver either. Compare WAA's
> views on family, childcare and taxation with the views of Australia's peak
> "feminist" lobby, WEL. Ask yourself which group sees fulltime housewives
> and mothers as legitimate "working women" and which group sees them as
> "oppressed".
Aside from the postings from yourself and other rightwingers here, I'd
never heard of WEL (aside from Woodside Energy Limited, which I assume
is *not* the group you hate). Frankly, they sound like just another
pressure group (like the myriad of business groups who few business
owners have ever elected/voted for/seen yet whom make statements on
behalf of the business community every week or so). Given that, why
should you or I really give a shit?
While you see a feminists conspiracy, I see nought but your having
chosen a convenient bludgeonable target without looking more deeply.
You've been sidetracked into a wedge-politics discussions about
feminists instead of the general fight against economic inequity,
social, political and economic dislocation and the emergence of
a class of working poor ("untermench" in Scott Hillard-speak).
[...]
Edmund Esterbauer
That is the sum of their contribution to society.
--
"The true value of democracy is to serve as a sanitary precaution protecting
us against the abuse of power...In its present form ..It has ceased to be a
safeguard of personal liberty, a restraint from abuse of government
power..It has on the contrary, become the main cause of a progressive and
accelerating increase in the power and weight of the administrative
machine."
Friedrich A. Hayek
"Synic" <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote in message
news:slrnafl350.7ui...@lark.autons.net.au...
Andrew D
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
+Hi Andrew, yeah, I've finally gotten around to replying to this posting
+of yours ;-).
+
+Andrew D wrote:
+> Synic (revers...@indigo.net.au) wrote:
+
+[...]
+> +> which are usually little more than "women's" policy with
+> +> a different name and which do nothing to promote freedom of choice on how
+> +> married couples divide their family duties. Read their "Family Futures
+> +> policy document and see how much is devoted to "working" mothers and
+> +> "childcare" and see what they "offered" to single-income families.
+>
+> +Now y'see, while you're quick to blame feminism, I'm more interested
+> +in why it is that we now have a class of working poor for whom ownership
+> +of the basics (food, shelter and clothing) are not affordable unless both
+> +partners are in the workforce.
+> I don't blame "feminisism" as such, I blame fundamentalist feminism - the
+> form of feminism that insists that the wishes of female elites must also
+> be the wishes of all other women. Since fundamentalism is the visible face
+> of feminism it is perceived by many as feminism.
+Hmmm... No. You're condemning 1950s-1980s feminism, actually.
+Increasingly, the trend has been away from that form of feminism since
+about 1985 or so, at least in academia. The works of Lynn Segal are to
+be highly commended for blazing this trail. They burst the myth of
+female solidarity and are very much focussed on the rights of women
+to choose what they want to do; whether that be the workforce or the
+family. This is by far the most common feminist belief these days.
Not in Australian politics. Yes, it's there in the rhetoric - but it's not
in the policies.... and the policies are what count.
In the 1998 election, Labor stated that one-income and two-income families
were "equally deserving" and that their changes to taxation would reflect
that. In fact, they proposed to tax a $30K one-income family at almost
five times the rate they would tax a $30K two-income family. Hardly
"equal" wouldn't you say? Further to this they outlined options for certan
family-types. Their "solution" to the problems faced by a one-income
family was for the homecare mother to get a paid job.
In the last election, Labor offered new one-income families a pre-payment
of future family payments. This would result in significant reductions
later as the family had to effectivley pay back the money, making the
one-income option less offordable than it already is. They did not propose
that two-income families pay back their childcare assistance or any of
their family payments.
If you take political rhetoric at face value without assessing the
policies then almost every politician of every persuasion cares more about
"the battlers" than about anyone else. Do you believe that?
+> When I condemn feminism, I am really condemning today's political face of
+> feminism which has more to do with breaking any and every tradition and
+> little to do with delivering freedom to average women who may well have no
+> intention, desire or ability to become a lawyer, professor, politician or
+> media commentator. (Why is it that while most men have "jobs", women
+> always seem to have "careers"?). Some women see motherhood as a great
+> challenge offering terrific rewards yet it is held in less regard than
+> street sweeping these days.
+You're actually condemning something which is very passe and out of
+date. It's a bit like Scott Hillard still ranting against Communism.
+You're flogging a dead horse long after its flesh has left the world.
Take a look at Labor's "Family Futures" paper and tell me how it offered
equal support to women who chose to be fulltime homemakers? Highlight any
Democrat policy that displays equal treatment of one-icome and two-income
families. Show me any WEL policy aimed at making homemaking a viable,
affordable option.
These are not decades old policies.
+> Also note that whenever anyone proposes ways of reducing the financial
+> burden suffered by one-income families, there is an outcry from the
+> "feminist lobby", the ALP, Democrats and pro-feminist media commentators
+> that any relief would result in women being chained to the kitchen sink.
+Examples, please.
Labor fought long and hard against Howard's initial tax reductions for
one-oncome families and the associated Parenting Payment.
Many press articles from previous elections have now expired (or gone to
pay for view) but here's a few bits and pieces.
In 1998, Laurie Oakes suggested to Peter Costello that his tax measures
were aimed at keeping women in the kitchen. This was despite the fact that
the tax measures were limited in both scope and amount and that two-income
families would still, in the main, have a better post-tax income from
identical pre-tax family earnings.
Greenleft Weekly
"Of course, the ALP tries to convince us that itąs a party of the workers,
and thus would have provided a better government for working-class people.
And itąs true that had Labor won, we might not have been looking down the
barrel of a full sell-off of Telstra, possible expansion of the GST,
further public sector cuts and more carrots and sticks to force women back
into the kitchen and nursery."
<http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/471/471p3.htm>
Ross Gittins (serial offender) - Melbourne Age
"Could it be that, with all the emphasis on single incomes and children
under five, John Howard is trying to entice the mothers of young children
back into the kitchen?"
<http://old.smh.com.au/news/0003/08/features/features3.html>
An alta vista search reveals another Gittins article with the phrase "Ever
since he was Treasurer in the Fraser Government, John Howard has used the
occasion of almost every tax cut to slip in a little extra relief for
single-income families." Unfortunately the article is unavailable but
since I used the word "kitchen" in my search criteria, I think you can be
assured the reference was used by Gittins - again.
Meredith Doig WEL 14 August 1998
"John Howard has said he doesn't mind being associated with "white picket
fences" and supports the idea of single income families. This tax package
will inevitably lead to women being eased out of the workforce - and this
means they will lose their economic independence, their employable skills
and their voice in public life."
A large number of examples can also be found in this forum:
"A striking example of how Labor's has been sucked in by 70's feminists,
is press releases after the release of ANTS. Labor howled and howled how
the Libs were going to keep women in the kitchen because of the extra
family payments to single income families. there were about twenty press
releases from different ALP sources. and the media blitz went on for a
week. with ample references to 'white picket fences' etc etc." (Truth
Hurts 23/9/99)
Perhaps the 'piece de resistance' comes from John Cherry (former tax
adviser to Meg Lees and now Democrat senator) who dismissed my call for
family taxation equity by writing:
"What the writer is calling for is social engineering on a massive scale -
get women back into the home and out of the workforce and under the
financial thumb of the male breadwinner, and use the tax system to
entrench that." (21/1/99)
When challenged to illustrate how family-based taxation forces this
outcome he withdrew from the discussion and has never returned since.
Need more? I'm sure I can provide.
+> Even if feminism isn't the original cause of the problem, today's
+> "feminists" certainly have a hand in maintaining it.
+Only crackpots, and there aren't many of those in positions of power.
No. Neither the ALP or Democrats are in power. Unfortunately they still
have influence in parliament.
+> In the seventies average families survived on one income and paid little
+> if any tax. Today, if one partner works, then that partner pays tax AND
+> the other partner loses benefits and concessions (one partner is
+> essentially an individual yet the other partner isn't). If you can explain
+> why or how this change has occured (and why it should continue) without
+> reference to feminism then please feel free to educate me. ;)
+It is simply a plausible reason to take more money; like Austudy loans,
+HECS repayments, Payroll tax, tobacco and alcohol excise, etc. Once the
+ATO has a tax or some other measure that takes lots of money, they're
+loathe to give that up and fight strongly against any movement for
+change. It's the way of the world.
Sure it's convenient for any government that there is a vocal group
opposing changes that come at a cost to revenue (I've acknowleged this in
the past), but any attempt to adjust the current inequitable tax situation
for SIFs IS met with howls from the feminist left. If they shut up then
Howard would have no defence for his inaction.
From a WEL submission (Australia's peak feminist lobby group:
"From both a policy and poverty viewpoint, having a second income is the
best way that governments can expect to reduce subsidies to families and
help them to help themselves. The small second job can grow into a
sufficient income to avoid poverty and raise living standards."
Hardly glowing support for "choice".
+Further... try to think who it is who benefits from slugging single
+parent families and keeping workers poor enough that they must send
+both partners out to work. Hint for you: the same groups pushing for
+greater "labour market flexibility", workplace agreements and the
+increasing casualisation of the workforce. A bigger labour pool means
+more demand for jobs and lower wages.
Yes. I've made that point countless times. So why do Labor, the Democrats
and the feminist lobby oppose any changes that would deliver greater
flexibility to families and ease the participation rate? The Shoppies
Union support my position - why don't the ALP?
+> Take a look at the views of the Women's Action Alliance for a different
+> perspective on how a great many women feel about the issues of choice and
+> equality and the failure of "feminism" to deliver either. Compare WAA's
+> views on family, childcare and taxation with the views of Australia's peak
+> "feminist" lobby, WEL. Ask yourself which group sees fulltime housewives
+> and mothers as legitimate "working women" and which group sees them as
+> "oppressed".
+Aside from the postings from yourself and other rightwingers here, I'd
+never heard of WEL (aside from Woodside Energy Limited, which I assume
+is *not* the group you hate).
How can you comment on current feminism if you haven't even heard of the
most vocal feminist lobby group in the country? Don't you watch Lateline?
WEL representatives are regulars. Particularly Eva Cox and Sarah Maddison.
WEL are also the first port of call for almost any "jouirnalist" seeking
"the view of Australian women" on any political issue.
+ Frankly, they sound like just another
+pressure group (like the myriad of business groups who few business
+owners have ever elected/voted for/seen yet whom make statements on
+behalf of the business community every week or so). Given that, why
+should you or I really give a shit?
Because their arguments are given a great deal of weight in parliament -
therefore they effectively ARE the face of feminism in Australia. The fact
that the views of other women are ignored as a result is exactly MY
argument.
+While you see a feminists conspiracy, I see nought but your having
+chosen a convenient bludgeonable target without looking more deeply.
+You've been sidetracked into a wedge-politics discussions about
+feminists instead of the general fight against economic inequity,
+social, political and economic dislocation and the emergence of
+a class of working poor ("untermench" in Scott Hillard-speak).
No I haven't. I repeatedly receive correspondence from politicians
explaining that the current tax/welfare system (the one that directly
penalises one-income families) is "better" because it "enhances" women's
work options. I can hardly engage in debate on the issue without
repeatedly debunking this lie.
Whether you like it or not, the main supporters of this argument are
Australia's peak feminist lobby group and their political supporters who
run the ALP and Democrats. Your preference to see feminism as something
other than what it really is in a very real, political sense amounts to
little more than convenient ignorance (a rose-coloured view if you wish)
and means that there is little hope that you could ever hope to deal with
the cause of family poverty and the inability of families to live on one
average income as families used to.
While political parties and lobby groups claim to represent the "views of
women" and hide behind "feminism" as they chant their "working woman"
mantra, I will continue to point to "feminism" as the main cause of the
problems faced by average families today.
Andrew D
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote:
+In article <slrnafl350.7ui...@lark.autons.net.au>, Synic
+<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
++Hi Andrew, yeah, I've finally gotten around to replying to this posting
++of yours ;-).
++Andrew D wrote:
++> Synic (revers...@indigo.net.au) wrote:
++> +> which are usually little more than "women's" policy with
++> +> a different name and which do nothing to promote freedom of choice on how
++> +> married couples divide their family duties. Read their "Family Futures
++> +> policy document and see how much is devoted to "working" mothers and
++> +> "childcare" and see what they "offered" to single-income families.
++> +Now y'see, while you're quick to blame feminism, I'm more interested
++> +in why it is that we now have a class of working poor for whom ownership
++> +of the basics (food, shelter and clothing) are not affordable unless both
++> +partners are in the workforce. [snip]
Here's a bit more info:
******** ******** ******** ********
[extract: http://www.cis.org.au/IssueAnalysis/IA3.htm]
" According to the Director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies,
in 1990, ŒMany families need[ed] two full-time jobs to meet housing costs,
particularly in Sydney Š¹ (SMH 18/10/90); he noted an acceleration in the
move to full-time work by both parents 20% of families in 1988 and 24%
in 1990. Five years later a spokesperson for the Smith Family told the
Herald (SMH 2/11/95) that many families could not exist on a full-time
wage.
In 1993, 65% of Australians thought that mothers of pre-school children
should not work at all.And yet government expenditure on childcare
(permitting mothers of pre-school children to work) rose from $63 million
in 1982/3 to $1,239 million in 1995/6. The 442,000 children receiving
childcare in 1995/6 cost taxpayers on average $5,430 each. Choice for
Families, a community lobby group which came into being in response to the
financial pressure on families who choose parent-care for their children,
has calculated that, in 1998, a two-parent, two-child, single-income
family earning $30,000 per annum (well below average weekly earnings of
$36,000) receives $4,368 p.a. ($84 per week) in government benefits, while
a two-parent, two-child family with both parents earning $30,000 p.a. a
family income of $60,000, and about 170% AWE receives total government
benefits of $8,580 p.a. ($165 p.w.).2 The high income family receives
twice the benefits of the low income family.
To understand how the financial oppression of the family, or more
specifically of the middle-income family, by the tax system can be
remedied, it is necessary to understand how it came into being in the
first place, and the parameters that maintain it.
In the 1950s, ¹60s, and ¹70s families were shielded from taxation, in that
tax was reduced in proportion to the number of family members dependent on
a single income. This policy, based on the understanding that effective
income is reduced by multidependency, is known as horizontal equity. The
recognition in the tax system that both low initial earnings and
multidependency on a single income result in reduced ability to pay was
seen as fair and progressive. A tax threshold and rising marginal rates
accommodated the first, while deductions from taxable income in proportion
to number and expenses of dependants accommodated the second. This system
was radically modified in the course of the 1980s. Fewer marginal rates
cutting in at lower income levels resulted in a much-reduced shielding of
low earnings, and the withdrawal of all child-related deductions
eliminated recognition of child dependency as a factor in tax equity.
Then the Hawke government, in the late 1980s, without warning delivered
the staggering blow of withdrawing most of the, by then, much-elaborated
set of child-related payments from the majority of Australian families.
Under the rubric of Œneeds-based¹ welfare, payments to the minority of
families on less than AWE, and to families on welfare (sole parents and
unemployed), became increasingly generous, while those to families on and
above AWE became minimal. We found ourselves in a condition, which has
lasted close to a decade, in which families on AWE and well above it are
struggling financially, due to the withdrawal of recognition, in both tax
and Œworkforce welfare,¹ of the costs of raising children. "
******** ******** ******** ********
What the author is pointing out here is that single-income families with
incomes close to the average wage of a *single* male are hit both by
increased taxes AND decreased welfare with little regard for their true
means or needs as a group of people - a point I have made repeatedly over
the last four or five years in this forum.
So to go back to the initial question, THIS is why so few families are
able to buy a home from the proceeds of one breadwinner. The Howard govt,
despite all its pro-family rhetoric, has done next to nothing to address
the problem - and even that is more than either Labor or the Democrats
have proposed.
Whether you blame feminism or fairies is not the issue - the fact remains
that if you want famliies to be able to buy their own home and still have
a modest level of comfort, then the inconsistencies in the tax and welfare
system need to be addressed.
Feminists or not, NO ONE is proposing to address them.
Andrew D
******* ******* ******* ******* *******
[extract: http://www.cis.org.au/IssueAnalysis/IA3.htm]
The family in Australia can no longer care for its children adequately.
This is the result of a tax system which takes no account of
multidependency, and a system of social security benefits which ensures
that most families on single incomes will exist at welfare income levels.
The majority of families must either live in welfare poverty, or hand over
the supervision of their children to others and neglect their rearing,
while they seek extra employment. The condition of young people in
Australia is not good. They show all the signs of loss of parental care ญ
high rates of suicide, mental health disorders, violence, and alcohol and
drug abuse.
The welfare management of family equity has been a wasteful failure, and a
return to the moderation, via taxation, of our family-blind wage system is
overdue. Rather than reinstating the deductions system of the Menzies era,
which is somewhat regressive, we should institute a system of PAYE rebates
on a per child basis at a level (in the region of $3,000 to $5,000 p.a.
per child, depending on age) that would substantially eliminate taxation
for middle-income family earners with several children. Positive PAYE
payments (i.e, negative income tax) could be made to families whose tax
was less than their rebate entitlement.
It is unlikely that this would necessitate rises in current tax rates, as
what was lost in tax would be balanced by the removal of all social
security, childcare and Austudy benefits to working families, and the
administrative savings would be considerable. Ideally, the tax rebate per
child should be at the same level as welfare payments per child to
unemployed families, which recognise their irreducible cost. Families
earning in the middle range of pay scales could again begin to enjoy the
fruits of their labour on a par with single earners.
Families with pre-school children would no longer be forced to keep both
parents in the workforce. Those who chose to work could defray childcare
costs out of their enhanced earnings, since the primary family income
would now be adequate. There would be less pressure on parents of older
children to work beyond comfort levels for adequate attention to their
growing families. Multiple job holding should diminish, with all the
benefits for family well-being that implies. And we could expect a
reduction in unemployment benefit costs as jobs were freed, permitting a
lowering of tax rates in the longer term.
Improved retention of family income will give those with modestly higher
than average earnings the opportunity to fund for themselves the aspects
of child rearing and family security which originally government took on
by default, but which have become an increasingly heavy call on its
budget.
True social justice is not served by artificially gearing familiesน
perceptions of themselves to dependence on the ministrations of the state
ญ by taking from them what must be given back, reducing them to lobbying
for assistance, and restricting their choices to what the state chooses to
deliver. There can now be no doubt that this condition engenders a sense
of social malaise which was not present when, in the 1960s, the familyนs
self-perception was of independence and autonomy, albeit in what were in
many ways less materially endowed circumstances than today.
******* ******* ******* ******* *******
This article was written prior to the ANTS tax cuts of 2000. However, the
system remains essentially unchanged for single-income families and as
bracket creep takes hold again, they will be right back where they were
two years ago.
While Labor and Democrats turned their backs on the single-income family
two decades ago, John Howard used to call for full recognition of the
family in the tax system (he proposed family-unit taxation when in
opposition). He seems lately to have fallen for the feminist-left
arguments of some of his anti-family collegues against delivering choice
to families.
Synic
> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
[...]
> +Hmmm... No. You're condemning 1950s-1980s feminism, actually.
> +Increasingly, the trend has been away from that form of feminism since
> +about 1985 or so, at least in academia. The works of Lynn Segal are to
> +be highly commended for blazing this trail. They burst the myth of
> +female solidarity and are very much focussed on the rights of women
> +to choose what they want to do; whether that be the workforce or the
> +family. This is by far the most common feminist belief these days.
>
> Not in Australian politics. Yes, it's there in the rhetoric - but it's not
> in the policies.... and the policies are what count.
Then attack the policies and the specific authors of these policies, by
all means. However, leave feminism as a genre out of it. It is not a
genre you seem to have issues with.
[...]
> If you take political rhetoric at face value without assessing the
> policies then almost every politician of every persuasion cares more about
> "the battlers" than about anyone else. Do you believe that?
Those with "the rhetoric" are not writing the policies. The '50s-'80s
femocrats are entrenched in government and non-govt organisations
these days. But it comes back down to the old New-Ideas vs Status-Quo
war.
[...]
> +You're actually condemning something which is very passe and out of
> +date. It's a bit like Scott Hillard still ranting against Communism.
> +You're flogging a dead horse long after its flesh has left the world.
>
> Take a look at Labor's "Family Futures" paper and tell me how it offered
> equal support to women who chose to be fulltime homemakers? Highlight any
> Democrat policy that displays equal treatment of one-icome and two-income
> families. Show me any WEL policy aimed at making homemaking a viable,
> affordable option.
>
> These are not decades old policies.
Hmmm... So you're pointing to party hacks and kook groups as the
carriers of the "feminism" torch, huh?
> +> Also note that whenever anyone proposes ways of reducing the financial
> +> burden suffered by one-income families, there is an outcry from the
> +> "feminist lobby", the ALP, Democrats and pro-feminist media commentators
> +> that any relief would result in women being chained to the kitchen sink.
>
> +Examples, please.
[...]
> In 1998, Laurie Oakes suggested to Peter Costello that his tax measures
> were aimed at keeping women in the kitchen.
Laurie Oakes of the Nein Network is hardly a pro-feminist. It sounds
more like a vaguely mysoginistic throw-away line by a man best known for
looking like a toad, but only half as attractive to women.
[...]
> Perhaps the 'piece de resistance' comes from John Cherry (former tax
> adviser to Meg Lees and now Democrat senator) who dismissed my call for
> family taxation equity by writing:
> "What the writer is calling for is social engineering on a massive scale -
> get women back into the home and out of the workforce and under the
> financial thumb of the male breadwinner, and use the tax system to
> entrench that." (21/1/99)
Given that some of your more extreme suggestions have been extremely
pro-family and anti-single, I'm not surprised you cop some flack
sometimes.
> When challenged to illustrate how family-based taxation forces this
> outcome he withdrew from the discussion and has never returned since.
Suggestions for you if you want longer-lasting debates:
o Learn to write with brevity and consiseness. Chasing off your
correspondents with volumes of text is less impressive than chasing
off your correspondents with a few tightly stated points.
o Post URLs rather than pasting text.
> Need more? I'm sure I can provide.
That's fine.
> +> Even if feminism isn't the original cause of the problem, today's
> +> "feminists" certainly have a hand in maintaining it.
>
> +Only crackpots, and there aren't many of those in positions of power.
>
> No. Neither the ALP or Democrats are in power. Unfortunately they still
> have influence in parliament.
Reasonably sane, intelligent and honest people do not tend to get
mixed up in party politics.
[...]
> +It is simply a plausible reason to take more money; like Austudy loans,
> +HECS repayments, Payroll tax, tobacco and alcohol excise, etc. Once the
> +ATO has a tax or some other measure that takes lots of money, they're
> +loathe to give that up and fight strongly against any movement for
> +change. It's the way of the world.
>
> Sure it's convenient for any government that there is a vocal group
> opposing changes that come at a cost to revenue (I've acknowleged this in
> the past), but any attempt to adjust the current inequitable tax situation
> for SIFs IS met with howls from the feminist left. If they shut up then
> Howard would have no defence for his inaction.
Bollocks. As we've seen with Howard's proposals for the cutting of
the disability pension, Howard listens to nobody (not even people in
his own party), let alone feminists or anybody leftwing.
> From a WEL submission (Australia's peak feminist lobby group:
> "From both a policy and poverty viewpoint, having a second income is the
> best way that governments can expect to reduce subsidies to families and
> help them to help themselves. The small second job can grow into a
> sufficient income to avoid poverty and raise living standards."
>
> Hardly glowing support for "choice".
It's an absurd statement, IMHO. This absurdity would be shot down by
almost any leftwing group.
> +Further... try to think who it is who benefits from slugging single
> +parent families and keeping workers poor enough that they must send
> +both partners out to work. Hint for you: the same groups pushing for
> +greater "labour market flexibility", workplace agreements and the
> +increasing casualisation of the workforce. A bigger labour pool means
> +more demand for jobs and lower wages.
>
> Yes. I've made that point countless times. So why do Labor, the Democrats
> and the feminist lobby
If you dislike WEL, state "WEL" as your target. If you dislike what
current-day feminists say, then attack the organisaion or the individual
who's made the loopy comment. Linking "WEL" to current-day feminism is
like linking the Liberal Party with liberal-thinking leftwingers.
> oppose any changes that would deliver greater
> flexibility to families and ease the participation rate? The Shoppies
> Union support my position - why don't the ALP?
The ALP is doing its best to alienate its unions. Not really news, that.
> +> Take a look at the views of the Women's Action Alliance for a different
> +> perspective on how a great many women feel about the issues of choice and
> +> equality and the failure of "feminism" to deliver either. Compare WAA's
> +> views on family, childcare and taxation with the views of Australia's peak
> +> "feminist" lobby, WEL. Ask yourself which group sees fulltime housewives
> +> and mothers as legitimate "working women" and which group sees them as
> +> "oppressed".
>
> +Aside from the postings from yourself and other rightwingers here, I'd
> +never heard of WEL (aside from Woodside Energy Limited, which I assume
> +is *not* the group you hate).
>
> How can you comment on current feminism if you haven't even heard of the
> most vocal feminist lobby group in the country?
Because they're kooks.
> Don't you watch Lateline?
Yes, I do. However, I've read enough feminism at uni to be able to tell
the difference between the dinosaurs and the mammals.
> WEL representatives are regulars. Particularly Eva Cox and Sarah Maddison.
Eva Cox is a dinosaur. She peaked around 1975 with a great analysis of
the difficulties of social research ('Inside The Whale' is a classic
text) but has been largely forgettable since.
> WEL are also the first port of call for almost any "jouirnalist" seeking
> "the view of Australian women" on any political issue.
Like Bruce Ruxton was for the RSL, I'm guessing. The media like
conflict. Few are as full of man-hating bile as the '50s-80s feminists.
But they're still dinosaurs, even if they do make better telly.
> +Frankly, they sound like just another
> +pressure group (like the myriad of business groups who few business
> +owners have ever elected/voted for/seen yet whom make statements on
> +behalf of the business community every week or so). Given that, why
> +should you or I really give a shit?
>
> Because their arguments are given a great deal of weight in parliament -
> therefore they effectively ARE the face of feminism in Australia. The fact
> that the views of other women are ignored as a result is exactly MY
> argument.
Perhaps the problem is that these other women don't see life as a
stark men vs women or family vs independence divide. Personally, I
still don't see a reason for framing things in the stark way you do.
Instead of asking "Why can't women afford to stay home with their
kids if they want?" you seem to be continually asking "Why is the
government destroying families by encouraging women into the workforce?"
The first question is a valid one to ask. The second one makes you
look like one of those women-hating cretins who baits battered girls
on Usenet on the soc.women newsgroup.
> +While you see a feminists conspiracy, I see nought but your having
> +chosen a convenient bludgeonable target without looking more deeply.
> +You've been sidetracked into a wedge-politics discussions about
> +feminists instead of the general fight against economic inequity,
> +social, political and economic dislocation and the emergence of
> +a class of working poor ("untermench" in Scott Hillard-speak).
>
> No I haven't. I repeatedly receive correspondence from politicians
> explaining that the current tax/welfare system (the one that directly
> penalises one-income families) is "better" because it "enhances" women's
> work options. I can hardly engage in debate on the issue without
> repeatedly debunking this lie.
Enhancing womens work options is a noble thing. However, we have our
taxation system cutting in far too early so that some families have
no other option other than to send the wife out to work. Wifey going
to work should be her choice, rather than her necessity.
> Whether you like it or not, the main supporters of this argument are
> Australia's peak feminist lobby group and their political supporters who
> run the ALP and Democrats. Your preference to see feminism as something
> other than what it really is in a very real, political sense amounts to
> little more than convenient ignorance (a rose-coloured view if you wish)
> and means that there is little hope that you could ever hope to deal with
> the cause of family poverty and the inability of families to live on one
> average income as families used to.
Your inability to be able to frame your argument in a context which
doesn't make you look like a passive-aggressive woman-hater is what
is holding you back. Your efforts to contact the parties seems to have
been thorough and exhaustive. However, none of that means anything if
you're derided as a kook.
Suggestions for you:
o Do some in-depth reading of the more recent feminists. Use their
material against the WEL dinosaurs and other similar kooks.
Push the line that modern feminists promote choice (as they do)
with the same vigour that the Coalition uses when propping up
Aboriginals like Noel Pearson.
o Ensure that your suggestions do not harm single-parent families
or families without kids.
o Quit this belief that WEL==feminism==WEL just because they claim
it to be true. It's just as silly as the Liberal==liberal==Liberal
and ALP==labour==ALP thing.
> While political parties and lobby groups claim to represent the "views of
> women" and hide behind "feminism" as they chant their "working woman"
> mantra, I will continue to point to "feminism" as the main cause of the
> problems faced by average families today.
And you will continue to be dismissed as a highly literate kook. But
if that's your desire in life, so be it.
Andrew D
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
+Andrew D wrote:
[snip - in the interests of brevity]
+> From a WEL submission (Australia's peak feminist lobby group:
+> "From both a policy and poverty viewpoint, having a second income is the
+> best way that governments can expect to reduce subsidies to families and
+> help them to help themselves. The small second job can grow into a
+> sufficient income to avoid poverty and raise living standards."
+> Hardly glowing support for "choice".
+It's an absurd statement, IMHO. This absurdity would be shot down by
+almost any leftwing group.
You asked me for proof to back up my claims about feminists being
anti-motherhood and I provided. Now it's your turn. Find me one "leftwing
group" that actually promotes the legitimacy of the one-income family as a
social and economic unit in its own right.. Just one leftwing group will
do. Point me to or quote any policies aimed at reducing the financial
burden of single-income families specifically. (I think the Progressive
Labour Party consider themselves a fair way left of centre - they have
policies for women in paid labour but oppose recognition of family income
sharing. Without that recognition, one-income families are dead in the
water.)
Even in this forum the left/right preferences are apparent. Lev Lafeyette
(feminist-left) is opposed to recognition of families. DRS (used to post
here. heavily feminist) said housewives and fulltime mums were a failure
to their own humanity. Stereotype... much the same. 3rd Party... same.
Chris Maltby...same again.
Now on the other side: Ralph, Scott Hillard, Arthur, Truth Hurts, David
Moss and others have all argued in favour of the abolition of penalties
endured by one-income families.
In politics I can name Howard, Abbott, Knowles, Anderson and Harradine off
the top of my head as people who've spoken publicly in favour of family
tax changes. I can't name one MP on the Labor side and only Andrew Murray
comes to mind in the Democrats. The Shoppies Union have policies which
match my own (full recognition of family income in the tax system) - but
they are considered a rightwing union.
I'd be happy for you to fill in the blanks on the left so I can start to
garner the support of some new groups and individuals.
+> +Further... try to think who it is who benefits from slugging single
+> +parent families and keeping workers poor enough that they must send
+> +both partners out to work. Hint for you: the same groups pushing for
+> +greater "labour market flexibility", workplace agreements and the
+> +increasing casualisation of the workforce. A bigger labour pool means
+> +more demand for jobs and lower wages.
+
+> Yes. I've made that point countless times. So why do Labor, the Democrats
+> and the feminist lobby
+If you dislike WEL, state "WEL" as your target. If you dislike what
+current-day feminists say, then attack the organisaion or the individual
+who's made the loopy comment. Linking "WEL" to current-day feminism is
+like linking the Liberal Party with liberal-thinking leftwingers.
Tell me who you consider to be current feminists. Give me evidence of
their pro-family ideology. Note the pro-family WAA support equal rights
for women, in paid work or not (and also have maternity leave policies)
but see today's "feminism" as a part of the problem.
So long as the media promote WEL as the spokesgroup for feminists, I'll
continue to target "feminism" as a significant player in anti-family
politics. If other "feminists" want WEL's influence to diminish, then it's
up to them to speak up.
+> +> Take a look at the views of the Women's Action Alliance for a different
+> +> perspective on how a great many women feel about the issues of choice and
+> +> equality and the failure of "feminism" to deliver either. Compare WAA's
+> +> views on family, childcare and taxation with the views of Australia's peak
+> +> "feminist" lobby, WEL. Ask yourself which group sees fulltime housewives
+> +> and mothers as legitimate "working women" and which group sees them as
+> +> "oppressed".
+> +Aside from the postings from yourself and other rightwingers here, I'd
+> +never heard of WEL (aside from Woodside Energy Limited, which I assume
+> +is *not* the group you hate).
+> How can you comment on current feminism if you haven't even heard of the
+> most vocal feminist lobby group in the country?
+Because they're kooks.
How do you know if you've never heard of them? ;)
[snip]
+> Because their arguments are given a great deal of weight in parliament -
+> therefore they effectively ARE the face of feminism in Australia. The fact
+> that the views of other women are ignored as a result is exactly MY
+> argument.
+Perhaps the problem is that these other women don't see life as a
+stark men vs women or family vs independence divide. Personally, I
+still don't see a reason for framing things in the stark way you do.
Because I live in the real world, not in a text book. Politics, like it or
not (I don't), is based on conflict. I personally have no problem with
women in paid work, two-income families, childcare or maternity leave yet
I find myself labelled an opponent simply because I also support
one-income families and fulltime homecare. In order for those with a
vaguely pro-family agenda to have a better chance of winning or retaining
office, I find myself being a vocal opponent of a lot of things I couldn't
care less about.
The reality is we have to vote for someone. Frankly, I dislike Howard
immensely since he's mostly abandoned his former pro-family agenda. But
Labor are still worse. The Democrats haven't got a clue. As far as looking
for alternatives, I actually put One Nation and The Christian Democrats
ahead of Labor And Democrats - because both are more pro-family (or at
least, less anti-family)
+Instead of asking "Why can't women afford to stay home with their
+kids if they want?" you seem to be continually asking "Why is the
+government destroying families by encouraging women into the workforce?"
+The first question is a valid one to ask. The second one makes you
+look like one of those women-hating cretins who baits battered girls
+on Usenet on the soc.women newsgroup.
I KNOW why they can't afford to stay home. I don't need to ask that
question. I gave you quotes (and offered more) which illustrate the
problem for homecare women. The feminist-left oppose them. I have also
posted extracts from a very detailed analysis of the changes that have
occured since the 70's.
My question now is why no one in office is trying to fix the problem. As
far as "destroying families by encouraging women into the workforce" goes,
that is an rare argument used mainly to counteract the idiotic arguments
of the feminist-left who continually argue the childcare and two-incomes
is better. They'll post statistics showing how one parent families and
working mums produce better quality kids - so I naturally highlight
studies which show the opposite. I Go back to the top of this post for a
refresher on that.
I couldn't care less if some mothers work and put the kids in daycare-
that's their choice.
(I note today that childcare workers now want compensation for dealing
with dirty nappies. Expect a post or two on that as well)
[snip]
+> No I haven't. I repeatedly receive correspondence from politicians
+> explaining that the current tax/welfare system (the one that directly
+> penalises one-income families) is "better" because it "enhances" women's
+> work options. I can hardly engage in debate on the issue without
+> repeatedly debunking this lie.
+Enhancing womens work options is a noble thing. However, we have our
+taxation system cutting in far too early so that some families have
+no other option other than to send the wife out to work. Wifey going
+to work should be her choice, rather than her necessity.
I know that. You know that. Now show me any political organisation who agrees.
+> Whether you like it or not, the main supporters of this argument are
+> Australia's peak feminist lobby group and their political supporters who
+> run the ALP and Democrats. Your preference to see feminism as something
+> other than what it really is in a very real, political sense amounts to
+> little more than convenient ignorance (a rose-coloured view if you wish)
+> and means that there is little hope that you could ever hope to deal with
+> the cause of family poverty and the inability of families to live on one
+> average income as families used to.
+Your inability to be able to frame your argument in a context which
+doesn't make you look like a passive-aggressive woman-hater is what
+is holding you back. Your efforts to contact the parties seems to have
+been thorough and exhaustive. However, none of that means anything if
+you're derided as a kook.
+Suggestions for you:
+
[snip]
I do appreciate constructive criticism. Please understand that when I
grasped this issue five years ago, I was very moderate and didn't point
fingers. It got me nowhere. I was lucky to ever get responses. Is it
working for you?
+> While political parties and lobby groups claim to represent the "views of
+> women" and hide behind "feminism" as they chant their "working woman"
+> mantra, I will continue to point to "feminism" as the main cause of the
+> problems faced by average families today.
+And you will continue to be dismissed as a highly literate kook. But
+if that's your desire in life, so be it.
Here's an example of a conversation I had with John Cherry (previous tax
adviser to Meg Lees. Now a senator).
ME: Why do the Democrats want to treat a breadwinner's income as shared
for welfare purposes?
JC: Well it is shared isn't it?
ME: Then why do you say it should be taxed as personal income?
JC: Well it is personal isn't it?
How do you put up a reasoned argument against that sort of logic? What
would you have said next (I was gobsmacked)? I never mentioned commies or
femmos or destroying families or misguided mothers or any of the other
controversial "kook" stuff. This guy was a senior adviser - now he's a
senator for God's sake!
I've tried reasoning. I've tried debating. I've tried laying out arguments
one at a time - with no reference to feminism or any other ism. They all
just give up when they realise they haven't a leg to stand on.
If I send an email asking about gay issues, I'm almost certain to get a
sympathetic Democrat reply. If I send one about family tax issues, I'm
almost certain not to. They have effectively taught me that underhanded
and controversial are better. I'm fighting against ideologues - people
who have a view but are unwilling or unable to defend it so just shut out
any alternative views. I don't think there is one of them who will put
principle before party.
I'd rather not be radical - it eats at me quite frankly (that's why I
didn't post between Christmas and last month - I wanted a break). I'm a
mild-mannered nice guy :) But I do believe most causes need their
radicals just as conservationists need people chaining themselves to trees
and feminists needed women burning bras (and I'm a fair way from the
extreme. Ask Edmund - sheesh!). I've concluded that part of my job now is
just to keep the issue alive and as you pointed out earlier, the media go
for controversy first, content second.
I'm comfortable with the support I receive from individuals and moderate
groups like the Women's Action Alliance. But yes, I would prefer it if it
was easier and if I could just state a case and engage in reasoned
discussion. I'm not naive enough to believe that will ever be so I'm happy
to be a squeaky wheel.
Now over to you. You know where I stand. You know what I believe the cause
to be and you probably know my preferred solutions. Lay your cards on the
table. Explain the cause of the problem as you see it and tell us what you
propose be done about it.
Scott Hillard
> > I don't blame "feminisism" as such, I blame fundamentalist feminism -
the
> > form of feminism that insists that the wishes of female elites must also
> > be the wishes of all other women. Since fundamentalism is the visible
face
> > of feminism it is perceived by many as feminism.
> Hmmm... No. You're condemning 1950s-1980s feminism, actually.
Maybe if you just read journals, "Synic", but in terms of popular press &
policy, it's 2002 Feminism.
> Increasingly, the trend has been away from that form of feminism since
> about 1985 or so, at least in academia.
No, ONLY in academia, and even there a hell of a lot of hard-core feminist
nutters in academia aren't about to relinquish beliefs that have lied at the
cores of their being for decades.
> The works of Lynn Segal are to
> be highly commended for blazing this trail.
Yeah, and the works of Don Idhe show Noam Chomsky up for the clueless
plonker he is.
When was the last time you saw a piece by Don Idhe in the New York Times?
> They burst the myth of
> female solidarity and are very much focussed on the rights of women
> to choose what they want to do; whether that be the workforce or the
> family. This is by far the most common feminist belief these days.
Shame about the policy environment that those women are forced to live in
though, eh?
> > When I condemn feminism, I am really condemning today's political face
of
> > feminism which has more to do with breaking any and every tradition and
> > little to do with delivering freedom to average women who may well have
no
> > intention, desire or ability to become a lawyer, professor, politician
or
> > media commentator. (Why is it that while most men have "jobs", women
> > always seem to have "careers"?). Some women see motherhood as a great
> > challenge offering terrific rewards yet it is held in less regard than
> > street sweeping these days.
> You're actually condemning something which is very passe and out of
> date.
No, he's condemning the dynamic that women today MUST LIVE IN.
> It's a bit like Scott Hillard still ranting against Communism.
Tell it to the 20% of the world's population living it every day.
> > Also note that whenever anyone proposes ways of reducing the financial
> > burden suffered by one-income families, there is an outcry from the
> > "feminist lobby", the ALP, Democrats and pro-feminist media commentators
> > that any relief would result in women being chained to the kitchen sink.
> Examples, please.
"Eva Cox" "Pru Goward" "Natasha Stott-Despoja".
> > Even if feminism isn't the original cause of the problem, today's
> > "feminists" certainly have a hand in maintaining it.
> Only crackpots, and there aren't many of those in positions of power.
Eh? What planet you from?
> While you see a feminists conspiracy, I see nought but your having
> chosen a convenient bludgeonable target without looking more deeply.
> You've been sidetracked into a wedge-politics discussions about
> feminists instead of the general fight against economic inequity,
> social, political and economic dislocation and the emergence of
> a class of working poor ("untermench" in Scott Hillard-speak).
Untermenschen - plural.
The Enlightenment
I agree with you arguments wholey. I think it is important to
distinguish two types of feminist: "Radical Feminists" and "Liberal
Feminists".
Radical Feminist view everything through a sort of leftist miasma,
they tend to be antithical to western culture and family structure to
which they blame the root cause of the oppresion of wimin. They are
quite literaly cultural marxists who using post modernsit techniques
of criticsm relentlessy to rhetoricaly attack the "power structures"
within society including quite often men, nuclear family, etc.
They quite literaly DO dislike and DO seek to undermine the 2 parent
married family especial one on a single (male) income. This social
model is quite literaly Satan to them: the source of the KKK, Nazis,
Imperialism, Racism, biggotry and everything rolled into one at times.
Quite a demonology.
Those taxation models that suppor the nuclear family are rigrously
opposed.
Liberal Feminists are concerned with womens freedom, rights and fair
treatment. They are resprecfull of differences though seem to yave
made some ground. They've had a hard time of it: mainly from the
radical feminists and political correctness but also from men who
often ignorantly attack the liberal feminists by mistake. (Or out of
truely mysoginist small mindedness)
What consevatives and libertairian men and feminists need to be
mindfull of is "co-option"; which is a propagandistic technique.
Quite often you'll see post modernists allieying Ethnic Minorities,
Gays, Oppresed Nations and Women as if they all belong in the same
group and are all opressed by western society or even have much in
common. (You know what I mean)
When the local Women's Studies or Third World Studies Department
organizes students to abandon classics in favor of modern Ethnic and
feminist authors, the reasons given are pure Benjamin (A marxist who
initiated the Frakfurt School). It is not that these modern writers
are better, but they are somehow more truthful because their alienated
prose reflects the modern social problems of which the older authors
were ignorant! Students are being taught that language itself is, as
Benjamin said, merely a conglomeration of false "names" foisted upon
society by its oppressors, and are warned against "logocentrism," the
bourgeois over-reliance on words.
If these campus antics appear "retarded" (in the words of Adorno,
another Frankfurt school initiator), that is because they are designed
to be. The Frankfurt School's most important breakthrough consists in
the realization that their monstrous theories could become dominant in
the culture, as a result of the changes in society brought about by
what Benjamin called "the age of mechanical reproduction of art."
Essentily the Frankfurt School had determined that the reason
Socialist revolution hadn't happend in the west was that 'western
civilzation' was
in the way.
Hence you get "Newtons The Principia Mathematica is a rape manual" as
a techniqe to undermine western achiement and its tendancy towards
logic and empiricism. Logic, Evaluation and Empiricsm are hallmarks
of western man and therfore tyrany and therfore rape.
Bizzare but that is how it works.
Andrew D
bern...@yahoo.com.au (The Enlightenment) wrote:
[snip - much agreement.]
+Liberal Feminists are concerned with womens freedom, rights and fair
+treatment. They are resprecfull of differences though seem to yave
+made some ground. They've had a hard time of it: mainly from the
+radical feminists and political correctness but also from men who
+often ignorantly attack the liberal feminists by mistake. (Or out of
+truely mysoginist small mindedness)
It is difficult if a group chooses to be recognised as feminist yet goes
against much of what public, political feminism stands for today. As I've
pointed out before, I don't have a problem with the fundamentals of
feminism - equal rights, equal pay for equal work, the right to perform
paid labour etc.... but where family is concerned, it should include
choice in relation to family issues.
Today's feminism has little to do with choice. Anyone who's spent any time
on AusFem-PolNet (Australia's leading mailing list of elite feminists)
would know that these women refer to housewives and homecarers as
"rabbits" (an apparent reference to breeding). They talk about being
chained to the kitchen sink but never about being chained to the office
computer or the university lectern. They are so happy about their own
choices that they truly believe any woman who doesn't follow suit is
worthless.
One pro-feminist poster to this newsgroup used to claim that women who
chose to be fulltime homecarers were "a failure to their own humanity". So
much for choice. I note that many women's groups do not associate
themselves with feminism for this reason. In fact, some openly criticise
feminism as a cause rather than a cure. I sincerely wish these groups
could create a new movement - with a new name.
People who want feminism to be seen in the pure light of what it
originally stood for - or what it "could" stand for - are fooling
themselves. It's like wanting people to judge communism by what's written
in books rather than by looking at Russia or China. Text books are a nice
source of information and a good starting point for thought but they are
not the end of the story because they often deal more with fundamental
principles than reality. If we accepted everything we read in text books
then we'd have to accept that both communism and capitalism would deliver
a utopian society. The reality is that in practice, neither "ism" delivers
anything close - people always get in the way.
Having said that, if the so-called third wave can succesfully reposition
feminism in the media, in politics and in the public eye, then I may well
find myself writing in their support (as I have done regularly with the
Women's Action Alliance). Until then I'll write about feminism as it is in
the real world - and that is as a leftist, anti-family movement. Anyone
who claims to be a feminist without understanding the reality of feminism
on the streets is doing themselves - and society - a grave disservice.
+What consevatives and libertairian men and feminists need to be
+mindfull of is "co-option"; which is a propagandistic technique.
+Quite often you'll see post modernists allieying Ethnic Minorities,
+Gays, Oppresed Nations and Women as if they all belong in the same
+group and are all opressed by western society or even have much in
+common. (You know what I mean)
Absolutely. As you pointed out in the bit I snipped, many feminist groups
have more to do with marxism than with women in general. They would have
us believe that *all* women feel oppressed and that no woman would
willfully raise a child at home unless she was the victim of
social-engineering. What they are really about is attacking anything which
seems remotely traditional. They attack the church, the state, employers,
prisons.... and almost everything which forms part of "the establishment".
On one hand they attack Muslim nations where women are forced to cover up
then on the other hand they attack western nations because women choose to
wear bikinis. The only winning position appears to be overalls and
sensible shoes - so much for freedom and choice.
I can't see why the media has never questioned the vocal dominance of
lesbians in a movement which claims to speak on behalf of all women.
[snip]
Synic
> anti-motherhood and I provided. Now it's your turn. Find me one "leftwing
> group" that actually promotes the legitimacy of the one-income family as a
> social and economic unit in its own right.. Just one leftwing group will
> do.
I think we both know that this isn't likely to be found. Leftwingers
advocate fairness regardless of social circumstance. Therefore, they
are unlikely to support specific policies advocating special treatment
for two-parent families above all else.
HOWEVER, I do think you would find support for making the ways
families are treated internall consistent. ie, a family unit being
considered a family unit for all purposes and not just some convenient
ad hoc ones to take extra money.
[...]
> Even in this forum the left/right preferences are apparent. Lev Lafeyette
> (feminist-left) is opposed to recognition of families. DRS (used to post
> here. heavily feminist) said housewives and fulltime mums were a failure
> to their own humanity. Stereotype... much the same. 3rd Party... same.
> Chris Maltby...same again.
Yep, each for their own different reasons no doubt. I'll not attempt
to speak for any of them.
> Now on the other side: Ralph, Scott Hillard, Arthur, Truth Hurts, David
> Moss and others have all argued in favour of the abolition of penalties
> endured by one-income families.
Yep, that's the classic division between Left and Right. Lefties are
into social freedom and economic regulation; Righties are more into
social regulation and economic freedom. Can't stress that enough for
you: Lefties are into social freedom.
The Right likes the idea of two-parent families (the cover of John
Howard's 1988 Future Directions manifesto even had the Holden car and
white picket fence). The wife of a breadwinner is someone whose
marriage contract stops them from claiming the dole ;-).
[...]
> I'd be happy for you to fill in the blanks on the left so I can start to
> garner the support of some new groups and individuals.
You're much more likely to find Lefties who are interested in helping
to make the system fair for all, but, not to the detriment of others
in society.
[...]
> Tell me who you consider to be current feminists. Give me evidence of
> their pro-family ideology. Note the pro-family WAA support equal rights
> for women, in paid work or not (and also have maternity leave policies)
> but see today's "feminism" as a part of the problem.
I think you'll have to settle for "not anti-family", which is at least
a big leap over the current ALP/Coalition status quo.
> So long as the media promote WEL as the spokesgroup for feminists, I'll
> continue to target "feminism" as a significant player in anti-family
> politics. If other "feminists" want WEL's influence to diminish, then it's
> up to them to speak up.
Your own targetting of WEL as if it were a serious interest group
lends it credibility, BTW.
[...]
> +> +Aside from the postings from yourself and other rightwingers here, I'd
> +> +never heard of WEL (aside from Woodside Energy Limited, which I assume
> +> +is *not* the group you hate).
>
> +> How can you comment on current feminism if you haven't even heard of the
> +> most vocal feminist lobby group in the country?
>
> +Because they're kooks.
>
> How do you know if you've never heard of them? ;)
*badoom-tish* ;-).
[...]
> +Perhaps the problem is that these other women don't see life as a
> +stark men vs women or family vs independence divide. Personally, I
> +still don't see a reason for framing things in the stark way you do.
>
> Because I live in the real world, not in a text book.
However, academics release reports, studies, and other quotable
material. As always, the more recent, the better. Being familiar with
the way other feminists slash the old guard and using the strength
of their authority and arguments would be useful.
> [...] In order for those with a
> vaguely pro-family agenda to have a better chance of winning or retaining
> office, I find myself being a vocal opponent of a lot of things I couldn't
> care less about.
Fair enough, I guess. Me, I'm not a full-time advocate by any means.
However, I do hope you can take some useful ideas away from this
thread.
[...]
> My question now is why no one in office is trying to fix the problem. As
> far as "destroying families by encouraging women into the workforce" goes,
> that is an rare argument used mainly to counteract the idiotic arguments
> of the feminist-left who continually argue the childcare and two-incomes
> is better. They'll post statistics showing how one parent families and
> working mums produce better quality kids - so I naturally highlight
> studies which show the opposite. I Go back to the top of this post for a
> refresher on that.
Bear in mind the different perspectives some of these people come from.
I'd argue that a stable two parent family (man and woman, two lesbians,
two gays, whatever) is better than a one parent family. However, a
one parent family is better than a family with an abusive spouse. A
lot of the strident old-guard feminists have had abusive spouses or
worked with those who have.
[...]
> (I note today that childcare workers now want compensation for dealing
> with dirty nappies. Expect a post or two on that as well)
Considering the risk of disease transmission from working with poo,
this isn't as loopy as it firsts sounds. At the least, additional
sick leave for child carers is probably warranted.
> [snip]
> +> No I haven't. I repeatedly receive correspondence from politicians
> +> explaining that the current tax/welfare system (the one that directly
> +> penalises one-income families) is "better" because it "enhances" women's
> +> work options. I can hardly engage in debate on the issue without
> +> repeatedly debunking this lie.
>
> +Enhancing womens work options is a noble thing. However, we have our
> +taxation system cutting in far too early so that some families have
> +no other option other than to send the wife out to work. Wifey going
> +to work should be her choice, rather than her necessity.
>
> I know that. You know that. Now show me any political organisation
> who agrees.
Very tough these days. Corporate donors have deep pockets for the
major parties (more a problem in the USA than here, but, I'm sure
it's still an issue).
[...]
> I do appreciate constructive criticism. Please understand that when I
> grasped this issue five years ago, I was very moderate and didn't point
> fingers. It got me nowhere. I was lucky to ever get responses. Is it
> working for you?
I don't consider myself a serious activist by any stretch of the
imagination. I curse the radio and the TV set sometimes, and post a few
articles here once in a while. As might be suggested by my choice of
online nick, I'm a bit cynical about the chances of even large party
conferences of changing the policies advocated by the parliamentary
parties.
[...]
> Here's an example of a conversation I had with John Cherry (previous tax
> adviser to Meg Lees. Now a senator).
>
> ME: Why do the Democrats want to treat a breadwinner's income as shared
> for welfare purposes?
>
> JC: Well it is shared isn't it?
>
> ME: Then why do you say it should be taxed as personal income?
>
> JC: Well it is personal isn't it?
>
> How do you put up a reasoned argument against that sort of logic? What
> would you have said next (I was gobsmacked)? I never mentioned commies or
> femmos or destroying families or misguided mothers or any of the other
> controversial "kook" stuff. This guy was a senior adviser - now he's a
> senator for God's sake!
"Yes Minister" stuff, that :-).
I've left the following, because I especially enjoyed reading this:
I think I've already outlined what I believe the problem is: lack of
consistency and fairness, as well as taxation being much too high at
the low end (due to bracket creep), and not high enough at the top end
(due to PAYE tax cuts to the ultra-rich and lax tax regulations
for big business). It's a pretty unexciting and standard view.
However, I do have some suggestions for you if you want to get some
more support for taxation fairness:
o Recognise that if you can't beat pressure groups, create one of
your own. If you're as gung-ho on the issue as you obviously are,
set up a non-profit association that can be used to raise money
for newsprint advertising (half or full pages in the state
newspapers on a regular basis).
o Summarise your more moderate objections so they are brief, to the
point, and won't alienate ordinary people who aren't in families.
o If your objections are moderate and well stated, you should be able
to get other interest groups and financial supporters to join you in
the fight for family taxation fairness. Companies that flog "family
products" like nappies, baby shampoo, etc, might be good bets. A
lot of companies are happy to jump on a sturdy bandwagon when it
will improve their reputation with their market segment.
In summary, I think it's reasonable to say the answer is not to get
more extreme, it's to get more mainstream. Hope there's been a useful
suggestion or two in this posting (or at least a different way forward
for you to try).
Seppo Renfors
The Enlightenment wrote:
>
[..]
> They are
> quite literaly cultural marxists who using post modernsit techniques
> of criticsm relentlessy to rhetoricaly attack the "power structures"
> within society including quite often men, nuclear family, etc.
>
> They quite literaly DO dislike and DO seek to undermine the 2 parent
> married family especial one on a single (male) income. This social
> model is quite literaly Satan to them: the source of the KKK, Nazis,
> Imperialism, Racism, biggotry and everything rolled into one at times.
Odd.... so USA is "marxist" is it? UK is "marxist" is it? Australia is
"marxist" is it? After all the KKK is flourishing in the USA, as are
Nazis. The Nazis have a stronghold in the UK, and you are here -
another NAZI.
So you are back to your old NAZI argument "The JEWS MADE us kill
them.."
--
SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that privilege "
---------------------------------------------------------------
Synic
> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote in message
> news:slrnafl350.7ui...@lark.autons.net.au...
>
> Maybe if you just read journals, "Synic", but in terms of popular press &
> policy, it's 2002 Feminism.
>
>> Increasingly, the trend has been away from that form of feminism since
>> about 1985 or so, at least in academia.
>
> No, ONLY in academia, and even there a hell of a lot of hard-core feminist
> nutters in academia aren't about to relinquish beliefs that have lied at the
> cores of their being for decades.
Hint: take ideas from current journals and use to rebutt old ideas from
feminist dinosaurs.
>> The works of Lynn Segal are to be highly commended for blazing this trail.
>
> Yeah, and the works of Don Idhe show Noam Chomsky up for the clueless
> plonker he is.
Can't say I've read much of either in the original. However, Chomsky
has a reputation for having done good work in exposing the extent of
corporate lobbying in the US political system and some interesting stuff
on the media.
On the other hand, his fuckups on a couple of foreign policy issues
are well known.
> When was the last time you saw a piece by Don Idhe in the New York Times?
Actually, when was the last time I bothered reading any US newspaper?
>> They burst the myth of
>> female solidarity and are very much focussed on the rights of women
>> to choose what they want to do; whether that be the workforce or the
>> family. This is by far the most common feminist belief these days.
>
> Shame about the policy environment that those women are forced to live in
> though, eh?
Yes, I'm sure that in your Brave New World of unfettered free market
policy, women would be so well protected ;-).
>> You're actually condemning something which is very passe and out of
>> date.
>
> No, he's condemning the dynamic that women today MUST LIVE IN.
The poor dear things. Lets take up a collection for them.
>> It's a bit like Scott Hillard still ranting against Communism.
>
> Tell it to the 20% of the world's population living it every day.
Who might they be? Cuba is a small country. China is a capitalist
nation. The North Koreans haven't had *that* many sprogs lately.
[...]
>> You've been sidetracked into a wedge-politics discussions about
>> feminists instead of the general fight against economic inequity,
>> social, political and economic dislocation and the emergence of
>> a class of working poor ("untermench" in Scott Hillard-speak).
>
> Untermenschen - plural.
Glad you cleared that one up.
Scott Hillard
> Andrew D wrote:
> > You asked me for proof to back up my claims about feminists being
> > anti-motherhood and I provided. Now it's your turn. Find me one
"leftwing
> > group" that actually promotes the legitimacy of the one-income family as
a
> > social and economic unit in its own right.. Just one leftwing group will
> > do.
> I think we both know that this isn't likely to be found. Leftwingers
> advocate fairness regardless of social circumstance.
Bullshit.
They advocate the John Rawles notion of "justice":
"That is only just....which is to the most advantage, of the least
advantaged."
Bleeding heart nonsense.
> Therefore, they
> are unlikely to support specific policies advocating special treatment
> for two-parent families above all else.
That's not what Andrew asked for - he asked for EQUAL consideration - ya
know, that "equity" nonsense that "left-wingers" are constantly bleating
about?
> HOWEVER, I do think you would find support for making the ways
> families are treated internall consistent. ie, a family unit being
> considered a family unit for all purposes and not just some convenient
> ad hoc ones to take extra money.
Have fun finding a single example.
> > Stereotype... much the same. 3rd Party... same.
No surprises there - "Stereotype"/ "3rdParty"/ "Daley Llama" are all
sock-puppets of Dougie, a Jerome Gregory type wannabe bad-arse.
> > Now on the other side: Ralph, Scott Hillard, Arthur, Truth Hurts, David
> > Moss and others have all argued in favour of the abolition of penalties
> > endured by one-income families.
> Yep, that's the classic division between Left and Right. Lefties are
> into social freedom and economic regulation; Righties are more into
> social regulation and economic freedom.
Nonsense, the closest pidgeon-hole that you could find for me would be
"Anarcho-Capitalist-Fascist-Libertarian" - reconcile that. Economic freedom
is inseperable from social freedom - you cannot have one without the other.
Any childish notion that you can have "social freedom" along with "economic
regulation" is pure pigshit.
> Can't stress that enough for
> you: Lefties are into social freedom.
Lies.
All the lefties that are into unrestricted private ownership of weapons,
please stand up.
> The Right likes the idea of two-parent families
Demonstrably the most effective environment for raising a child in an
industrialised nation-state. The "left" prefers, what, communal raising of
children in paid or guv'mint sponsored child care?
If you intend to have kids and dump them in somoene else's care for 40-60
hours a week, why did you have kids in the first place?
Andrew D
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
+Andrew D wrote:
+> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
+[...]
+> You asked me for proof to back up my claims about feminists being
+> anti-motherhood and I provided. Now it's your turn. Find me one "leftwing
+> group" that actually promotes the legitimacy of the one-income family as a
+> social and economic unit in its own right.. Just one leftwing group will
+> do.
+I think we both know that this isn't likely to be found. Leftwingers
+advocate fairness regardless of social circumstance. Therefore, they
+are unlikely to support specific policies advocating special treatment
+for two-parent families above all else.
"Fairness" is in the eye of the beholder. Some people would say it's
hardly fair to make one person pay 48% tax and another just 17%. But I
never asked for someone who promoted SIFs as somnething special. I asked
for a leftwing group that recognised them as a legitimate unit in society.
Show me one current political organisation or lobby group in Australia
that has a leftwing or feminist ideology and also has policies that would
see one-income and two-income families treated the same for tax and
welfare based on family income.
+HOWEVER, I do think you would find support for making the ways
+families are treated internall consistent. ie, a family unit being
+considered a family unit for all purposes and not just some convenient
+ad hoc ones to take extra money.
Yet you still haven't pointed out any leftwing or feminst group that has
any such policy.
I will point out that in 1998 the Democrats had a published principle that
both tax and welfare should use a consistent set of criteria. However,
they had policies which breached this principle because they insisted tax
be assessed against the individual and welfare and rebates (like the
Health Rebate) be assessed against the family. Hardly consistent.
With this in mind, I ask that you forward the policies, not principles, of
any group you believe meets the standard we agree on.
+[...]
+> Even in this forum the left/right preferences are apparent. Lev Lafeyette
+> (feminist-left) is opposed to recognition of families. DRS (used to post
+> here. heavily feminist) said housewives and fulltime mums were a failure
+> to their own humanity. Stereotype... much the same. 3rd Party... same.
+> Chris Maltby...same again.
+Yep, each for their own different reasons no doubt. I'll not attempt
+to speak for any of them.
Most on the basis that they supported a woman's right to perform paid work
but not the right to be a fulltime homecarer. It's the old "women in the
kitchen" scenario. Chris Maltby's argument was different - he thought all
two-income families worked harder than all one-income families and
deserved a tax break for it.
+> Now on the other side: Ralph, Scott Hillard, Arthur, Truth Hurts, David
+> Moss and others have all argued in favour of the abolition of penalties
+> endured by one-income families.
+Yep, that's the classic division between Left and Right. Lefties are
+into social freedom and economic regulation; Righties are more into
+social regulation and economic freedom. Can't stress that enough for
+you: Lefties are into social freedom.
Penalising housewives and SIFs is social freedom? Since it's those on the
right who want all family-types to be treated consistently based on family
income and those on the left who want two-income famlies to be treated
more favourably with lower taxes and better subsidies, how can you
continue to argue that the left are the ones in favour of choice? You have
no evidence to support your argument. I'll ask again that you provide
some.
+The Right likes the idea of two-parent families (the cover of John
+Howard's 1988 Future Directions manifesto even had the Holden car and
+white picket fence). The wife of a breadwinner is someone whose
+marriage contract stops them from claiming the dole ;-).
You surely don't condemn them for "liking the idea" of two-parent families?
+[...]
+> I'd be happy for you to fill in the blanks on the left so I can start to
+> garner the support of some new groups and individuals.
+
+You're much more likely to find Lefties who are interested in helping
+to make the system fair for all, but, not to the detriment of others
+in society.
I'm still waiting. Point them out. Give me the policies. If the best you
can provide is a belief that such groups are "likely" to exist then I'm
left with little choice but to continue painting the visible feminist-left
as the anti-family lobby.
+[...]
+> Tell me who you consider to be current feminists. Give me evidence of
+> their pro-family ideology. Note the pro-family WAA support equal rights
+> for women, in paid work or not (and also have maternity leave policies)
+> but see today's "feminism" as a part of the problem.
+I think you'll have to settle for "not anti-family", which is at least
+a big leap over the current ALP/Coalition status quo.
So point them out. Can you name one leftist group who you know for a fact
does not have the sort of anti-family or anti-choice policies we've
suffered for three decades? (this is getting tiring)
+> So long as the media promote WEL as the spokesgroup for feminists, I'll
+> continue to target "feminism" as a significant player in anti-family
+> politics. If other "feminists" want WEL's influence to diminish, then it's
+> up to them to speak up.
+Your own targetting of WEL as if it were a serious interest group
+lends it credibility, BTW.
It has influence with or without me. My lobbying is a result of WEL's
unwarranted political profile. Where do we go if we can't attack the
flawed arguments of those who are the cause of the problems we're trying
to solve? Do you believe that your own attacks on "Laborels" gives them
credibility?
[snip]
+> +> How can you comment on current feminism if you haven't even heard of the
+> +> most vocal feminist lobby group in the country?
+> +Because they're kooks.
+> How do you know if you've never heard of them? ;)
+*badoom-tish* ;-).
:)
+> [...] In order for those with a
+> vaguely pro-family agenda to have a better chance of winning or retaining
+> office, I find myself being a vocal opponent of a lot of things I couldn't
+> care less about.
+Fair enough, I guess. Me, I'm not a full-time advocate by any means.
+However, I do hope you can take some useful ideas away from this
+thread.
As I said, I'm happy to accept criticism - and I do take it on board. I'm
not a political animal, I'm not a spokesperson for any group and I'm
hardly a lobbyist in the purest sense - neither am I a radical. I just do
my bit and hope that by keepin the issue alive, others will do theirs. I
have seen the issue receive more coverage on letters pages over the last
few years so I've not given up hope altogether.
+[...]
+> My question now is why no one in office is trying to fix the problem. As
+> far as "destroying families by encouraging women into the workforce" goes,
+> that is an rare argument used mainly to counteract the idiotic arguments
+> of the feminist-left who continually argue the childcare and two-incomes
+> is better. They'll post statistics showing how one parent families and
+> working mums produce better quality kids - so I naturally highlight
+> studies which show the opposite. I Go back to the top of this post for a
+> refresher on that.
+
+Bear in mind the different perspectives some of these people come from.
+I'd argue that a stable two parent family (man and woman, two lesbians,
+two gays, whatever) is better than a one parent family.
Oh you rightwinger you!
+However, a
+one parent family is better than a family with an abusive spouse. A
+lot of the strident old-guard feminists have had abusive spouses or
+worked with those who have.
And that's the problem. It's the tail wagging the dog. These women are the
absolute minority and yet they claim to speak on behalf of all women. Yes
they have suffered and yes their concerns are valid and should be noted
and addressed - but not at the expense of stable, normal, happy families.
+[...]
+> (I note today that childcare workers now want compensation for dealing
+> with dirty nappies. Expect a post or two on that as well)
+Considering the risk of disease transmission from working with poo,
+this isn't as loopy as it firsts sounds. At the least, additional
+sick leave for child carers is probably warranted.
Next they'll be wanting someone else to care for the kids while they
pursue a career. I'll bet no one argues that homecare mums deserve danger
money for all the crap they have to put up with seven days a week, 24
hours a day.
+> [snip]
+> I know that. You know that. Now show me any political organisation
+> who agrees.
+Very tough these days. Corporate donors have deep pockets for the
+major parties (more a problem in the USA than here, but, I'm sure
+it's still an issue).
Show me a minor party then. Show me a lobby group even - preferably a
leftwing or feminist one as I have a fair list of rightwing/non-feminist
groups already. (I will keep asking)
+[...]
+> I do appreciate constructive criticism. Please understand that when I
+> grasped this issue five years ago, I was very moderate and didn't point
+> fingers. It got me nowhere. I was lucky to ever get responses. Is it
+> working for you?
+
+I don't consider myself a serious activist by any stretch of the
+imagination. I curse the radio and the TV set sometimes, and post a few
+articles here once in a while. As might be suggested by my choice of
+online nick, I'm a bit cynical about the chances of even large party
+conferences of changing the policies advocated by the parliamentary
+parties.
Some might call that "apathy". In the last four years I've seen proposals
which do "something" about the issues I've raised. Last year i submitted
to the superannuation committee and argued that it was grossly unfair to
consider splitting a breadinner's superannuation asset in divorce cases
when that same asset was not treated as shared for married couples and as
such, they were not allowed to split it - ever. Now the govt have
announced a plan (flawed as it might be) to allow breadwinners to split
super contributions with their spouse. It's a start. Prior to the election
I can't recall any party advocating super-splitting. I have no idea what
part I played I but I did my bit and I'm comfortable with the belief that
I hade some small influence.
+[...]
+> Here's an example of a conversation I had with John Cherry (previous tax
+> adviser to Meg Lees. Now a senator).
+>
+> ME: Why do the Democrats want to treat a breadwinner's income as shared
+> for welfare purposes?
+>
+> JC: Well it is shared isn't it?
+>
+> ME: Then why do you say it should be taxed as personal income?
+>
+> JC: Well it is personal isn't it?
+>
+> How do you put up a reasoned argument against that sort of logic? What
+> would you have said next (I was gobsmacked)? I never mentioned commies or
+> femmos or destroying families or misguided mothers or any of the other
+> controversial "kook" stuff. This guy was a senior adviser - now he's a
+> senator for God's sake!
+"Yes Minister" stuff, that :-).
And therein lies the problem. Text books are text books. Theories are
theories and ideals are ideals. But reality dictates that we must deal
with politicians. While I appreciate your thoughts on approach, can I
respectfully suggest that you get your feet wet in the real world and see
how you go.
[snip]
+> Now over to you. You know where I stand. You know what I believe the cause
+> to be and you probably know my preferred solutions. Lay your cards on the
+> table. Explain the cause of the problem as you see it and tell us what you
+> propose be done about it.
+I think I've already outlined what I believe the problem is: lack of
+consistency and fairness, as well as taxation being much too high at
+the low end (due to bracket creep), and not high enough at the top end
+(due to PAYE tax cuts to the ultra-rich and lax tax regulations
+for big business). It's a pretty unexciting and standard view.
+However, I do have some suggestions for you if you want to get some
+more support for taxation fairness:
+ o Recognise that if you can't beat pressure groups, create one of
+ your own. If you're as gung-ho on the issue as you obviously are,
Pressure groups exist. I correspond with a number of them regularly. The
Australian Family Association is part of a worldwide movement and was
responsible for taking to parliament one of the biggest petitions in
recent history. The petition called for this problem to be solved- it was
ignored.
The Women's Action Alliance have a huge membership I believe and are
regular contributors to parliamentary committees and share a great many of
my views. They even get John Howard along as guest speaker from time to
time.
Endeavour Fourm are another worlwide lobby group on family and women's
issues and who also share many of my concerns and suggested solutions.
The problem is that groups like WEL seem to have successfully infiltrated
all levels of society from schools to govt departments to political
parties and they now weild undue power. One Labor staffer actually wrote
to me three years ago explaining that while there were many pro-family
members among the senior ranks of the ALP, they were outnumbered at policy
level by feminists.
+ set up a non-profit association that can be used to raise money
I work fulltime (and more) to provide for my wife and two children.
Andrew D
<Ren...@not.olles.com.au> wrote:
+The Enlightenment wrote:
+>
+[..]
+
+
+
+> They are
+> quite literaly cultural marxists who using post modernsit techniques
+> of criticsm relentlessy to rhetoricaly attack the "power structures"
+> within society including quite often men, nuclear family, etc.
+>
+> They quite literaly DO dislike and DO seek to undermine the 2 parent
+> married family especial one on a single (male) income. This social
+> model is quite literaly Satan to them: the source of the KKK, Nazis,
+> Imperialism, Racism, biggotry and everything rolled into one at times.
+Odd.... so USA is "marxist" is it? UK is "marxist" is it? Australia is
+"marxist" is it? After all the KKK is flourishing in the USA, as are
+Nazis. The Nazis have a stronghold in the UK, and you are here -
+another NAZI.
Glad you started that diatribe with "Odd" - it sure was. How the hell
did you conclude that he was blaming any of those things on marxism? What
he clearly said was that marxist-feminists blame the traditional
single-income two-parent family for all the worlds evils. At no point did
he say marxists were the cause. Nor did he agree that families or western
culture in general were the cause.
Synic
>> Yep, that's the classic division between Left and Right. Lefties are
>> into social freedom and economic regulation; Righties are more into
>> social regulation and economic freedom.
>
> Nonsense, the closest pidgeon-hole that you could find for me would be
> "Anarcho-Capitalist-Fascist-Libertarian" - reconcile that. Economic freedom
> is inseperable from social freedom - you cannot have one without the other.
There are leftwingers, rightwingers, fascists and libertarians.
Fascists and libertarians are insane and so morally bankrupt they
don't really count.
Hope that helps.
The Enlightenment
> The Enlightenment wrote:
> >
> [..]
>
>
>
> > They are
> > quite literaly cultural marxists who using post modernsit techniques
> > of criticsm relentlessy to rhetoricaly attack the "power structures"
> > within society including quite often men, nuclear family, etc.
> >
> > They quite literaly DO dislike and DO seek to undermine the 2 parent
> > married family especial one on a single (male) income. This social
> > model is quite literaly Satan to them: the source of the KKK, Nazis,
> > Imperialism, Racism, biggotry and everything rolled into one at times.
>
> Odd.... so USA is "marxist" is it? UK is "marxist" is it? Australia is
> "marxist" is it? After all the KKK is flourishing in the USA, as are
> Nazis. The Nazis have a stronghold in the UK, and you are here -
> another NAZI.
>
> So you are back to your old NAZI argument "The JEWS MADE us kill
> them.."
Note: you are ranting againn Seeppo Ranttors should be your name.
The influential Frankfurt School of Sociology were self defined
marxists in their view of society and historical process.
Most of what they developed found its way into modern feminism,
multiculturlaism, cultural studies,advertiseing etc. All of this is
obvious to anyone with a humanities education.
For instance the feminist Harding has gained much notoriety (or
celebrity, depending on one’s circle of friends) with her now
(in)famous assertion that Newton’s Principia Mathematica
Philosophae Naturalis could be considered a "rape manual".
This is pure "frankfurt School" and derivative of marxist antipathy to
western man.
It is the same post modernist irrationality that you and Peter Terry
indulge in when you define the english language test for migrants as
racist.
It amazes me that you present yourself as educated and laud the
humanities when you haven't a clue. Now piss of ignorant troll.
Synic
> "Fairness" is in the eye of the beholder. Some people would say it's
> hardly fair to make one person pay 48% tax and another just 17%. But I
> never asked for someone who promoted SIFs as somnething special. I asked
> for a leftwing group that recognised them as a legitimate unit in society.
Sure they're a legitimate unit in society. Are they really something
that should be actively subsidised? No. Are they something which should
be actively penalised? Again, no.
> Show me one current political organisation or lobby group in Australia
> that has a leftwing or feminist ideology and also has policies that would
> see one-income and two-income families treated the same for tax and
> welfare based on family income.
I'm sure you've looked at them all. Why ask me. I've mentioned at least
twice in this thread that I'm not an activist or involved in such
things..
> +HOWEVER, I do think you would find support for making the ways
> +families are treated internall consistent. ie, a family unit being
> +considered a family unit for all purposes and not just some convenient
> +ad hoc ones to take extra money.
>
> Yet you still haven't pointed out any leftwing or feminst group that has
> any such policy.
Feh. I'd simply be surprised if there weren't other leftwingers who
feel the same as I do.
> I will point out that in 1998 the Democrats had a published principle that
> both tax and welfare should use a consistent set of criteria. However,
> they had policies which breached this principle because they insisted tax
> be assessed against the individual and welfare and rebates (like the
> Health Rebate) be assessed against the family. Hardly consistent.
>
> With this in mind, I ask that you forward the policies, not principles, of
> any group you believe meets the standard we agree on.
If I find one, I'll let you know.
> Most on the basis that they supported a woman's right to perform paid work
> but not the right to be a fulltime homecarer. It's the old "women in the
> kitchen" scenario. Chris Maltby's argument was different - he thought all
> two-income families worked harder than all one-income families and
> deserved a tax break for it.
Whereas I don't really give a toss whether women are encouraged
financially to go off to work or stay home, just so long as their
family can comfortably afford to purchase a home and adequately provide
food and clothing regardless of their decision.
> [...] how can you
> continue to argue that the left are the ones in favour of choice? You have
> no evidence to support your argument. I'll ask again that you provide
> some.
I find it astonishing that you consider the Democrats (who voted in the
GST), the ALP (who privatise anything that's not nailed down and
instigated mandatory detention for political asylum seekers) and
Brian Harradine (who's a fundamentalist christian) to be examples
of "leftwingers". Pull your head out of your arse, mate.
The closest this country has to a leftwing party these days is The
Greens. Even then, that's secondary to their environmental concerns.
Them's the breaks.
> +The Right likes the idea of two-parent families (the cover of John
> +Howard's 1988 Future Directions manifesto even had the Holden car and
> +white picket fence). The wife of a breadwinner is someone whose
> +marriage contract stops them from claiming the dole ;-).
>
> You surely don't condemn them for "liking the idea" of two-parent
> families?
Seeing a party promoting a pipe-dream while producing policies to
destroy that pipe-dream doesn't annoy or amuse you, Andrew?
> +[...]
> +> I'd be happy for you to fill in the blanks on the left so I can start to
> +> garner the support of some new groups and individuals.
> +
> +You're much more likely to find Lefties who are interested in helping
> +to make the system fair for all, but, not to the detriment of others
> +in society.
>
> I'm still waiting. Point them out.
Me, for a start.
> Give me the policies. If the best you
> can provide is a belief that such groups are "likely" to exist then I'm
> left with little choice but to continue painting the visible feminist-left
> as the anti-family lobby.
Your slide into kookiness is your decision to make. Sadly, if this
is your reaction to an attempt to bridge the boundaries, I can see
why others in the Left on this newsgroup have ditched or killfiled
you. I may end up doing much the same.
> +I think you'll have to settle for "not anti-family", which is at least
> +a big leap over the current ALP/Coalition status quo.
>
> So point them out. Can you name one leftist group
Ah... Here we go. Only rabid rightwingers ever use the word "leftist".
Anyone else finds the term pretty insulting. Are we all guerilla
terrorists to you (like the Americans seem to feel)? Go have fun
playing with the Coalition, dickhead.
> who you know for a fact
> does not have the sort of anti-family or anti-choice policies we've
> suffered for three decades? (this is getting tiring)
Name some Coalition or ALP maggots who do.
> It has influence with or without me. My lobbying is a result of WEL's
> unwarranted political profile. Where do we go if we can't attack the
> flawed arguments of those who are the cause of the problems we're trying
> to solve? Do you believe that your own attacks on "Laborels" gives them
> credibility?
Peddle your anti-feminist tirade in soc.women, kook.
[...]
> +I don't consider myself a serious activist by any stretch of the
> +imagination. I curse the radio and the TV set sometimes, and post a few
> +articles here once in a while. As might be suggested by my choice of
> +online nick, I'm a bit cynical about the chances of even large party
> +conferences of changing the policies advocated by the parliamentary
> +parties.
>
> Some might call that "apathy". In the last four years I've seen proposals
> which do "something" about the issues I've raised. Last year i submitted
> to the superannuation committee and argued that it was grossly unfair to
> consider splitting a breadinner's superannuation asset in divorce cases
> when that same asset was not treated as shared for married couples and as
> such, they were not allowed to split it - ever. Now the govt have
> announced a plan (flawed as it might be) to allow breadwinners to split
> super contributions with their spouse. It's a start. Prior to the election
> I can't recall any party advocating super-splitting. I have no idea what
> part I played I but I did my bit and I'm comfortable with the belief that
> I hade some small influence.
Heh. You'll be claiming credit for maternity leave next.
[...]
> And therein lies the problem. Text books are text books. Theories are
> theories and ideals are ideals. But reality dictates that we must deal
> with politicians. While I appreciate your thoughts on approach, can I
> respectfully suggest that you get your feet wet in the real world and see
> how you go.
Hint for you: You can do both. They are not mutually exclusive.
[...]
> + o Recognise that if you can't beat pressure groups, create one of
> + your own. If you're as gung-ho on the issue as you obviously are,
>
> Pressure groups exist. I correspond with a number of them regularly. The
> Australian Family Association is part of a worldwide movement and was
> responsible for taking to parliament one of the biggest petitions in
> recent history. The petition called for this problem to be solved- it was
> ignored.
Thus proving that petitions are easily ignored. Go with the placement
of ads on a regular basis. As they're there in the papers on a regular
basis, they cannot be ignored forever and will probably seed an idea
in the free neuron in a politician's brain at some point.
If you're going to carry on the way you did in this article when
someone attempts to give you constructive suggestions, you may as
well fuck off and die, loser, because you'll alienate everyone who
tries to take you seriously.
[...]
> The problem is that groups like WEL seem to have successfully infiltrated
> all levels of society from schools to govt departments to political
> parties and they now weild undue power.
You do realise how nutty this makes you sound, right?
> One Labor staffer actually wrote
> to me three years ago explaining that while there were many pro-family
> members among the senior ranks of the ALP, they were outnumbered at policy
> level by feminists.
"Them and the Jews are in it together, I'll bet."
> + set up a non-profit association that can be used to raise money
>
> I work fulltime (and more) to provide for my wife and two children.
Sucks to be you. Court the ALP or the Coalition. They seem much more
your style. Me, I think you're a single-minded kook who has lost the
plot. Nice chatting. I doubt I'll bother to do it again soon.
The Enlightenment
> In article <39556695.02060...@posting.google.com>,
> bern...@yahoo.com.au (The Enlightenment) wrote:
>
> [snip - much agreement.]
> +Liberal Feminists are concerned with womens freedom, rights and fair
> +made some ground. They've had a hard time of it: mainly from the
> +radical feminists and political correctness but also from men who
> +often ignorantly attack the liberal feminists by mistake. (Or out of
> +truely mysoginist small mindedness)
>
> It is difficult if a group chooses to be recognised as feminist yet goes
> against much of what public, political feminism stands for today. As I've
> pointed out before, I don't have a problem with the fundamentals of
> feminism - equal rights, equal pay for equal work, the right to perform
> paid labour etc....
This essentialy is "liberal Feminism" as I understand it. Nobody that
I can think of opposes it indeed most men suppor their mothers, wives
and sisters in this area.
> but where family is concerned, it should include choice in relation to
> family issues.
Radical Feminism tends to view the classic western family as the root
cause of the oppresion of women, hence the antipathy to measures
designed to support it such as offereing "choice"
Daniel Pouzzner and Michael J. Minnicino both identify the ideological
origins of the shift in political power. It must be stressed that the
shift would not have been successful if it had not been aided by the
systematic deconstruction of traditional moral standards, particularly
not without the deliberate planned destruction of the family.
Erin Pizzey reports that the funding for the promotion of radical
feminism was derived from the usurpation of the women's shelter
movement by radical feminists, who, she says, now command and direct
the continuing advancement of the agenda of radical feminism —
which some describe as Marxism without economics
http://forever.freeshell.org/hist/krupp.htm#Secret
http://www.propaganda101.com/SocialPsychology/frankfurt.htm
>
> Today's feminism has little to do with choice. Anyone who's spent any time
> on AusFem-PolNet (Australia's leading mailing list of elite feminists)
> would know that these women refer to housewives and homecarers as
> "rabbits" (an apparent reference to breeding).
Appaling.
> They talk about being
> chained to the kitchen sink but never about being chained to the office
> computer or the university lectern. They are so happy about their own
> choices that they truly believe any woman who doesn't follow suit is
> worthless.
Obvioulsy the nature of the language is to demonize and bellittle as
much as possible. These dsad woemn are breading themselves into non
existence but it is obvious they create an unpleaseant climate and a
lot of women have been sucked into this movement; dazzled by its
pseudo intelectualism or drawn by its prmise of meaning and cause.
>
> One pro-feminist poster to this newsgroup used to claim that women who
> chose to be fulltime homecarers were "a failure to their own humanity". So
> much for choice. I note that many women's groups do not associate
> themselves with feminism for this reason. In fact, some openly criticise
> feminism as a cause rather than a cure. I sincerely wish these groups
> could create a new movement - with a new name.
I was suprised to find that even career women are distanceing
themselves from the feminist uglies who are seen as failures as women
and as haveing surrendered their femininity. As a personal obsevation
it seems that radical feminism can block your personal growth.
>
> People who want feminism to be seen in the pure light of what it
> originally stood for - or what it "could" stand for - are fooling
> themselves.
The universal suffrage part of it was honourable and fair.
One problem I see is that oppostion to radical feminism will be
deliberatly or accidently misconstriued as an attack on liberal
feminism, women in general, or outright mysoginy. Something that the
radicals indeed work hard to promote. That tactic can cost the pro
family pro choicers support.
> It's like wanting people to judge communism by what's written
> in books rather than by looking at Russia or China. Text books are a nice
> source of information and a good starting point for thought but they are
> not the end of the story because they often deal more with fundamental
> principles than reality. If we accepted everything we read in text books
> then we'd have to accept that both communism and capitalism would deliver
> a utopian society. The reality is that in practice, neither "ism" delivers
> anything close - people always get in the way.
I think part of the attration of feminism was it was simple
intelectual poseing.
A way of showing your intellgence, significance and meaningfullness.
A few women in the upper echelons seem to have become authors a lot of
others ended paying a personal cost. The women that want to take a
few years of or delight in a family can't.
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html
>
> Having said that, if the so-called third wave can succesfully reposition
> feminism in the media, in politics and in the public eye, then I may well
> find myself writing in their support (as I have done regularly with the
> Women's Action Alliance). Until then I'll write about feminism as it is in
> the real world - and that is as a leftist, anti-family movement. Anyone
> who claims to be a feminist without understanding the reality of feminism
> on the streets is doing themselves - and society - a grave disservice.
>
> +What consevatives and libertairian men and feminists need to be
> +mindfull of is "co-option"; which is a propagandistic technique.
>
> +Quite often you'll see post modernists allieing Ethnic Minorities,
> +Gays, Oppresed Nations and Women as if they all belong in the same
> +group and are all oppressed by western society or even have much in
> +common. (You know what I mean)
>
> Absolutely. As you pointed out in the bit I snipped, many feminist groups
> have more to do with marxism than with women in general. They would have
> us believe that *all* women feel oppressed and that no woman would
> willfully raise a child at home unless she was the victim of
> social-engineering. What they are really about is attacking anything which
> seems remotely traditional. They attack the church, the state, employers,
> prisons.... and almost everything which forms part of "the establishment".
> On one hand they attack Muslim nations where women are forced to cover up
> then on the other hand they attack western nations because women choose to
> wear bikinis. The only winning position appears to be overalls and
> sensible shoes - so much for freedom and choice.
>
> I can't see why the media has never questioned the vocal dominance of
> lesbians in a movement which claims to speak on behalf of all women.
Co-option and political correcness. As lesbians are identified with
women, discriminated ethnic minorities, victims of incest,world
imperialism etc challenging this irrationl alleigence will earn you a
bucket from ALL of those. Mind you I think it was a lesbian that did
one of the first debunkings of politcal correcness.
The problem is not these groups themselves but how the radicals within
them for allegiences.
Andrew D
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
+In article <right-06060...@i172-177.nv.iinet.net.au>, Andrew D wrote:
+> "Fairness" is in the eye of the beholder. Some people would say it's
+> hardly fair to make one person pay 48% tax and another just 17%. But I
+> never asked for someone who promoted SIFs as somnething special. I asked
+> for a leftwing group that recognised them as a legitimate unit in society.
+
+Sure they're a legitimate unit in society. Are they really something
+that should be actively subsidised? No. Are they something which should
+be actively penalised? Again, no.
Now this is getting ridiculous. I didn't ask for your views on the matter
I asked (again) for you to point me to a leftwing or feminist group that
espouses consistent treatment of families regardless of the division of
labour within. You say such groups exist. You insist they are the real
crusaders of socialism and genuine feminism - but so far you haven't
supplied one solitary group name.
Note that: There are individuals who suggest that all people should be
treated as individuals and that family/marriage partnerships should not be
separated for different treatment. Lev would claim to be one such
individual, as would Senator Andrew Bartlett (both are on record in
aus.politics).
However, when they are asked if an employer should receive a tax deduction
for the cost of an employee, they invariably say "yes". This immediately
breaches the principle of equal treatment for everyone - though they would
mount some convoluted argument as to why this is a special sort of
partnership deserving of special treatment while a partnership dedicated
to the mutual sharing of personal resources and nurturing of children is
apparently of far less importance.
When asked if a depandant spouse should share in a property serttlement
when a couple divorce, they invariably say "yes". When asked if Kerry
Packer's wife should be allowed to claim the dole or sole-parents pension
- they hesitate and realise that to honestly deliver their idyllic
society, they must not treat her differently just because she's got a rich
husband. This is a conundrum for the anti-family brigade. They want people
recognised as individuals but they don't want the wives of wealthy men
getting handouts at the expense of the poor (and it would have to be at
their expense).
Yes I know, my answers are long - but that is so I cover all the bases up
front rather than dragging this all out over the next few weeks as you put
each of these theories before me one by one. Been there, done that.
+> Show me one current political organisation or lobby group in Australia
+> that has a leftwing or feminist ideology and also has policies that would
+> see one-income and two-income families treated the same for tax and
+> welfare based on family income.
+I'm sure you've looked at them all. Why ask me. I've mentioned at least
+twice in this thread that I'm not an activist or involved in such
+things..
Because you insist that my ideas about the feminist-left are out of touch
with reality. All the groups I've looked at have resulted in me forming my
opinion that it is the feminist-left that is to blame for families today
being able to enjoy a decent standard of living on the earnings of one
average breadwinner. (Which was your initial concern). If you are unable
to name even one group that contradicts my perception of the
feminist-left, then I have to conclude that your protestations were based
on ideological, textbook ignorance. University is not the real world and
not everything they tell you is true - if it were, you'd have listed
multiple organisations by now.
+> +HOWEVER, I do think you would find support for making the ways
+> +families are treated internall consistent. ie, a family unit being
+> +considered a family unit for all purposes and not just some convenient
+> +ad hoc ones to take extra money.
+> Yet you still haven't pointed out any leftwing or feminst group that has
+> any such policy.
+Feh. I'd simply be surprised if there weren't other leftwingers who
+feel the same as I do.
Individuals perhaps. groups? No. Influential groups? Definitely no.
Political groups? Absolutely no way. Major political players? Not a
chance. Again I suggest you look at the word, not the books. If everything
written in books were true then Noddy would have been thrown in jail
decades ago.
+> I will point out that in 1998 the Democrats had a published principle that
+> both tax and welfare should use a consistent set of criteria. However,
+> they had policies which breached this principle because they insisted tax
+> be assessed against the individual and welfare and rebates (like the
+> Health Rebate) be assessed against the family. Hardly consistent.
+> With this in mind, I ask that you forward the policies, not principles, of
+> any group you believe meets the standard we agree on.
+If I find one, I'll let you know.
Until then I hope you don't mind if I continue to portray feminism as it
really is not as you want it to be.
+> Most on the basis that they supported a woman's right to perform paid work
+> but not the right to be a fulltime homecarer. It's the old "women in the
+> kitchen" scenario. Chris Maltby's argument was different - he thought all
+> two-income families worked harder than all one-income families and
+> deserved a tax break for it.
+Whereas I don't really give a toss whether women are encouraged
+financially to go off to work or stay home, just so long as their
+family can comfortably afford to purchase a home and adequately provide
+food and clothing regardless of their decision.
Are you absolutely certain you understand the difference between political
left and right?
+> [...] how can you
+> continue to argue that the left are the ones in favour of choice? You have
+> no evidence to support your argument. I'll ask again that you provide
+> some.
+
+I find it astonishing that you consider the Democrats (who voted in the
+GST), the ALP (who privatise anything that's not nailed down and
+instigated mandatory detention for political asylum seekers) and
+Brian Harradine (who's a fundamentalist christian) to be examples
+of "leftwingers".
Actually I put Harradine on the right. No confusion there.
+Pull your head out of your arse, mate.
Then show me some genuine leftwing groups that pass our test. The
Progressive Labour Party claim to be much further left than the ALP. They
stand for unionism, nationalisation of industry, massive tax increases for
the rich, childcare and tax relief for two-income families... opps, damn!
Failed.
Pauline Hanson's tax plan was pretty universal in application - but I
suspect she doesn't quite qualify as leftwing.
You do see the problem don't you? You insist the genuine political left
would support one-income families yet there appears to be no such animal.
Therefore we're left with condemning those who claim to be leftwing.
+The closest this country has to a leftwing party these days is The
+Greens. Even then, that's secondary to their environmental concerns.
+Them's the breaks.
The Greens have a policy to support women in paid work but nothing to
ensure SIFs and DIFs are taxed the same. Bzzzt! Fail.
+> +The Right likes the idea of two-parent families (the cover of John
+> +Howard's 1988 Future Directions manifesto even had the Holden car and
+> +white picket fence). The wife of a breadwinner is someone whose
+> +marriage contract stops them from claiming the dole ;-).
+> You surely don't condemn them for "liking the idea" of two-parent
+> families?
+Seeing a party promoting a pipe-dream while producing policies to
+destroy that pipe-dream doesn't annoy or amuse you, Andrew?
What do you think? Do you see me congratulating Howard for pretending to
be pro-family? But surely by your own standards, Howard clearly isn't any
more rightwing than Labor are leftwing. If he was, we wouldn't be having
this discussion. He's been hijacked by the feminist-left.
I repeat my earlier comment: I wouldn't trust one of them to but principle
before party.
+> +[...]
+> +> I'd be happy for you to fill in the blanks on the left so I can start to
+> +> garner the support of some new groups and individuals.
+> +
+> +You're much more likely to find Lefties who are interested in helping
+> +to make the system fair for all, but, not to the detriment of others
+> +in society.
+> I'm still waiting. Point them out.
+Me, for a start.
Groups synic, groups. By your own admission you aren't even vocal - so you
simply don't count. I want evidence that the feminist-left are not opposed
to the single-incoem family. The opinions of a lone individual do not
illustrate the ideals of the whole movement.
+> Give me the policies. If the best you
+> can provide is a belief that such groups are "likely" to exist then I'm
+> left with little choice but to continue painting the visible feminist-left
+> as the anti-family lobby.
+Your slide into kookiness is your decision to make. Sadly, if this
+is your reaction to an attempt to bridge the boundaries, I can see
+why others in the Left on this newsgroup have ditched or killfiled
+you. I may end up doing much the same.
You openly admit that you cannot point to one feminist-left group that
meets your test of a family-friendly lobby but I'm the kook for not
believing such a movement exists???????????????
+> +I think you'll have to settle for "not anti-family", which is at least
+> +a big leap over the current ALP/Coalition status quo.
+> So point them out. Can you name one leftist group
+Ah... Here we go. Only rabid rightwingers ever use the word "leftist".
+Anyone else finds the term pretty insulting. Are we all guerilla
+terrorists to you (like the Americans seem to feel)? Go have fun
+playing with the Coalition, dickhead.
Rubbish! As far as I know, leftist is another term for leftwing. It's just
another "ist" like unionist, feminist...etc. If you think I'm a
"rightwinger" then you've clearly not been paying attention at all.
Substitute your preferred term "leftwing" for "leftist" - then answer the
question.
+> who you know for a fact
+> does not have the sort of anti-family or anti-choice policies we've
+> suffered for three decades? (this is getting tiring)
+Name some Coalition or ALP maggots who do.
There aren't any. I never said there were. If there were we wouldn't have
suffered inequity for three decades would we? I maintain that this is the
result of the anti-family feminist-left. So far you've failed to provide
any evidence that I'm wrong.
+> It has influence with or without me. My lobbying is a result of WEL's
+> unwarranted political profile. Where do we go if we can't attack the
+> flawed arguments of those who are the cause of the problems we're trying
+> to solve? Do you believe that your own attacks on "Laborels" gives them
+> credibility?
+Peddle your anti-feminist tirade in soc.women, kook.
Why? I couldn't care less about soc.women. I'm interested in Australian
politics - specifically that area in which fundamentalist feminism has
resulted in less choice for married women and their families.
[snip]
+> Some might call that "apathy". In the last four years I've seen proposals
+> which do "something" about the issues I've raised. Last year i submitted
+> to the superannuation committee and argued that it was grossly unfair to
+> consider splitting a breadinner's superannuation asset in divorce cases
+> when that same asset was not treated as shared for married couples and as
+> such, they were not allowed to split it - ever. Now the govt have
+> announced a plan (flawed as it might be) to allow breadwinners to split
+> super contributions with their spouse. It's a start. Prior to the election
+> I can't recall any party advocating super-splitting. I have no idea what
+> part I played I but I did my bit and I'm comfortable with the belief that
+> I hade some small influence.
+Heh. You'll be claiming credit for maternity leave next.
Since I've never written in favour of it, that's hardly likely. My
position on superannuation splitting was very public. A google search of
this group can prove that for you.
+[...]
+> And therein lies the problem. Text books are text books. Theories are
+> theories and ideals are ideals. But reality dictates that we must deal
+> with politicians. While I appreciate your thoughts on approach, can I
+> respectfully suggest that you get your feet wet in the real world and see
+> how you go.
+Hint for you: You can do both. They are not mutually exclusive.
But you haven't. You freely admit that your understanding of feminism is
based on what you "learned" at Uni. I've listed plenty of examples of
real-world feminism and challenged you to provide contradictory evidence
from the real world. You haven't done so.
+[...]
+> + o Recognise that if you can't beat pressure groups, create one of
+> + your own. If you're as gung-ho on the issue as you obviously are,
+> Pressure groups exist. I correspond with a number of them regularly. The
+> Australian Family Association is part of a worldwide movement and was
+> responsible for taking to parliament one of the biggest petitions in
+> recent history. The petition called for this problem to be solved- it was
+> ignored.
+Thus proving that petitions are easily ignored. Go with the placement
+of ads on a regular basis. As they're there in the papers on a regular
+basis, they cannot be ignored forever and will probably seed an idea
+in the free neuron in a politician's brain at some point.
Expecting single-income families to fund an ad campaign is like expecting
the unemployed to do so. It takes money. Peter Costello has ours.
[snip]
+Sucks to be you. Court the ALP or the Coalition. They seem much more
+your style.
You're yet to point out an alternative. What choice do I have?
+ Me, I think you're a single-minded kook who has lost the
+plot. Nice chatting. I doubt I'll bother to do it again soon.
It hardly constituted a discussion really did it? You freely admit to not
being politically active. You admit your understanding of feminism and
socialism comes from just two sources - university and your own beliefs.
Yuo insist that in the real world, feminism is in favour of genuine choice
for mothers but you cannot provide one example of any feminist group that
has policies that support this principle.
If I'm single-minded it's probably because you provided no information
that caused me to rethink my position. I accept that you may be a feminist
and a leftwinger and that you might also believe families shouldn't be
penalised according to how they divide their labour but that does not mean
the majority in the feminist-left share your views or that they are not
the feminist-left if they don't share your views.
Now I tried to take you seriously and gave you ample opportunty to lay
your cards on the table. I was polite. I didn't mention untermenschen or
towel heads or jews. I didn't beat up on working mums or blame Karl Marx
for everything that's wrong in the world. You asked me to provide proof to
back up my claims about the feminist-left today and I provided it in
buckets. But because I kept asking you to give me good reason why I should
not consider WEL to be the voice of feminism, you call me a kook. Well if
wanting proof makes me a kook, then I'm a kook.
Synic
In this thread, I adequately mapped out for you an alternative plan
for mobilising a support base and putting forward your views to the
mainstream in a regular and rational style which would be likely to,
with perseverence and some sanity on your part, put the reforms
you're suggesting on the political map. Set up that non-profit
organisation and focus it on producing half-page ads for newsprint
on a very regular basis (goal, weekly saturation).
In your responses, you've harranged me about the lack of existing
pressure groups supporting your Vision Splendid as a justification
for your attacking all feminists because WEL calls itself a feminist
organisation. Go ahead. This seems to be where you get your kicks.
However, in my opinion, in doing so you've lost the moral high
ground.
With your obsession with finding others to blame and unwillingness
to accept the guarded support of individuals outside power blocs,
you've condemned your Vision Spendid to obscurity with nought but
yourself truly to blame. I wish your cause well, but, believe you
personally have descended into kooky territory.
Regards.
Peter Wiley
Actually, synic, he did you like a dinner. You might want to run away
and soothe your 'principles' by chanting the mantra 'kook, kook, kook'
but Andrew's spot-on. You provided zip in the way of defence of your
ideas. Lev took a shot at it a year or so ago, and got shot down in
flames too. Maltby the same.
I've been watching this issue for years now, and so far all comers
have eventually, faced with the internal contradictions of their
position, run away licking their wounds because they prefer to
maintain their schizophrenic worldview to facing the fact that in
fairness, you either treat people as individuals, or you don't. The
current system swaps roles whenever it maximises tax revenue or
minimises outlays. You guys support this inequity.
Please, name *one* of your favoured political group(s) that supports a
consistent treatment of partnerships vs individuals. A political
party. A feminist lobby group. A gay lobby group. Any group at all.
Just one. Give us a URL to their policies, or quote from their
platform. Surely, this isn't too much to ask?
Nothing to me, either way. I have a well-paid job and a rich wife. She
could afford for me to stay home, especially if I was a tax deduction.
I just love it when you guys get shot down in flames.
Peter Wiley
Andrew D
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
+Andrew D,
+In this thread, I adequately mapped out for you an alternative plan
+for mobilising a support base and putting forward your views to the
+mainstream in a regular and rational style which would be likely to,
+with perseverence and some sanity on your part, put the reforms
+you're suggesting on the political map.
And I thanked you for your input - but I must also take account of your
admission that you have no experience whatsoever in this area. Further, I
outlined my experinces to you and explained that controversy and
underhandedness were in fact the most effective ways I'd found of getting
ANY response whatsoever from MPs.
That's not to say your ideas or wrong or that I shouldn't look at ways to
pursue them. But the reality is that I work VERY long hours in two jobs
and pay hefty taxes to boot (I'm not a high income earner). This means I
have neither time nor money to spend organising other people to mount a
campaign.
+In your responses, you've harranged me about the lack of existing
+pressure groups supporting your Vision Splendid as a justification
+for your attacking all feminists because WEL calls itself a feminist
+organisation. Go ahead.
If you recall, when I mentioned early on that the feminist-left were the
main players in this game with their "women in the kitchen" accusations,
you insisted on proof. I gave it. You dismissed all those in my examples
as kooks but were unable to provide evidence that they were not
representative of the movement. Am I to simply accept the word of someone
on Usenet that I should leave feminism alone when it's clear to me and
countless others that the current, visible, political feminists ARE the
root cause of the problem I'm trying to solve? Please note also that not
one person has come to your defence and agreed that anti-family feminism
is dead. Rest assured Synic - I am deeply cynical of advice that has a
hollow ring to it.
+This seems to be where you get your kicks.
+However, in my opinion, in doing so you've lost the moral high
+ground.
If there were lobby groups that fit your definition of feminism I'd agree
that I'd got it wrong. But they simply don't exist so I'm hardly likely to
have upset them. Now, I agree that by targeting feminism I do risk
offsiding women (and some men) who may consider themselves to be feminists
without actually understanding what today's feminist movement stands for.
It's a risk I have long been aware of and is the reason why I regularly
refer to "fundamentalist feminism" and why my articles are usually so
lengthy.
It's a tightrope and I have no doubt that I regularly put a foot wrong.
Believe it or not, I'm imperfect.
+With your obsession with finding others to blame and unwillingness
+to accept the guarded support of individuals outside power blocs,
+you've condemned your Vision Spendid to obscurity with nought but
+yourself truly to blame. I wish your cause well, but, believe you
+personally have descended into kooky territory.
And once again I appreciate your input. I'm disappointed that you were
unable to back up your claims that the real feminist-left is a caring
movement interested in treating single-income families fairly. I had
honestly hoped you would be able to renew my faith.
Please be assured there are moderates out there fighting the case and
there are big groups along for the ride. The problem is influencing those
in office - and that is not so easy.
Synic
> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote
>>
>> In this thread, I adequately mapped out for you an alternative plan
>> for mobilising a support base and putting forward your views to the
>> mainstream in a regular and rational style which would be likely to,
>> with perseverence and some sanity on your part, put the reforms
>> you're suggesting on the political map. Set up that non-profit
>> organisation and focus it on producing half-page ads for newsprint
>> on a very regular basis (goal, weekly saturation).
>>
>> In your responses, you've harranged me about the lack of existing
>> pressure groups supporting your Vision Splendid as a justification
>> for your attacking all feminists because WEL calls itself a feminist
>> organisation. Go ahead. This seems to be where you get your kicks.
>> However, in my opinion, in doing so you've lost the moral high
>> ground.
>>
>> With your obsession with finding others to blame and unwillingness
>> to accept the guarded support of individuals outside power blocs,
>> you've condemned your Vision Spendid to obscurity with nought but
>> yourself truly to blame. I wish your cause well, but, believe you
>> personally have descended into kooky territory.
>
> Actually, synic, he did you like a dinner.
When I was asked to contribute to the thread, I was asked two things:
1. To state what I felt the problem was, and,
2. To state what I felt the solution was.
I have done both and been challenged on neither.
> You might want to run away
> and soothe your 'principles' by chanting the mantra 'kook, kook, kook'
> but Andrew's spot-on. You provided zip in the way of defence of your
> ideas.
Hard to do since there were no attacks on my ideas.
[...]
> Please, name *one* of your favoured political group(s) that supports a
> consistent treatment of partnerships vs individuals. A political
> party. A feminist lobby group. A gay lobby group. Any group at all.
> Just one. Give us a URL to their policies, or quote from their
> platform. Surely, this isn't too much to ask?
I never claimed to hold comprehensive knowledge of current specifics of
policies of an extremely diverse range of leftwing associations, parties
or groups. It was never something I claimed I could or would contribute
to the discussion. Therefore, I don't consider it a failure to not have
provided this.
Andrew's obsessions with power blocs instead of calling to grass roots
support is not my problem and is not part of the solution I suggested.
His inability to look outside the box he's obsessed with is partially
the evidence of his kookiness. But, better luck next time.
Andrew D
peter_...@hotmail.com (Peter Wiley) wrote:
+Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote in message
news:<slrnafv26o.8es...@lark.autons.net.au>...
+> Andrew D,
+>
+> In this thread, I adequately mapped out for you an alternative plan
+> for mobilising a support base and putting forward your views to the
+> mainstream in a regular and rational style which would be likely to,
+> with perseverence and some sanity on your part, put the reforms
+> you're suggesting on the political map. Set up that non-profit
+> organisation and focus it on producing half-page ads for newsprint
+> on a very regular basis (goal, weekly saturation).
+>
+> In your responses, you've harranged me about the lack of existing
+> pressure groups supporting your Vision Splendid as a justification
+> for your attacking all feminists because WEL calls itself a feminist
+> organisation. Go ahead. This seems to be where you get your kicks.
+> However, in my opinion, in doing so you've lost the moral high
+> ground.
+>
+> With your obsession with finding others to blame and unwillingness
+> to accept the guarded support of individuals outside power blocs,
+> you've condemned your Vision Spendid to obscurity with nought but
+> yourself truly to blame. I wish your cause well, but, believe you
+> personally have descended into kooky territory.
+
+Actually, synic, he did you like a dinner.
Thanks Peter. Anyone for seconds?
To be fair, Synic probably raised some valid points. I often feel myself
drifting onto the kook side of the debate but it comes as a result of a
complete lack of useful argument from the other side. I'd hoped my John
Cherry example would adequately explain why reasoned argument is
completely pointless.
(I wish others would phone Cherry's senate office and ask the same questions)
Synic was "supporting" me but it's unfortunate he neither put forward
ideas on cause or solution and was unable to offer any groups or
individuals who might be able to fill in his blanks.
He says he's never been an active lobbyist yet is willing to lecture on an
appropriate plan of action. Maybe he learnt this at uni - where he also
learnt that feminists are nice caring people concerned about homecare
mums. Perhaps it's unfortunate my own cynicism (not to mention time and
cost) prevents me taking up his suggestions. His main interest seemed to
be to try and remove feminism from the debate. I never did work out why.
I once wrote to the WA branch of WEL (I wrote as a mother) asking if they
support homecare mothers. I received a very sympathetic response agreeing
the system was skewed against one-income families and explaining that she
and WEL certainly supported me. I asked why the WEL website was filled
with stuff about homecarers getting it too easy and she said some WEL
people were a bit radical. I asked her if she could point me to some
pro-mum stuff on the site and she didn't respond - hmmmm. A few weeks
later there was a very fundamentalist, misandrist letter in the paper
(filled with absolute lies as it turned out) from this very same woman. I
hope Synic understands that for all I know, he is this same woman.
Andrew D
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
+Peter Wiley wrote:
+> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote
+>> Andrew D,
[snip]
+>> With your obsession with finding others to blame and unwillingness
+>> to accept the guarded support of individuals outside power blocs,
+>> you've condemned your Vision Spendid to obscurity with nought but
+>> yourself truly to blame. I wish your cause well, but, believe you
+>> personally have descended into kooky territory.
+> Actually, synic, he did you like a dinner.
+When I was asked to contribute to the thread, I was asked two things:
+ 1. To state what I felt the problem was, and,
+ 2. To state what I felt the solution was.
+I have done both and been challenged on neither.
No you haven't. You suggested my approach to the issue was problematic for
sure and you suggersted what you thought would be a better approach.
But I am not the cause of the problem and I am not the solution. This
problem arose before I was even an adult. It's been growing for more than
thirty years. I've been on the case for five or so years.
You said early on that you disagreed that feminism was the cause but
didn't point to anything else. You said:
"Now y'see, while you're quick to blame feminism, I'm more interested
in why it is that we now have a class of working poor for whom ownership
of the basics (food, shelter and clothing) are not affordable unless both
partners are in the workforce. "
You left the question open. It was that question that led me to open this
thread with a lengthy summary of articles and quotes - almost all of which
highlightewd the push to support working women (at the expense of fulltime
homecarers) as the root cause of the problem. It was also clear that the
left side of politics was more supportive of the shift than the right.
The detailed analysis by Lucy Sullivan (CIS) should have answered most of
your questions re the history of the problems faced today by one-income
families. While i don't believe Lucy actually pointed the finger at
feminism, I believe that I suppplied enough examples from feminist groups
and parties which directly linked feminism with the problem.
Now you could easily suggest a solution (to the real problem, not my
debating technique) but the reality is that either the left or the
feminists or both will more than likely stand opposed to it. I outlined
past experiences with both groups to validate my opinion. I made it clear
that while I understand there are individuals that see feminism as
something different to what the vocal lobby groups stand for, reality
dictates that these so-called feminist groups must be treated as
feminists. To not target them as such would be hopeless.
In order to argue effectively, and without referring to the feminist-left
as the main objectors to useful change, I (and others) would have to list
individuals and groups in every article. You already say I'm too verbose -
how would it be if I had to write "This problem could be solved if not for
The Women's Electoral Lobby, The Democrats, the Labor Party, The Greens,
3rd Party, Stereotype, DRS, Chris Maltby, Eva Cox, Seppo Renfors...." in
EVERY article??? The reality is that the bulk of these people claim to be
either feminists or leftwing or both and so it makes sense to identify
them as such in my writings. This is especially true since the media
promote their types of ideas as feminist-left ideas. They are the public
face of the feminist-left.
I'm more than happy to discuss the real issue with you without reference
to feminists but in order to do so, you need to discuss the issue too.
Tell me what you think has to be done at a policy level to solve the
problem. Gaining public support without some suggestions for policy change
is pointless. I doubt you support my solution of family-unit taxation so
tell me your's. Be prepared to detail it and defend it if need be.
Seppo Renfors
Andrew D wrote:
>
> In article <3CFE2648...@not.olles.com.au>, Seppo Renfors
> <Ren...@not.olles.com.au> wrote:
>
> +The Enlightenment wrote:
> +>
> +[..]
> +
> +
> +
> +> They are
> +> quite literaly cultural marxists who using post modernsit techniques
> +> of criticsm relentlessy to rhetoricaly attack the "power structures"
> +> within society including quite often men, nuclear family, etc.
> +>
> +> They quite literaly DO dislike and DO seek to undermine the 2 parent
> +> married family especial one on a single (male) income. This social
> +> model is quite literaly Satan to them: the source of the KKK, Nazis,
> +> Imperialism, Racism, biggotry and everything rolled into one at times.
>
> +Odd.... so USA is "marxist" is it? UK is "marxist" is it? Australia is
> +"marxist" is it? After all the KKK is flourishing in the USA, as are
> +Nazis. The Nazis have a stronghold in the UK, and you are here -
> +another NAZI.
>
> Glad you started that diatribe with "Odd" - it sure was.
Hey, it *IS* the Unenlightened Nazi you are dealing with, what else do
you expect?
> How the hell
> did you conclude that he was blaming any of those things on marxism?
As a Nazi himself (self confessed at that), he is not unaware of the
loathing people have for Nazis. Therefor he blames Nazi atrocities on
"marxists" - it is standard fare for him. It is a "formula writing"
for him, where he blames "marxism" (that exists nowhere, and never
has) with a mixture of "post modernism" and a few other terms (as he
has done here).
In any event he stated it to be "marxist". "They..... cultural
marxists who using post modernsit(sic) techniques" first paragraph.
"They quite literaly(sic) DO dislike..." second paragraph. Note "THEY"
is the same group in both paragraphs, but further to that, he says:
"This social model is quite literaly(sic) Satan to them:..."
NOTE: "THEM" and it is a reference to "THEY" in the first and second
paragraph, and are the same people - ie the "culturally marxists".
"THEY" are the:
"...the source of the KKK, Nazis, Imperialism, Racism, biggotry(sic)
and everything rolled into one at times.""
> What
> he clearly said was
....NOT what you claim follows...
> that marxist-feminists blame the traditional
> single-income two-parent family for all the worlds evils. At no point did
> he say marxists were the cause. Nor did he agree that families or western
> culture in general were the cause.
He blames ALL the worlds evils in "marxists" and "post modernism" -
that is when he isn't pinning it on the JEWS! He also quote
"alternative history" mostly written by fiction writers!!
He even includes his own Nazism in there - doesn't that them make him
a "MARXIST" by his own words? The "Source" of all evil?
Seppo Renfors
The Enlightenment wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.olles.com.au> wrote in message news:<3CFE2648...@not.olles.com.au>...
> > The Enlightenment wrote:
> > >
> > [..]
> >
> >
> >
> > > They are
> > > quite literaly cultural marxists who using post modernsit techniques
> > > of criticsm relentlessy to rhetoricaly attack the "power structures"
> > > within society including quite often men, nuclear family, etc.
> > >
> > > They quite literaly DO dislike and DO seek to undermine the 2 parent
> > > married family especial one on a single (male) income. This social
> > > model is quite literaly Satan to them: the source of the KKK, Nazis,
> > > Imperialism, Racism, biggotry and everything rolled into one at times.
> >
> > Odd.... so USA is "marxist" is it? UK is "marxist" is it? Australia is
> > "marxist" is it? After all the KKK is flourishing in the USA, as are
> > Nazis. The Nazis have a stronghold in the UK, and you are here -
> > another NAZI.
> >
> > So you are back to your old NAZI argument "The JEWS MADE us kill
> > them.."
>
> Note: you are ranting againn Seeppo Ranttors should be your name.
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAA.... got through to you again :-)
GOOD, perhaps you will start seeing yourself for what you are soon :-)
>
> The influential Frankfurt School of Sociology were self defined
> marxists in their view of society and historical process.
They certainly have YOU on a string dancing at their will :-)
>
> Most of what they developed found its way into modern feminism,
> multiculturlaism, cultural studies,advertiseing etc. All of this is
> obvious to anyone with a humanities education.
...and I suppose the Frankfurt School of Sociology is run by JEWS,
right?
>
> For instance the feminist Harding has gained much notoriety (or
> celebrity, depending on one’s circle of friends) with her now
> (in)famous assertion that Newton’s Principia Mathematica
> Philosophae Naturalis could be considered a "rape manual".
Oh dear, got caught plagiarising text again I see!! Tsk.. tsk.. tsk..
tsk..
NOW I know what has drawn you to the Frankfurt School.... the RAPE
MANUAL.... for when you become the Furher!! You know, just so you know
how to do it.
> This is pure "frankfurt School" and derivative of marxist antipathy to
> western man.
Oh? But you were accusing the "LEB RAPE GANGS" alternating "Leb" with
"Arab", "Muslim" and "Asian", as the mood took you.... are you saying
they too have studied "The Rape Book"?
>
> It is the same post modernist irrationality that you and Peter Terry
> indulge in when you define the english language test for migrants as
> racist.
You are an utter fruitcake, "after the present" is in the FUTURE - and
has not yet arrived. Are you so loony as to believe you can actually
travel into the future, learn what I am doing there, and then return
to the present and accuse me for something I have not yet done?? They
have some very nice padded cells for the likes of you I'm sure.
> It amazes me that you present yourself as educated and laud the
> humanities when you haven't a clue.
You know, one doesn't have to be very clever at all to see through
your propaganda. Man, but do you spread it THICK -and bloody obvious!!
Well ONE thing I can say with absolute certainty is that you abhor
humanities with a vengeance!!
> Now piss of ignorant troll.
STOP TALKING TO YOUR MIRROR IMAGE!
Synic
[...]
> Tell me what you think has to be done at a policy level to solve the
> problem. Gaining public support without some suggestions for policy change
> is pointless. I doubt you support my solution of family-unit taxation so
> tell me your's.
I have no objections to family unit taxation whatsoever. Never did.
As far as I can see, there's not much difference between two individuals
who group together as a single financial entity called a company and two
individuals who group together as a single financial entity called a family.
A family might well be considered an informal company in this sense and
comprised of two shareholders, no formal employees, but giving bursaries
(pocketmoney) to either shareholder as finances permit.
I have no opinion on whether personal tax rates or business tax rates
should be applied to a family unit. Pushing for the deeming of families
to be deemed business partnerships would be easier from a legal
perspective (less laws to change); but, the deeming of family units to
be considered 'a single person' for the purposes of tax and government
policy would be a lot more popular and involve less red tape to the
families themselves.
Seppo Renfors
You forgot David Moss. In any event you are 100% WRONG is saying "but
for.. Seppo Renfors..", as I'm one of the VERY FEW who have actually
managed a working solution for you. However you are totally incapable
of comprehending it, as it does not fit your rhetoric and half arsed
notions you never take to their logical conclusions.
[..]
> Be prepared to detail it and defend it if need be.
It will be a total WASTE OF TIME.
Rob Silva
<Ren...@not.olles.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>You forgot David Moss. In any event you are 100% WRONG is saying "but
>for.. Seppo Renfors..", as I'm one of the VERY FEW who have actually
>managed a working solution for you. However you are totally incapable
>of comprehending it, as it does not fit your rhetoric and half arsed
>notions you never take to their logical conclusions.
ROTFL. I'm reminded of what Denzel Washington in "Much Ado About
Nothing" says in response to a diatribe from Michael Keaton (who plays
an imbecile): "Your words are far to cunning for me to comprehend..."
Peter Wiley
That's because, Seppo, you're such a radical genius that your ideas
are incapable of being comprehended by people of more modest
intellect.
Then, there's the other explanation......
Peter Wiley
Seppo Renfors
Oh for christ sake, all it is, is COMMON SENSE while considering all
aspects, nothing more mystical that that.
>
> Then, there's the other explanation......
...which you have never been able to articulate in a substantive way.
Andrew D
news:<3D00E0D8...@not.olles.com.au>...
+> Andrew D wrote:
[snip]
+> > In order to argue effectively, and without referring to the feminist-left
+> > as the main objectors to useful change, I (and others) would have to list
+> > individuals and groups in every article. You already say I'm too verbose -
+> > how would it be if I had to write "This problem could be solved if not for
+> > The Women's Electoral Lobby, The Democrats, the Labor Party, The Greens,
+> > 3rd Party, Stereotype, DRS, Chris Maltby, Eva Cox, Seppo Renfors...." in
+> > EVERY article???
+> You forgot David Moss.
I didn't forget David at all. I included the ellipsis for the very purpose
of indicating the list was incomplete. Though David is/was hardly a major
obstruction. David largely agrees with family unit taxation as a solution
to current inequities brought about by previous changes which wrote the
family unit OUT of the tax system. He even admits the Coalition has failed
in reforming this area.
+>In any event you are 100% WRONG is saying "but
+> for.. Seppo Renfors..",
+>as I'm one of the VERY FEW who have actually
+> managed a working solution for you. However you are totally incapable
+> of comprehending it
At least I was in good company.... namely the vast majority.
Your "working soution", is like solving a drowning man's problem by
throwing him a bag full of bricks. After a few minutes he won't be
drowning any more will he? Can't imagine why he'd object to your proposal.
Sheesh!
Andrew D
<Ren...@not.olles.com.au> wrote:
+Peter Wiley wrote:
+>
+> Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.olles.com.au> wrote in message
news:<3D00E0D8...@not.olles.com.au>...
[snip]
+> > You forgot David Moss. In any event you are 100% WRONG is saying "but
+> > for.. Seppo Renfors..", as I'm one of the VERY FEW who have actually
+> > managed a working solution for you. However you are totally incapable
+> > of comprehending it
+>
+> That's because, Seppo, you're such a radical genius that your ideas
+> are incapable of being comprehended by people of more modest
+> intellect.
+Oh for christ sake, all it is, is COMMON SENSE while considering all
+aspects, nothing more mystical that that.
Common sense from someone who argues that he knows English semantics
better than any dictionary.
+> Then, there's the other explanation......
+...which you have never been able to articulate in a substantive way.
I understood him perfectly.
Synic
> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>> Can't stress that enough for you: Lefties are into social freedom.
>
> Lies.
Probably a touch overly sweeping, but, it's a decent general point.
> All the lefties that are into unrestricted private ownership of weapons,
> please stand up.
Here we go... So you're advocating that small children have a right
to own pistols and paramilitary gear? (If not, how do you reconcile
this with your demand for unrestricted ownership of weapons?).
As you should know, the maximisation of freedoms means that one persons
freedoms should not interfere in another's freedom not to be
disasterously affected by the first's. Therefore, children don't get guns
because they'd likely shoot someone else with it. Ditto adults and
military weapons in non-war zones, etc.
(Yes, I know the above is a bit of a tough concept for an entirely
self-centred insane person like yourself. But that's just the way
the non-sociopathic think about these things.)
[...]
> If you intend to have kids and dump them in somoene else's care for 40-60
> hours a week, why did you have kids in the first place?
Replacement organs. Oh, sorry, were you asking us lefties?
Andrew D
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
+Scott Hillard wrote:
+> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
+>> Can't stress that enough for you: Lefties are into social freedom.
+>
+> Lies.
+
+Probably a touch overly sweeping, but, it's a decent general point.
[snip]
Then show us group of Lefties who actually agree with your ideas about
"social freedom". Naturally you will do this with reference to how their
proposed treatment of families differs from the current policy of
restricting women's choices in regard to work and family commitments.
If you still can't name any such group then I'd have to say your statement
is more than just "a touch overly sweeping" - it's fantasy.
Seppo Renfors
Yeah, that IS you "solution", and I have been telling you that for a
long time!! You have nothing else - everything you say leads to the
same end result.
Andrew D
<Ren...@not.olles.com.au> wrote:
+Andrew D wrote:
+>
[snip]
+> Your "working soution", is like solving a drowning man's problem by
+> throwing him a bag full of bricks. After a few minutes he won't be
+> drowning any more will he? Can't imagine why he'd object to your proposal.
+> Sheesh!
+Yeah, that IS you "solution", and I have been telling you that for a
+long time!! You have nothing else - everything you say leads to the
+same end result.
Yep - family tax equity.
In a nutshell, the problem is that single-income families pay higher rates
of tax (on a given level of income per head) than either two-income
families or single people. My solution results in all people involved
paying the same rate of tax as each other, based on their share of the
income being assessed. Your solution does nothing of the sort and
therefore is not a solution.... well at least not in the accepted meaning
of the word.
Perhaps you have a different definition for "solution". That wouldn't be
too surprising.
Rob Silva
You forgot to finish with: "nyah, nyah, no returns"
Synic
> In article <slrnag87ok.2lr...@lark.autons.net.au>, Synic
><revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>
> +Scott Hillard wrote:
> +> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
> +>> Can't stress that enough for you: Lefties are into social freedom.
> +>
> +> Lies.
> +
> +Probably a touch overly sweeping, but, it's a decent general point.
> [snip]
Lets restore some of my text you snipped, shall we?
"As you should know, the maximisation of freedoms means that one persons
freedoms should not interfere in another's freedom not to be
disasterously affected by the first's."
> Then show us group of Lefties who actually agree with your ideas about
> "social freedom".
The above principle is accepted by everyone from the Hegelians to
believers in John Stuart Mill to the Marxists. As far as social theory
goes, it is almost a truism. The big differences in theory tend to
be about the best way to achieve this and what "disasterously affects"
people.
> Naturally you will do this with reference to how their
> proposed treatment of families differs from the current policy of
> restricting women's choices in regard to work and family commitments.
Still no response to the obvious point I made about the existence of
business partnership taxation being a fine precedent for family
partnership taxation of some kind. In light of that, can you give me
any reasons why I should bother? Seriously.
If you have a prefered specific policy (written by you or someone
else), stick it on a website and see if anybody salutes it.
Put up or shut up time, Andrew.
> If you still can't name any such group then I'd have to say your statement
> is more than just "a touch overly sweeping" - it's fantasy.
I am not an activist and therefore am not privy to the policies of
any activist groups. I'm sick to death of telling you this.
Get over it.
Andrew D
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
+In article <right-10060...@i161-122.nv.iinet.net.au>, Andrew D wrote:
[snip]
+> Naturally you will do this with reference to how their
+> proposed treatment of families differs from the current policy of
+> restricting women's choices in regard to work and family commitments.
+Still no response to the obvious point I made about the existence of
+business partnership taxation being a fine precedent for family
+partnership taxation of some kind. In light of that, can you give me
+any reasons why I should bother? Seriously.
Sorry, I never saw that post. (iinet seem to have a dopted a fast-dump
policy for news so anything posted Friday or Saturday stands little chance
of still being available on Monday morning).
The business partnership model certainly certainly does provide a good
example of how marital/family taxation could work. (Unfortunately the
current business partnership model largely excludes married couples from
working as partners unless they jump through special anti-marriage
hoops.). I have used business partnerships as an example numerous times -
especially when dealing with people like Sen. Andrew Bartlett or Lev
Lafeyette who say everyone should be treated the same with no special
consideration for some groups. They invariably believe business people
should be treated differently. Ah well.
But you take my comments too personally. I'm not doubting your own
concerns about anti-family inequities. You have demonstrated to me that
you have an understanding of the problem. My main concern (with you) is
your continued insistence that the left side of politics (and feminists)
are likely supporters for useful change when all the visible evidence is
to the contrary.
I have no doubt there are many leftwing individuals who would support
change just as I know there are those on the right who resist it. But in
general it appears that the main supporters for the abolition of penalties
imposed on one-income families reside on the rightwing and those who
mainly oppose useful change reside on the left. That's not my fault, nor
is it your's - but it is the way it is and the only way we are likely to
get the mainstream feminist-left to change their views is if we
persistently identify them as the culprits, not as the saviours - imho.
+If you have a prefered specific policy (written by you or someone
+else), stick it on a website and see if anybody salutes it.
+Put up or shut up time, Andrew.
I've pointed to many in the past. The Shoppies Union (SDA), The Women's
Action Alliance, The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), The Australian
Family Association, Endeavour Forum, The Family Electoral Lobby, Single
Income Families for Taxation Equity, The Coalition (circa 1989)... not to
mention France, Ireland, Norway, Germany, The U.S.........
A couple of the above lobby groups included lengthy articles written by me
and I have sent submissions to govt both as an individual and as a member
of a group (and several hundred emails). If need be, I'll find you some
current web addresses where possible for some of the above.
A quick news search at google using terms like "SIF DIF family tax Andy"
and limited to aus.politics should turn up a wealth of information about
my views and ideas.
In short however, the solution is simple. Use current welfare assessment
criteria for the purpose of assessing taxation. This is pretty much
already the case for individuals and for families with two breadwinners
with earnings in the same marginal tax bracket. But it is far from the
case for single-income families, familes with one large and one small
wage-earner and estranged parents paying child support.
So, the ATO should assess household income as shared income, not personal
income. Assets should be deemed to be shared assets. This would only apply
to "married" couples (use prevailing definition of marriage) so that
people simply sharing accommodation do not end up being forced to share
income and assets with a flatmate. (As "marriage" is expanded to include
gay couples, they would automatically qualify.)
This means that couples with one very high earner would pay the same tax
as couples with two moderate earners with the same combined income (two
wealthy families paying the same tax - what a concept!). Since they are
already assessed this way for welfare and since the Family Court treats
assets as shared regardless of who earned the money or "owned" the assets,
this is consistent.
One positive side-effect of this is that it would be more difficult for
breadwinners to "hide" assets if they divorce since those assets would
have been declared as shared assets throughout the marriage. This also
means a spouse's right to share in those assets is recognised while then
marriage remains intact whereas currently it is only recognised when the
marriage fails. It also solves the problem of special initiatives bieng
inequitable. The Timor Tax for example was supposed to means tested but
while a whole family with one $50K income was to pay it, a childless
couple with two $49K incomes would have avoided it. And yet, both families
would have been assessed as wealthy if the Democrats had succeeded in
implementing their Health rebate means test.
Generally speaking, it is considered appropriate that joint assessment be
optional. This solves the problem for those who think it creates
dependencies or limits married women's individual freedoms. If a married
person does not wish to be counted as a shareholder in the marital wealth
then that should be their choice - although I believe that choice should
be taken into consideration if the couple split - they can't have it both
ways.
As you said, this is much the same as recognising the partners in a
business. The business earns the income but the tax is assessed *after*
each partner takes their share. This is not how we currently deal with
one-income families even though the government tells us the income is
shared, not personal. This is why so many self-employed people include
their spouse as a business partner - but even this can invoke the wrath of
the ATO.
(Politicians just put family members on their electorate office payroll
and this gives them a fair amount of income-sharing and tax reductions not
available to average PAYE families.)
Some countries extend recognition to every member of the household,
including children and extended family. This is worth looking at but I
personally believe children are best dealt with by govt payments so that
every child is recognised as worthy and wealthy families don't effectively
receive more per child than poor families. If desired, such payments could
even be means-tested using a family income assessment. Once the child
reaches working age, they should either be assessed as individuals or as
family members.
It will also come at some cost. But so does lowering the corporate tax
rate. So does increasing pensions and unemployment benefits. So does
childcare assistance. So does increased defence spending and so does
almost every other change in revenue/spending systems. People should
however undersatand that family-unit taxation also delivers savings. The
dependent spouse rebate would go. Parenting Payment would go. Childcare
assistance would be reduced, if not abolished. Jobs would be freed up for
people currently receiving unemployment benefits. The entire family
welfare system could be revised to properly account for family
circumstances. It might also finally mean the abolition of family trusts
as a mechanism for reducing tax.
Will it all be easy? No - but then name one aspect of tax and welfare that is.
Edmund Esterbauer
state coercion. The SF are about infanticide, patricide and laziness.
These SF have no interest in the welfare of the individual and are simply
about abusing government power. Socialists and Nazis are both about
government interference. Their only difference is that the former is
international in outlook and the later national. Neither group have freedom
and liberty as a plank. They are both about abuses of power by the state
over the individual. Both will lead to a Soviet style collapse. A collapse
western society is rapidly heading towards.
--
"The true value of democracy is to serve as a sanitary precaution protecting
us against the abuse of power...In its present form ..It has ceased to be a
safeguard of personal liberty, a restraint from abuse of government
power..It has on the contrary, become the main cause of a progressive and
accelerating increase in the power and weight of the administrative
machine."
Friedrich A. Hayek
"Synic" <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote in message
news:slrnag9n3e.4dr...@lark.autons.net.au...
Scott Hillard
> >> Can't stress that enough for you: Lefties are into social freedom.
> > Lies.
> Probably a touch overly sweeping, but, it's a decent general point.
No, it's not. Lefties are only into the "freedoms" they value.
At the end of the day, the only right anyone REALLY has is to do their will.
That's what Crowley meant when he pontificated "Do what thou wilt, shall be
the whole of the law." He didn't mean rape & pillage & murder in a state of
utter anarchy, he meant "figure out what the fuck you really want, and do
it."
Lesser minds can't comprehend that, it's either beyond them, or far too
frightening (because of the responsibility it implies).
> > All the lefties that are into unrestricted private ownership of weapons,
> > please stand up.
> Here we go.
Yup, up with the straw man. Go grab some wicker and burn Edward Woodward
while you're at it.
>.. So you're advocating that small children have a right
> to own pistols and paramilitary gear?
Any idea how they might come by them?
Businesses have the right to serve whom they will, and deny service to any
they please - children included.
Parents, of course, have an obvious and natural right to set certain limits
on the behaviour of their offspring whilst still dependant.
> (If not, how do you reconcile this with your demand for unrestricted
ownership of weapons?).
Easy - it's a matter for INDIVIDUALS to determine, not for the State.
Just like a host of other areas the State keeps sticking its unwanted nose
into.
> As you should know, the maximisation of freedoms means that one persons
> freedoms should not interfere in another's freedom not to be
> disasterously affected by the first's.
And whilst the thought of the bloke next door sleeping with an AK-47 under
his bed might make you shit your pants, unless he threatens you with it or
shoots you with it, he has IN NO WAY AFFECTED YOUR FREEDOMS.
> Therefore, children don't get guns
> because they'd likely shoot someone else with it.
Rubbish, heaps of children have guns, and hundreds of thousnds of living
Australians owend guns as children. They didn't shoot anyone - either as
children, or as adults.
> Ditto adults and military weapons in non-war zones, etc.
What's a "military weapon"?
Andrew D
<shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
+Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote in message
+news:slrnag87ok.2lr...@lark.autons.net.au...
+> Scott Hillard wrote:
[SNIP]
+> > All the lefties that are into unrestricted private ownership of weapons,
+> > please stand up.
+> Here we go.
+Yup, up with the straw man. Go grab some wicker and burn Edward Woodward
+while you're at it.
+>.. So you're advocating that small children have a right
+> to own pistols and paramilitary gear?
[snip]
+Parents, of course, have an obvious and natural right to set certain limits
+on the behaviour of their offspring whilst still dependant.
The really odd thing here is that it often is the politically-correct
(left) side of politics that does argue in favour of the rights of the
child being superior to the rights of the parent. We shouldn't smack, we
shouldn't shout - we shouldn't even use negative words like "no". We
should just let them run under a bus and learn for themselves - and we
should respect their decision to do so.
In order for the left to recognise the rights of the parent to control
their child, they would first have to recognise that the family unit is
superior to the individual - and that brings us back to where we started.
Seppo Renfors
I'm not bothering to go down that road with you, you full well KNOW
where it leads to "solving a drowning man's problem by throwing him a
bag full of bricks"!!
Synic
> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote in message
> news:slrnag87ok.2lr...@lark.autons.net.au...
>> Scott Hillard wrote:
>> > Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>
>> >> Can't stress that enough for you: Lefties are into social freedom.
>
>> > Lies.
>
>> Probably a touch overly sweeping, but, it's a decent general point.
>
> No, it's not. Lefties are only into the "freedoms" they value.
>
> At the end of the day, the only right anyone REALLY has is to do their will.
> That's what Crowley meant when he pontificated "Do what thou wilt, shall be
> the whole of the law." He didn't mean rape & pillage & murder in a state of
> utter anarchy, he meant "figure out what the fuck you really want, and do
> it."
>
> Lesser minds can't comprehend that, it's either beyond them, or far too
> frightening (because of the responsibility it implies).
Such a belief assumes that all people are rational. Which they most
certainly are not.
>> > All the lefties that are into unrestricted private ownership of weapons,
>> > please stand up.
>
>> Here we go.
>
> Yup, up with the straw man. Go grab some wicker and burn Edward Woodward
> while you're at it.
You're the one who stated that individuals should have unrestricted
access to guns. Are you now stating that you'd restrict some individuals
afterall?
>>.. So you're advocating that small children have a right
>> to own pistols and paramilitary gear?
>
> Any idea how they might come by them?
Save up and do mail-order, under your system I'd assume. You've stated
you want individuals to have unrestricted access to guns.
> Businesses have the right to serve whom they will, and deny service to any
> they please - children included.
Whatabout the businesses that wouldn't deny access?
> Parents, of course, have an obvious and natural right to set certain limits
> on the behaviour of their offspring whilst still dependant.
So are you saying that (a) children are not individuals, or, (b) that
some individuals should be restricted from owning firearms?
>> (If not, how do you reconcile this with your demand for unrestricted
> ownership of weapons?).
>
> Easy - it's a matter for INDIVIDUALS to determine, not for the State.
>
> Just like a host of other areas the State keeps sticking its unwanted nose
> into.
See point above. Further, do you make a distinction between the sane
and insane individual, the smart and the idiotic individual with an
IQ of 50? Individuals under 10? Individuals with dementia? Individuals
who have expressed a desire to join Al Qeda, the Scientologists,
a neo-nazi party or the Young Liberals?
>> As you should know, the maximisation of freedoms means that one persons
>> freedoms should not interfere in another's freedom not to be
>> disasterously affected by the first's.
>
> And whilst the thought of the bloke next door sleeping with an AK-47 under
> his bed might make you shit your pants, unless he threatens you with it or
> shoots you with it, he has IN NO WAY AFFECTED YOUR FREEDOMS.
Given that 10% of the population will be mentally ill at some time in
their lives (probably excluding depression), I'd much rather have zero
people with AK-47s to be on the safe side. The tragic reality for you
is that the majority of Australians are with me on this particular one.
If you want to shoot bunnies out on your farm, by all means. If you
want to do target practice at a shooters club, by all means, provided
your gun is stored and secured there. But there's just no justifiable
reason for individuals keeping firearms in the suburbs where they can be
stolen by thieves, used in domestic disputes, found by children, etc.
If you want personal defence, learn ninjitzu or karate.
>> Therefore, children don't get guns
>> because they'd likely shoot someone else with it.
>
> Rubbish, heaps of children have guns, and hundreds of thousnds of living
> Australians owend guns as children. They didn't shoot anyone - either as
> children, or as adults.
Heaps have as well. Your point?
>> Ditto adults and military weapons in non-war zones, etc.
>
> What's a "military weapon"?
To my mind, anything that started its days having been designed for
military purposes for a modern war. Rifles count. Flintlocks don't.
(Followups set to a more appropriate newsgroup.)
Scott Hillard
> In article <NQvN8.40$Dq3....@ozemail.com.au>, Scott Hillard wrote:
> > Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:slrnag87ok.2lr...@lark.autons.net.au...
> >> Scott Hillard wrote:
> > No, it's not. Lefties are only into the "freedoms" they value.
> > At the end of the day, the only right anyone REALLY has is to do their
will.
> > That's what Crowley meant when he pontificated "Do what thou wilt, shall
be
> > the whole of the law." He didn't mean rape & pillage & murder in a
state of
> > utter anarchy, he meant "figure out what the fuck you really want, and
do
> > it."
> > Lesser minds can't comprehend that, it's either beyond them, or far too
> > frightening (because of the responsibility it implies).
> Such a belief assumes that all people are rational.
It makes no such assumption. It assumes (correctly) that the rights of
rational people should not be infringed, merely because there are people who
are irrational.
> > Yup, up with the straw man. Go grab some wicker and burn Edward
Woodward
> > while you're at it.
> You're the one who stated that individuals should have unrestricted
> access to guns.
Indeed I did, and so far as the State is concerned, they most certainly
should.
> Are you now stating that you'd restrict some individuals afterall?
I would restrict nobody, other than my own children until they had both the
cognitive and emotional development necessary to safely handly their own
weapons without supervision.
I have no right to say what you, the bloke next door, or anyone else should
or should not be able to do.
> >>.. So you're advocating that small children have a right
> >> to own pistols and paramilitary gear?
> > Any idea how they might come by them?
> Save up and do mail-order,
I suppose a 9yo might have their own PO Box ready to receive their P-90 as
well?
> > Businesses have the right to serve whom they will, and deny service to
any
> > they please - children included.
> Whatabout the businesses that wouldn't deny access?
What about them? Who cares?
Once kids acquire the financial means to obtain firearms, it's a pretty safe
bet they are of a suitable age to posess arms.
> > Parents, of course, have an obvious and natural right to set certain
limits
> > on the behaviour of their offspring whilst still dependant.
> So are you saying that (a) children are not individuals,
Nope, nothing of the sort.
> or, (b) that some individuals should be restricted from owning firearms?
Nothing of the sort. You STILL don't get the distinction between
restrictions enforced by the State, and restrictions on certain behaviours
that are inherent in the parent-child relationship.
Funny how "the left" is always for the empowerment of the child at the
expense of that relationship - too many undergraduates over-dosing on
Rousseau - yet not in this case, I take it?
> >> (If not, how do you reconcile this with your demand for unrestricted
> > ownership of weapons?).
> > Easy - it's a matter for INDIVIDUALS to determine, not for the State.
> > Just like a host of other areas the State keeps sticking its unwanted
nose
> > into.
> See point above. Further, do you make a distinction between the sane
> and insane individual,
I make no such distinction. It is not my place to.
> the smart and the idiotic individual with an IQ of 50?
Should "idiotic individuals with an IQ of 50" be denied the right to self
defence?
> Individuals under 10?
Why 10? Why not 12, or 9, or 14?
> Individuals with dementia?
Should they be denied the right to self defence?
> Individuals who have expressed a desire to join Al Qeda, the
Scientologists,
> a neo-nazi party or the Young Liberals?
Should they be denied the right to self defence?
Funny how laws proscribing almost all of your quoted "individuals" from
obtaining and posessing firearms failed to stop PRECISELY those sorts of
individuals perpetrating:
Strthfield Massacre
Hoddle Street Massacre
Queen Street Massacre
Dunblane Massacre
Port Arthur Massacre
Even funnier (if your sense of humour is black enough) is how the very same
restrictions you advocate guaranteed the "success" of those massacre
efforts, by denying the victims the means to defend themselves.
> >> As you should know, the maximisation of freedoms means that one persons
> >> freedoms should not interfere in another's freedom not to be
> >> disasterously affected by the first's.
> > And whilst the thought of the bloke next door sleeping with an AK-47
under
> > his bed might make you shit your pants, unless he threatens you with it
or
> > shoots you with it, he has IN NO WAY AFFECTED YOUR FREEDOMS.
> Given that 10% of the population will be mentally ill at some time in
> their lives
Unsubstantiated bullshit.
> (probably excluding depression),
"Depression" is nothing at all like "mental illness". More drug company
propaganda.
> I'd much rather have zero people with AK-47s to be on the safe side.
Too bad, won't ever happen. People will do what they will, and there is
NOTHING you, or I, or the State can do about it, if they are determined
enough.
Lots of people in Australia with AK-47s, and thousands of people still in
posession of SKS and SKK rifles alone (the Feds get awfully embaressed when
anyone brings up the disparity between the number of these weapons imported,
and the number crunched in 1996).
> The tragic reality for you
> is that the majority of Australians are with me on this particular one.
I couldn't give a rat's arse what the majority of Australians think. I will
do as I see fit, as directed by my conscience.
> If you want to shoot bunnies out on your farm, by all means.
Who cares what you think about it? You get no say.
> If you want to do target practice at a shooters club, by all means,
Who cares what you think about it? You get no say.
> provided your gun is stored and secured there.
Bwahahahahahaha!
"The tragic reality for you", sunshine, is that there is no such requirement
in any jurusdiction in Australia. Owners of all classes of firearms, from
.22 bunny guns to .44 handguns to .223 Class D M16A2s can keep them at home,
in fact are usually REQUIRED to keep them at home.
> But there's just no justifiable
> reason for individuals keeping firearms in the suburbs where they can be
> stolen by thieves, used in domestic disputes, found by children, etc.
"The tragic reality for you", sunshine, is that in all likelihood there are
people doing just this in your street, and it is almost certain that people
do this in your suburb.
Sleep well.
> If you want personal defence, learn ninjitzu or karate.
It's spelled "ninjutsu", and I've learned both. Neither is as effective as
a 9mm automatic, or an M4 carbine.
Stephen K Hayes, the man largely responsible for exporting Togakure-Ryu
Ninjutsu to the West, teaches you how to deal with an armed assailtant.
He teaches you to use a gun.
Any student of Ninjutsu will tell you that there is only one reason to fight
with your bare hands - because you have NOTHING else that can be used as a
weapon.
> >> Therefore, children don't get guns
> >> because they'd likely shoot someone else with it.
> > Rubbish, heaps of children have guns, and hundreds of thousnds of living
> > Australians owend guns as children. They didn't shoot anyone - either
as
> > children, or as adults.
> Heaps have as well. Your point?
How many? What percentage of children who have handled guns?
Heaps? "Tell him he's dreaming!"
> >> Ditto adults and military weapons in non-war zones, etc.
> > What's a "military weapon"?
> To my mind, anything that started its days having been designed for
> military purposes for a modern war. Rifles count. Flintlocks don't.
So the vast majority of handguns that are in private posession in Australia
(over 60,000 licensed handgun owners in NSW alone) and the vast majority of
centrefire rifles that are in private hands in Australia (Class B licence
holders, of which there are over 700,000 nation-wide).
Tough titties boy, you get no say at all. Even your precious State doesn't
mind people owning "military weapons", keeping them at home, and carting
them to the range or farm in the boot of the car.
Sleep well. Your armed neighbours most certainly do.
Scott Hillard
Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-12060...@i181-101.nv.iinet.net.au...
> In article <NQvN8.40$Dq3....@ozemail.com.au>, "Scott Hillard"
> <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> +Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote in message
> +news:slrnag87ok.2lr...@lark.autons.net.au...
> +>.. So you're advocating that small children have a right
> +> to own pistols and paramilitary gear?
> [snip]
> +Parents, of course, have an obvious and natural right to set certain
limits
> +on the behaviour of their offspring whilst still dependant.
> The really odd thing here is that it often is the politically-correct
> (left) side of politics that does argue in favour of the rights of the
> child being superior to the rights of the parent.
It's all that bastard Rousseau's fault.
As one of my Education Professors declared in a packed lecture theatre, much
to the chagrin of assorted lefties in the gallery,
"Emile was a brat. He needed a good kick in the pants."
> We shouldn't smack, we
> shouldn't shout - we shouldn't even use negative words like "no". We
> should just let them run under a bus and learn for themselves - and we
> should respect their decision to do so.
Unless, of course, their decision is to embrace any sort of "right"
behaviour or belief, in which case they must be sent away for re-education.
> In order for the left to recognise the rights of the parent to control
> their child, they would first have to recognise that the family unit is
> superior to the individual - and that brings us back to where we started.
:-)
Synic
> The really odd thing here is that it often is the politically-correct
> (left) side of politics
Yet again, you're making wild generalisations...
> that does argue in favour of the rights of the
> child being superior to the rights of the parent.
Aside from outlawing domestic abuse (punching, hitting with heavy
objects, starving of children, continued emotional and sexual abuse),
there's nothing wrong with disciplining of children.
> We shouldn't smack, we
> shouldn't shout - we shouldn't even use negative words like "no".
The Americans are kooks. Yes, I heard some idiots on the USA NPR
who were advocating something equally as silly in similar terms.
Labelling them "left" isn't really fair. Stupid is more appropriate.
You get stupid on both sides of the political fence. Just look at
Mosley Jones III.
> We
> should just let them run under a bus and learn for themselves - and we
> should respect their decision to do so.
Sounds more like Scott Hillard's plan to let them buy guns. He's
completely against any restrictions at all on the purchase of guns,
y'see...
Andrew D
<Ren...@not.olles.com.au> wrote:
+Andrew D wrote:
+>
[snip]
+> Perhaps you have a different definition for "solution". That wouldn't be
+> too surprising.
+
+I'm not bothering to go down that road with you, you full well KNOW
+where it leads to "solving a drowning man's problem by throwing him a
+bag full of bricks"!!
Glad we agree finally.
Andrew D
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
+Andrew D wrote:
+> The really odd thing here is that it often is the politically-correct
+> (left) side of politics
+Yet again, you're making wild generalisations...
If it's good for you, it's good for me.
The difference is that I could probably go and find a whole bunch of
quotes from a variety of leftwing groups and individuals to back up my
generalisation - but I did that before and you still insisted I was wrong
even though you were unable to provide any contrary evidence beyond your
own opinion.
I call it as I see it - based on easily available information.
+> that does argue in favour of the rights of the
+> child being superior to the rights of the parent.
+Aside from outlawing domestic abuse (punching, hitting with heavy
+objects, starving of children, continued emotional and sexual abuse),
+there's nothing wrong with disciplining of children.
That's *your* personal opinion but I'd suggest it is hardly typical of
"the left".
+> We shouldn't smack, we
+> shouldn't shout - we shouldn't even use negative words like "no".
+The Americans are kooks. Yes, I heard some idiots on the USA NPR
+who were advocating something equally as silly in similar terms.
+Labelling them "left" isn't really fair. Stupid is more appropriate.
+You get stupid on both sides of the political fence. Just look at
+Mosley Jones III.
Of course you do - and I'm not arguing that "the right" are always
"right" - if you'll pardon the rather poor pun. I'm somewhere between the
far right and the far left and my leaning differs dramatically on a
per-issue basis.
On family-related issues, it seems I have to lean to the right because the
left are too much in favour of the rights of "the individual" regardless
of the impact of those rights on the family unit or the wider community.
Synic
> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote in message
[...]
> It makes no such assumption. It assumes (correctly) that the rights of
> rational people should not be infringed, merely because there are people who
> are irrational.
Where the irrational can use their "rights" to end the lives of the
rational in a 5 minute spree of lunacy, such rights should not be
confered.
>> You're the one who stated that individuals should have unrestricted
>> access to guns.
>
> Indeed I did, and so far as the State is concerned, they most certainly
> should.
In which case, you're still arguing for 4 year olds to have free license
to guns.
>> Are you now stating that you'd restrict some individuals afterall?
>
> I would restrict nobody, other than my own children until they had both the
> cognitive and emotional development necessary to safely handly their own
> weapons without supervision.
>
> I have no right to say what you, the bloke next door, or anyone else should
> or should not be able to do.
So we're both agreed. Onya.
>> >>.. So you're advocating that small children have a right
>> >> to own pistols and paramilitary gear?
>
>> > Any idea how they might come by them?
>
>> Save up and do mail-order,
>
> I suppose a 9yo might have their own PO Box ready to receive their P-90 as
> well?
Your plan was for children to have unrestricted access to guns. They
could have them delivered to their cubby house for all it matters.
>> Whatabout the businesses that wouldn't deny access?
>
> What about them? Who cares?
>
> Once kids acquire the financial means to obtain firearms, it's a pretty safe
> bet they are of a suitable age to posess arms.
Why? Little Johnny had a gun delivered to his cubby but he didn't want
it anymore. He gave it to Little Sandy, aged 7. Sandy is a bit of a
psych case and hears voices. But Scott Hillard tells us that there
should be no restrictions on gun ownership and so Sandy's parents never
find out about Sandy's secret friend.
>> So are you saying that (a) children are not individuals,
>
> Nope, nothing of the sort.
>
>> or, (b) that some individuals should be restricted from owning firearms?
>
> Nothing of the sort. You STILL don't get the distinction between
> restrictions enforced by the State, and restrictions on certain behaviours
> that are inherent in the parent-child relationship.
Children lie and parents can be fuckwads. But in your scheme, Little
Sandy the psych-case kid legally has a gun ready to take to school
on Monday.
> Funny how "the left" is always for the empowerment of the child at the
> expense of that relationship - too many undergraduates over-dosing on
> Rousseau - yet not in this case, I take it?
What rot. I'm completely with the status quo on childrens rights and
responsibilities. Parents are entirely responsible for their kids
actions until around 10. From then on, it's a sliding scale until
age 18 where they have full responsibility for their own actions.
Parents must obey the law and ensure their kids obey the law. Neither
parents nor children should break the law which exists to protect
themselves and other people in society. Painfully simple.
>> See point above. Further, do you make a distinction between the sane
>> and insane individual,
>
> I make no such distinction. It is not my place to.
Correct. It is the government's place.
>> the smart and the idiotic individual with an IQ of 50?
>
> Should "idiotic individuals with an IQ of 50" be denied the right to self
> defence?
Correct. It is the government's place to set standards for gun use
education.
>> Individuals under 10?
>
> Why 10? Why not 12, or 9, or 14?
Indeed. It is the government's place to set standards for parent and
child responsibility and penalties when they do not match mandated
external requirements.
>> Individuals with dementia?
>
> Should they be denied the right to self defence?
They shoud understand gun use education and be willing to use their
gun according to government mandated rules. If they're not capable,
then they should not be loose in the community with a gun.
>> Individuals who have expressed a desire to join Al Qeda, the
>> Scientologists,
>> a neo-nazi party or the Young Liberals?
>
> Should they be denied the right to self defence?
*laughs* Good grief, now you're defending terrorism.
> Funny how laws proscribing almost all of your quoted "individuals" from
> obtaining and posessing firearms failed to stop PRECISELY those sorts of
> individuals perpetrating:
>
> Strthfield Massacre
> Hoddle Street Massacre
> Queen Street Massacre
> Dunblane Massacre
> Port Arthur Massacre
Nope. It just shows what happens when you have lax regulation,
inadequate personality testing of gun licensees, and lousy home securing
of guns.
> Even funnier (if your sense of humour is black enough) is how the very same
> restrictions you advocate guaranteed the "success" of those massacre
> efforts, by denying the victims the means to defend themselves.
Equally as likely that the "victims" would have accidentally shot
each other because of lousy aim and general panic. But if you love
guns so much, do feel free fuck off to the USA where they'll let you
use them indiscriminantly.
>> Given that 10% of the population will be mentally ill at some time in
>> their lives
>
> Unsubstantiated bullshit.
If anything, I'm understating that stat. What proportion of elderly
do *you* think end up suffering dementia before they die? Add that to
the numbers that get schizophrenia, manic-depression and the other
wide variety of illnesses.
>> (probably excluding depression),
>
> "Depression" is nothing at all like "mental illness". More drug company
> propaganda.
Temporary depression, certainly. Chronic depression, no. That's not
natural.
>> I'd much rather have zero people with AK-47s to be on the safe side.
>
> Too bad, won't ever happen. People will do what they will, and there is
> NOTHING you, or I, or the State can do about it, if they are determined
> enough.
Indeed. They can fuck off to the USA. And good luck to them. With luck,
strict gun laws and enforcement here will make that option more
attractive.
> Lots of people in Australia with AK-47s, and thousands of people still in
> posession of SKS and SKK rifles alone (the Feds get awfully embaressed when
> anyone brings up the disparity between the number of these weapons imported,
> and the number crunched in 1996).
Yep. Plenty of drooling hicks out there mowing down bunnies. Wouldn't
be awfully surprised if you were one of them. You seem the type.
>> The tragic reality for you
>> is that the majority of Australians are with me on this particular one.
>
> I couldn't give a rat's arse what the majority of Australians think. I will
> do as I see fit, as directed by my conscience.
The law is the law. Obey it or get sent to the clink, just like everyone
else who breaks the law.
>> If you want to shoot bunnies out on your farm, by all means.
>
> Who cares what you think about it? You get no say.
I get a vote. Same as you.
>> If you want to do target practice at a shooters club, by all means,
>
> Who cares what you think about it? You get no say.
I get a vote. Same as you.
>> provided your gun is stored and secured there.
>
> Bwahahahahahaha!
>
> "The tragic reality for you", sunshine, is that there is no such requirement
> in any jurusdiction in Australia. Owners of all classes of firearms, from
> .22 bunny guns to .44 handguns to .223 Class D M16A2s can keep them at home,
> in fact are usually REQUIRED to keep them at home.
Hardly a "tragedy". It's where the trends are moving and a change away
from home storage of guns is something I hope to see in the next 10-20
years.
>> But there's just no justifiable
>> reason for individuals keeping firearms in the suburbs where they can be
>> stolen by thieves, used in domestic disputes, found by children, etc.
>
> "The tragic reality for you", sunshine, is that in all likelihood there are
> people doing just this in your street, and it is almost certain that people
> do this in your suburb.
Gun loons, while a very noisy mob, are not all that numerous. As you
so kindly demonstrated below toward the end of your article...
>> If you want personal defence, learn ninjitzu or karate.
>
> It's spelled "ninjutsu", and I've learned both. Neither is as effective as
> a 9mm automatic, or an M4 carbine.
>
> Stephen K Hayes, the man largely responsible for exporting Togakure-Ryu
> Ninjutsu to the West, teaches you how to deal with an armed assailtant.
>
> He teaches you to use a gun.
Living in the USA, that's appropriate advice. The USA is home of the
gun loon; it's enshrined in their constitution.
> Any student of Ninjutsu will tell you that there is only one reason to fight
> with your bare hands - because you have NOTHING else that can be used as a
> weapon.
What a shame that they do not teach that "there is only one reason to
fight with your bare hands - because you cannot walk away." You have
lowered my opinion of this fighting craft.
[...]
> So the vast majority of handguns that are in private posession in Australia
> (over 60,000 licensed handgun owners in NSW alone)
Lets see... 60,000 / 6,500,000 is 0.92% of the population. So much for
the vast crowds of gun-owners. More like the tiny wimpy minority.
> Tough titties boy, you get no say at all. Even your precious State doesn't
> mind people owning "military weapons", keeping them at home, and carting
> them to the range or farm in the boot of the car.
>
> Sleep well. Your armed neighbours most certainly do.
*laughs* All 0.92% of them. Sounds like your gun-toting friends are
scared to sleep without them, unlike everyone else in this rugged
testosterone-filled brown land of ours.
(If you're too scared to sleep at night without a gun, move your family
out of the shithouse neighbourhood you're living in. Duh.)
Mark Addinall
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>In article <NQvN8.40$Dq3....@ozemail.com.au>, Scott Hillard wrote:
>> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:slrnag87ok.2lr...@lark.autons.net.au...
>>> Scott Hillard wrote:
>>> > Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>>
[snip]
I thought you had grown up a little ?-%
>
>See point above. Further, do you make a distinction between the sane
>and insane individual, the smart and the idiotic individual with an
>IQ of 50?
Or an IQ of 100, or less than 150, or less than 175?
Why pick a number?
> Individuals under 10?
I have been shooting with children of that age.
No problems. Owned my first Stirling at that age.
> Individuals with dementia? Individuals
>who have expressed a desire to join Al Qeda, the Scientologists,
>a neo-nazi party or the Young Liberals?
It seem that you wish to group people into 'have and have nots'
when it comes to firearm ownership. Big hint, Al Qeda will get guns
regardless as well as the nazi groups. Shrug; not much you can
do about it. The Young Liberals are a worry however.
>
>>> As you should know, the maximisation of freedoms means that one persons
>>> freedoms should not interfere in another's freedom not to be
>>> disasterously affected by the first's.
>>
>> And whilst the thought of the bloke next door sleeping with an AK-47 under
>> his bed might make you shit your pants, unless he threatens you with it or
>> shoots you with it, he has IN NO WAY AFFECTED YOUR FREEDOMS.
>
>Given that 10% of the population will be mentally ill at some time in
>their lives (probably excluding depression),
Cite please.
> I'd much rather have zero
>people with AK-47s to be on the safe side. The tragic reality for you
>is that the majority of Australians are with me on this particular one.
Well, in a sweetheart deal twixt the ALP and China (remember?)
a few hundred thousand AK-47 clones were imported into
Australia from Norinco. Not many have been handed in.
Incidently, during the last gun-grab, Norinco did very well indeed
sending tens of thousand of lever action rifles into Australia.
The Australian Import statistics show a tripling of the imports
of rifles and shotguns in 1996.
A lot of people in the 'lead-up' to the gun-grab purchased
new firearms as a just-in-case reflex.
>
>If you want to shoot bunnies out on your farm, by all means. If you
>want to do target practice at a shooters club, by all means, provided
>your gun is stored and secured there. But there's just no justifiable
>reason for individuals keeping firearms in the suburbs where they can be
>stolen by thieves, used in domestic disputes, found by children, etc.
More guns are stolen from the police, military and authorised
gun deposits than any other source. The justifiable reason for me
storing a firearm at home is because I want to.
>
>If you want personal defence, learn ninjitzu or karate.
Cross cultural spelling flame ignored. A little pistol is
a lot more efficient.
>
>>> Therefore, children don't get guns
>>> because they'd likely shoot someone else with it.
>>
>> Rubbish, heaps of children have guns, and hundreds of thousnds of living
>> Australians owend guns as children. They didn't shoot anyone - either as
>> children, or as adults.
>
>Heaps have as well. Your point?
Heaps? Have you look at the stats in this country say, since
Federation at the number of total shootings in this
country? Do a 100 year analysis and let me know your
conclusions.
>
>>> Ditto adults and military weapons in non-war zones, etc.
>>
>> What's a "military weapon"?
>
>To my mind, anything that started its days having been designed for
>military purposes for a modern war.
'Modern' war?
Is a 1911 .45 ACP Colt OK? How about an 1896 7mm Mauser?
If this is OK by you, then it's OK by me. Makes little sense
however.
> Rifles count. Flintlocks don't.
Cannon?
Mark Addinall.
Mark Addinall
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>In article <_OBN8.178$Dq3....@ozemail.com.au>, Scott Hillard wrote:
>> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:slrnagdn3m.ak2...@lark.autons.net.au...
>[...]
>> It makes no such assumption. It assumes (correctly) that the rights of
>> rational people should not be infringed, merely because there are people who
>> are irrational.
>
>Where the irrational can use their "rights" to end the lives of the
>rational in a 5 minute spree of lunacy, such rights should not be
>confered.
>
>>> You're the one who stated that individuals should have unrestricted
>>> access to guns.
>>
>> Indeed I did, and so far as the State is concerned, they most certainly
>> should.
>
>In which case, you're still arguing for 4 year olds to have free license
>to guns.
Never seen a 4 yo than can tote an AK, Have you?
Nor have the require four grand to buy one, have you?
I didn't respond to the above slab beacause it was nonsense.
>What rot. I'm completely with the status quo on childrens rights and
>responsibilities. Parents are entirely responsible for their kids
>actions until around 10. From then on, it's a sliding scale until
>age 18 where they have full responsibility for their own actions.
Sorry? I joined the Australian Regular Army at age 17 3/4. One
of my brothers joined the Navy at age 16 1/2. My Dad joined the
RN at age 14. Plenty of guns around yanno? Big ones as
well.
>
>Parents must obey the law and ensure their kids obey the law. Neither
>parents nor children should break the law which exists to protect
>themselves and other people in society. Painfully simple.
Painfully wrong. It is an individual right to defend oneself.
Regardless of a 'law' that is pssed by a state. I intend to follow
my conciense (as always).
>
>>> See point above. Further, do you make a distinction between the sane
>>> and insane individual,
>>
>> I make no such distinction. It is not my place to.
>
>Correct. It is the government's place.
It is not.
>
>>> the smart and the idiotic individual with an IQ of 50?
>>
>> Should "idiotic individuals with an IQ of 50" be denied the right to self
>> defence?
>
>Correct. It is the government's place to set standards for gun use
>education.
It clearly is not.
>
>>> Individuals under 10?
>>
>> Why 10? Why not 12, or 9, or 14?
>
>Indeed. It is the government's place to set standards for parent and
>child responsibility and penalties when they do not match mandated
>external requirements.
As above.
>
>>> Individuals with dementia?
>>
>> Should they be denied the right to self defence?
>
>They shoud understand gun use education and be willing to use their
>gun according to government mandated rules.
You just said 'use' not 'own'. You have just argued against
yourself.
> If they're not capable,
>then they should not be loose in the community with a gun.
Or a car, or a medical practice.
>
>>> Individuals who have expressed a desire to join Al Qeda, the
>>> Scientologists,
>>> a neo-nazi party or the Young Liberals?
>>
>> Should they be denied the right to self defence?
>
>*laughs* Good grief, now you're defending terrorism.
Why not? Any number of the current members of
government have.
>
>> Funny how laws proscribing almost all of your quoted "individuals" from
>> obtaining and posessing firearms failed to stop PRECISELY those sorts of
>> individuals perpetrating:
>>
>> Strthfield Massacre
>> Hoddle Street Massacre
>> Queen Street Massacre
>> Dunblane Massacre
>> Port Arthur Massacre
>
>Nope. It just shows what happens when you have lax regulation,
>inadequate personality testing of gun licensees, and lousy home securing
>of guns.
Tsssk. Wrong. Victoria had the most stringent of gun control
laws at the time of Hoddle street and Queen street.
Scotland had even tighter controls at the time of Dunblane.
>
>> Even funnier (if your sense of humour is black enough) is how the very same
>> restrictions you advocate guaranteed the "success" of those massacre
>> efforts, by denying the victims the means to defend themselves.
>
>Equally as likely that the "victims" would have accidentally shot
>each other because of lousy aim and general panic.
Are you calling me a bad shot? Would you like to come
along a pop range with me? Have you any money from that
job in the big building to make a bet ;-) ?
> But if you love
>guns so much, do feel free fuck off to the USA where they'll let you
>use them indiscriminantly.
>
>>> Given that 10% of the population will be mentally ill at some time in
>>> their lives
>>
>> Unsubstantiated bullshit.
>
>If anything, I'm understating that stat. What proportion of elderly
>do *you* think end up suffering dementia before they die? Add that to
>the numbers that get schizophrenia, manic-depression and the other
>wide variety of illnesses.
You made the claim, present stats.
>
>>> (probably excluding depression),
>>
>> "Depression" is nothing at all like "mental illness". More drug company
>> propaganda.
>
>Temporary depression, certainly. Chronic depression, no. That's not
>natural.
>
>>> I'd much rather have zero people with AK-47s to be on the safe side.
>>
>> Too bad, won't ever happen. People will do what they will, and there is
>> NOTHING you, or I, or the State can do about it, if they are determined
>> enough.
>
>Indeed. They can fuck off to the USA. And good luck to them. With luck,
>strict gun laws and enforcement here will make that option more
>attractive.
>
>> Lots of people in Australia with AK-47s, and thousands of people still in
>> posession of SKS and SKK rifles alone (the Feds get awfully embaressed when
>> anyone brings up the disparity between the number of these weapons imported,
>> and the number crunched in 1996).
>
>Yep. Plenty of drooling hicks out there mowing down bunnies. Wouldn't
>be awfully surprised if you were one of them. You seem the type.
Are you calling me a drooling hick? That would be rather funny
(PS Say hello to Roger for me :-).
>
>>> The tragic reality for you
>>> is that the majority of Australians are with me on this particular one.
>>
>> I couldn't give a rat's arse what the majority of Australians think. I will
>> do as I see fit, as directed by my conscience.
>
>The law is the law. Obey it or get sent to the clink, just like everyone
>else who breaks the law.
>
>>> If you want to shoot bunnies out on your farm, by all means.
>>
>> Who cares what you think about it? You get no say.
>
>I get a vote. Same as you.
>
>>> If you want to do target practice at a shooters club, by all means,
>>
>> Who cares what you think about it? You get no say.
>
>I get a vote. Same as you.
So you voted for pre-emptive strikes up to and including the
use of WMD against countries johnny does not like?
Noted.
>
>>> provided your gun is stored and secured there.
>>
>> Bwahahahahahaha!
>>
>> "The tragic reality for you", sunshine, is that there is no such requirement
>> in any jurusdiction in Australia. Owners of all classes of firearms, from
>> .22 bunny guns to .44 handguns to .223 Class D M16A2s can keep them at home,
>> in fact are usually REQUIRED to keep them at home.
>
>Hardly a "tragedy". It's where the trends are moving and a change away
>from home storage of guns is something I hope to see in the next 10-20
>years.
>
>>> But there's just no justifiable
>>> reason for individuals keeping firearms in the suburbs where they can be
>>> stolen by thieves, used in domestic disputes, found by children, etc.
>>
>> "The tragic reality for you", sunshine, is that in all likelihood there are
>> people doing just this in your street, and it is almost certain that people
>> do this in your suburb.
>
>Gun loons, while a very noisy mob, are not all that numerous.
About 1.7 million adults. Including a load in your
building.
> As you
>so kindly demonstrated below toward the end of your article...
>
>>> If you want personal defence, learn ninjitzu or karate.
>>
>> It's spelled "ninjutsu", and I've learned both. Neither is as effective as
>> a 9mm automatic, or an M4 carbine.
>>
>> Stephen K Hayes, the man largely responsible for exporting Togakure-Ryu
>> Ninjutsu to the West, teaches you how to deal with an armed assailtant.
>>
>> He teaches you to use a gun.
>
>Living in the USA, that's appropriate advice. The USA is home of the
>gun loon; it's enshrined in their constitution.
And you are just content to get told what to do?
Gee, I always thought some sandgropers had
balls. Seems not.
>
>> Any student of Ninjutsu will tell you that there is only one reason to fight
>> with your bare hands - because you have NOTHING else that can be used as a
>> weapon.
>
>What a shame that they do not teach that "there is only one reason to
>fight with your bare hands - because you cannot walk away." You have
>lowered my opinion of this fighting craft.
That seems to be because you have an opnion, and bugger all
experience.
>
>[...]
>> So the vast majority of handguns that are in private posession in Australia
>> (over 60,000 licensed handgun owners in NSW alone)
>
>Lets see... 60,000 / 6,500,000 is 0.92% of the population. So much for
>the vast crowds of gun-owners. More like the tiny wimpy minority.
Handguns, not all firearms. Do you know how much it costs
to keep a hangun license in Australia?
>
>> Tough titties boy, you get no say at all. Even your precious State doesn't
>> mind people owning "military weapons", keeping them at home, and carting
>> them to the range or farm in the boot of the car.
>>
>> Sleep well. Your armed neighbours most certainly do.
>
>*laughs* All 0.92% of them. Sounds like your gun-toting friends are
>scared to sleep without them, unlike everyone else in this rugged
>testosterone-filled brown land of ours.
>
>(If you're too scared to sleep at night without a gun, move your family
>out of the shithouse neighbourhood you're living in. Duh.)
Why aren't Police disarmed?
Mark Addinall.
>
Scott Hillard
> Andrew D wrote:
> > The really odd thing here is that it often is the politically-correct
> > (left) side of politics
> Yet again, you're making wild generalisations...
No more than you.
> > that does argue in favour of the rights of the
> > child being superior to the rights of the parent.
> Aside from outlawing domestic abuse (punching, hitting with heavy
> objects, starving of children, continued emotional and sexual abuse),
> there's nothing wrong with disciplining of children.
Yes, but Andrew is correct when claiming that the vast bulk of movements on
the "left" oppose even the most basic discipline - such as smacking - or
other punitive measures.
"Yoof conferencing" is a classic legislative product of this sort of
soft-headed but well-meaning approach.
> > We shouldn't smack, we
> > shouldn't shout - we shouldn't even use negative words like "no".
Precisely.
> The Americans are kooks.
It's not the yanks at large, it's the bloody Australians.
> > We
> > should just let them run under a bus and learn for themselves - and we
> > should respect their decision to do so.
> Sounds more like Scott Hillard's plan to let them buy guns. He's
> completely against any restrictions at all on the purchase of guns,
> y'see...
We're still waiting for your response to Mark's challenge - finding us a 4yo
that can lift an AK-47, let along buy one.
Seppo Renfors
Andrew D wrote:
>
> In article <3D061115...@not.olles.com.au>, Seppo Renfors
> <Ren...@not.olles.com.au> wrote:
>
> +Andrew D wrote:
> +>
> [snip]
> +> Perhaps you have a different definition for "solution". That wouldn't be
> +> too surprising.
> +
> +I'm not bothering to go down that road with you, you full well KNOW
> +where it leads to "solving a drowning man's problem by throwing him a
> +bag full of bricks"!!
>
> Glad we agree finally.
So you are acknowledging your "solution" for your perceived problem re
"families" is in fact "solving a drowning man's problem by throwing
him a bag full of bricks"! GOOD, perhaps you can now jump on a
different bandwagon!
Andrew D
<Ren...@not.olles.com.au> wrote:
+Andrew D wrote:
+>
+> In article <3D061115...@not.olles.com.au>, Seppo Renfors
+> <Ren...@not.olles.com.au> wrote:
+>
+> +Andrew D wrote:
+> +>
+> [snip]
+> +> Perhaps you have a different definition for "solution". That wouldn't be
+> +> too surprising.
+> +I'm not bothering to go down that road with you, you full well KNOW
+> +where it leads to "solving a drowning man's problem by throwing him a
+> +bag full of bricks"!!
+>
+> Glad we agree finally.
+
+So you are acknowledging your "solution" for your perceived problem re
+"families" is in fact "solving a drowning man's problem by throwing
+him a bag full of bricks"! GOOD, perhaps you can now jump on a
+different bandwagon!
No. I suggested you might have a different definition for "solution" and
you responded that going that road would lead to "solving a drowning man's
problem by throwing him a bag full of bricks"!!"
I'm acknowledging exactly what you wrote - that the road you'd take me
down, if you bothered, would lead exactly where you said it would.
We agree on something - deal with it.
Synic
> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>
>>In article <NQvN8.40$Dq3....@ozemail.com.au>, Scott Hillard wrote:
>>> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnag87ok.2lr...@lark.autons.net.au...
>>>> Scott Hillard wrote:
>>>> > Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> I thought you had grown up a little ?-%
Yes, you're completely correct. I been drawn into a gun-loon thread.
Almost as silly as being baited into an abortion-kook thread or
anything involving an earnest debate with Mosley Jones III.
Peter Wiley
> In article <NQvN8.40$Dq3....@ozemail.com.au>, Scott Hillard wrote:
> > Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:slrnag87ok.2lr...@lark.autons.net.au...
> >> Scott Hillard wrote:
> >> > Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>
> >> >> Can't stress that enough for you: Lefties are into social freedom.
>
> >> > Lies.
>
> >> Probably a touch overly sweeping, but, it's a decent general point.
> >
> > No, it's not. Lefties are only into the "freedoms" they value.
> >
> > At the end of the day, the only right anyone REALLY has is to do their will.
> > That's what Crowley meant when he pontificated "Do what thou wilt, shall be
> > the whole of the law." He didn't mean rape & pillage & murder in a state of
> > utter anarchy, he meant "figure out what the fuck you really want, and do
> > it."
> >
> > Lesser minds can't comprehend that, it's either beyond them, or far too
> > frightening (because of the responsibility it implies).
>
> Such a belief assumes that all people are rational. Which they most
> certainly are not.
I guess you mix with a different clas of people. Maybe that's your
problem.
> >> > All the lefties that are into unrestricted private ownership of weapons,
> >> > please stand up.
>
> >> Here we go.
> >
> > Yup, up with the straw man. Go grab some wicker and burn Edward Woodward
> > while you're at it.
>
> You're the one who stated that individuals should have unrestricted
> access to guns. Are you now stating that you'd restrict some individuals
> afterall?
>
> >>.. So you're advocating that small children have a right
> >> to own pistols and paramilitary gear?
> >
> > Any idea how they might come by them?
>
> Save up and do mail-order, under your system I'd assume. You've stated
> you want individuals to have unrestricted access to guns.
>
> > Businesses have the right to serve whom they will, and deny service to any
> > they please - children included.
>
> Whatabout the businesses that wouldn't deny access?
>
> > Parents, of course, have an obvious and natural right to set certain limits
> > on the behaviour of their offspring whilst still dependant.
>
> So are you saying that (a) children are not individuals, or, (b) that
> some individuals should be restricted from owning firearms?
Semantics. Herring trailing. Boring.
> >> (If not, how do you reconcile this with your demand for unrestricted
> > ownership of weapons?).
> >
> > Easy - it's a matter for INDIVIDUALS to determine, not for the State.
> >
> > Just like a host of other areas the State keeps sticking its unwanted nose
> > into.
>
> See point above. Further, do you make a distinction between the sane
> and insane individual, the smart and the idiotic individual with an
> IQ of 50? Individuals under 10?
What's that got to do with anything? I owned a 22RF before I was 10.
My son & daughters learnt how to shoot as soon as they were big enough
to hold the rifle. Guess what? They've never shot anyone, nor taken a
gun without permission.
Individuals with dementia? Individuals
> who have expressed a desire to join Al Qeda, the Scientologists,
> a neo-nazi party or the Young Liberals?
They all get guns anyway, if they want them. Point out where gun
restrictions have prevented this.
> >> As you should know, the maximisation of freedoms means that one persons
> >> freedoms should not interfere in another's freedom not to be
> >> disasterously affected by the first's.
> >
> > And whilst the thought of the bloke next door sleeping with an AK-47 under
> > his bed might make you shit your pants, unless he threatens you with it or
> > shoots you with it, he has IN NO WAY AFFECTED YOUR FREEDOMS.
>
> Given that 10% of the population will be mentally ill at some time in
> their lives (probably excluding depression), I'd much rather have zero
> people with AK-47s to be on the safe side.
Which is never going to actually happen.
The tragic reality for you
> is that the majority of Australians are with me on this particular one.
The unpleasant reality for you is, there were hundreds of thousands of
SKK/SKS rifles imported prior to 1996, and only a handful handed in.
Sleep tight.
Of course, the lack of murders by people using these guns kinda dents
your argument, and makes your fears ...... irrational.
> If you want to shoot bunnies out on your farm, by all means. If you
> want to do target practice at a shooters club, by all means, provided
> your gun is stored and secured there. But there's just no justifiable
> reason for individuals keeping firearms in the suburbs where they can be
> stolen by thieves, used in domestic disputes, found by children, etc.
>
> If you want personal defence, learn ninjitzu or karate.
ROFL. A big guy will beat the crap out of a small woman, nearly every
time, regardless of discipline, if he gets close and uses his
strenght/weight. And that's without training - all he needs to do is
be willing to accept some pain.
Same guy would be bleeding & down in the gutter if she had a gun. You
guarantee individual safety and maybe you have an argument. You can't.
>
> >> Therefore, children don't get guns
> >> because they'd likely shoot someone else with it.
> >
> > Rubbish, heaps of children have guns, and hundreds of thousnds of living
> > Australians owend guns as children. They didn't shoot anyone - either as
> > children, or as adults.
>
> Heaps have as well. Your point?
You're wrong. Murder rate with guns is what, 2 per 100,000? Hardly
heaps.
> >> Ditto adults and military weapons in non-war zones, etc.
> >
> > What's a "military weapon"?
>
> To my mind, anything that started its days having been designed for
> military purposes for a modern war. Rifles count. Flintlocks don't.
Yeah, well, you demonstrate that you know zip about firearms. Par for
the course, really.
Peter Wiley
Mark Addinall
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>Mark Addinall wrote:
>> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <NQvN8.40$Dq3....@ozemail.com.au>, Scott Hillard wrote:
>>>> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnag87ok.2lr...@lark.autons.net.au...
>>>>> Scott Hillard wrote:
>>>>> > Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> I thought you had grown up a little ?-%
>
>Yes, you're completely correct. I been drawn into a gun-loon thread.
So, you snipped everything?
Are you calling me a loon because I like to own firearms?
You're not nearly senior enogh to back that up with
argument or fact.
Mark Addinall.
Synic
> Synic<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> I thought you had grown up a little ?-%
>>
>>Yes, you're completely correct. I been drawn into a gun-loon thread.
>
> So, you snipped everything?
Yup. Consider it an end to my involvement in the thread. Been there,
done that, have the t-shirt, don't really find the issue interesting
or useful.
Had I been more mature about it, I'd have asked you, Hillard and Wiley
to take the thread to aus.politics.guns and left you to it. I take this
opportunity to apologise to the rest of the newsgroup for not doing so.
> Are you calling me a loon because I like to own firearms?
No. Because you participate in these threads and care about their
outcome. The gun debate is little more than a procession of all the
same tired arguments for and against put forward by wit-addled
zealots and kooks on either side. Tedious. Yawn.
(I'd probably be writing much the same sort of posting as this if I'd
been silly enough to get caught up in a thread of pro-lifers in an
anti-abortion thread. I don't care that deeply about either issue
enough to make prolonged involvement in threads like this even
remotely rewarding. Such is life.)
Scott Hillard
> In article <_OBN8.178$Dq3....@ozemail.com.au>, Scott Hillard wrote:
> > Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:slrnagdn3m.ak2...@lark.autons.net.au...
> > It makes no such assumption. It assumes (correctly) that the rights of
> > rational people should not be infringed, merely because there are people
who
> > are irrational.
> Where the irrational can use their "rights" to end the lives of the
> rational in a 5 minute spree of lunacy, such rights should not be
> confered.
Pity about how they do that already though, Eh "Synic"?
The current regime only ensures that the law-abiding are defenceless. There
is NOTHING you, nor I, nor anyone else can do to stop a nutter getting his
hands on whatever hardware he damn well pleases, and using it against
unarmed targets.
All we can do is provide the opporutunity for those who may become targets,
to shoot back
It seems that what you (and your kind) fear most is being confronted with
reality. Reality like:
* The guv'mint CANNOT protect you.
* Nothing can GUARANTEE your safety.
* At the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility for your personal
safety lies with YOU. You cannot escape this truth.
Wise men accept that truth, and take sensible precautions to safeguard their
lives, and the lives of those they care for. So they have always done, so
they will always do. We will do as we will, just as you will do as you
will. The efficacy of each approach is there for all to see.
> >> You're the one who stated that individuals should have unrestricted
> >> access to guns.
> > Indeed I did, and so far as the State is concerned, they most certainly
> > should.
> In which case, you're still arguing for 4 year olds to have free license
> to guns.
I am arguing that there should be no legislative impediment to a 4yo
obtaining a gun. There's a difference.
> >> Are you now stating that you'd restrict some individuals afterall?
> > I would restrict nobody, other than my own children until they had both
the
> > cognitive and emotional development necessary to safely handly their own
> > weapons without supervision.
> > I have no right to say what you, the bloke next door, or anyone else
should
> > or should not be able to do.
> So we're both agreed. Onya.
Nope, you want a say in what other people do, what they own, and how they
conduct their private affairs. Whether the bloke next door to you sleeps
with an AK under his bed, or a butt-plug up his left nostril, is none of
your business.
> >> >>.. So you're advocating that small children have a right
> >> >> to own pistols and paramilitary gear?
> >> > Any idea how they might come by them?
> >> Save up and do mail-order,
> > I suppose a 9yo might have their own PO Box ready to receive their P-90
as
> > well?
> Your plan was for children to have unrestricted access to guns.
My plan is for no legislative restrictions on gun ownership, for anyone.
> They could have them delivered to their cubby house for all it matters.
Take your hypothetical 4yo to a military museum one day. See if they can
work the slide on an automatic pistol. Should be fun.
> >> Whatabout the businesses that wouldn't deny access?
> > What about them? Who cares?
> > Once kids acquire the financial means to obtain firearms, it's a pretty
safe
> > bet they are of a suitable age to posess arms.
> Why?
Because for most of the past Century plenty of kids under 16 had access to
guns, personally owned guns, and regularly fired guns. We still managed to
keep our homicide rate under 2.5 per 100,000. We still managed to get by
without blood flowing from the local school.
> Little Johnny had a gun delivered to his cubby but he didn't want
> it anymore. He gave it to Little Sandy, aged 7. Sandy is a bit of a
> psych case and hears voices. But Scott Hillard tells us that there
> should be no restrictions on gun ownership and so Sandy's parents never
> find out about Sandy's secret friend.
Ah, so we've progressed from straw men, to straw kids. Fascinating.
Mind you, if a kid can aged 7 can own a firearm and their parents know
nothing about it, I think their posession of a firearm is probably the last
concern we should have about that child.
You don't think parents should have much responsibility for their kids, do
you?
> >> So are you saying that (a) children are not individuals,
> > Nope, nothing of the sort.
> >> or, (b) that some individuals should be restricted from owning
firearms?
> > Nothing of the sort. You STILL don't get the distinction between
> > restrictions enforced by the State, and restrictions on certain
behaviours
> > that are inherent in the parent-child relationship.
> Children lie and parents can be fuckwads.
Right, so we punish everyone who isn't a liar or a fuckwad, just so the
liars and fuckwads can ignore the restrictions you would enforce on the rest
of society. Your a real champion of liberty, aren't you mate?
> But in your scheme, Little
> Sandy the psych-case kid legally has a gun ready to take to school
> on Monday.
No, in your fantasy.
> > Funny how "the left" is always for the empowerment of the child at the
> > expense of that relationship - too many undergraduates over-dosing on
> > Rousseau - yet not in this case, I take it?
> What rot.
Pity that the facts shoot your righteous indignation down in flames.
> I'm completely with the status quo on childrens rights and
> responsibilities.
Who's "status-quo"? I wasn't aware that there was one.
> Parents are entirely responsible for their kids
> actions until around 10.
"Around 10" - been brushing up on your Piaget?
> From then on, it's a sliding scale until
> age 18 where they have full responsibility for their own actions.
Why 18? Why not 16?
At 16 they can root who they please, drive a car, fly an aeroplane, etc.
Your "Status Quo" gives us a regime whereby a 16yo can marry, shag at will,
drive a car, fly an aeroplane, work, pay tax and contribute to the state
coffers - yet has no franchise, and therefore no say in how those taxes are
spent (no taxation without representation!). They can serve in the military
but cannot sink a beer or light up a cigarette. However, if they're in a
cafe with mum & dad, they can drink from any age.
Yeah, real credible case you've got there.
> Parents must obey the law and ensure their kids obey the law. Neither
> parents nor children should break the law which exists to protect
> themselves and other people in society. Painfully simple.
Blind faith in burearcracy. So you have never pirated or used pirated
software, music, videos, etc?
Never j-walked, exceeded the speed limit, pulled into your driveway without
indicating?
Mindless, pompous hypocrite.
> >> See point above. Further, do you make a distinction between the sane
> >> and insane individual,
> > I make no such distinction. It is not my place to.
> Correct. It is the government's place.
Incorrect, it is not the guv'mint's place to. We've seen far too much abuse
of this particular "power".
> >> the smart and the idiotic individual with an IQ of 50?
> > Should "idiotic individuals with an IQ of 50" be denied the right to
self
> > defence?
> Correct.
So you are really just a closet elitist who doesn't want the dummies to have
the same rights as everyone else.
> It is the government's place to set standards for gun use education.
Nope, the guv'mint can go to hell.
NON SERVIAM.
> >> Individuals under 10?
> > Why 10? Why not 12, or 9, or 14?
> Indeed. It is the government's place to set standards for parent and
> child responsibility and penalties when they do not match mandated
> external requirements.
Bwahahahahahaahahaha! No doubt using the same infallible logic I've
outlined above, about the ages at which kids get to do things - like
contribute to the coffers from the first day they draw breath, yet get no
franchise for 18 years.
> >> Individuals with dementia?
> > Should they be denied the right to self defence?
> They shoud understand gun use education and be willing to use their
> gun according to government mandated rules.
Or what?
> If they're not capable, then they should not be loose in the community
with a gun.
Kindly outline your test to determine if an individual is "capable":
Well?
> >> Individuals who have expressed a desire to join Al Qeda, the
> >> Scientologists,
> >> a neo-nazi party or the Young Liberals?
> > Should they be denied the right to self defence?
> *laughs* Good grief, now you're defending terrorism.
Ah, so terrorists only use registered guns, and don't get to shoot anybody
until they get a licence?
Stupid child.
> > Funny how laws proscribing almost all of your quoted "individuals" from
> > obtaining and posessing firearms failed to stop PRECISELY those sorts of
> > individuals perpetrating:
> > Strthfield Massacre
> > Hoddle Street Massacre
> > Queen Street Massacre
> > Dunblane Massacre
> > Port Arthur Massacre
> Nope.
YES.
> It just shows what happens when you have lax regulation,
Bzzzzzt. Lie. Victoria already had the tightest longarms regulations in
the nation (tighter, in fact, than the post-1996 regime) at the time of
Queen St & Hoddle St. Scotland's regulations on handguns were even tighter
than those currently imposed in Australia.
> inadequate personality testing of gun licensees,
There has never been any such testing. There will never be any such
testing. Anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of psychometrics
will easily see why - you don't REALLY need me to educate you on that, do
you?
Martin Bryant obtained firearms without a licence, without going to a
licensed dealer.
> and lousy home securing of guns.
Kindly demonstrate how this was a factor in ANY of the mass killings
outlined above.
Hint: It wasn't.
You've sunk to the point where you are furiously bullshitting like mad to
try and get yourself out of the hole you have dug - but it's not going to
work.
> > Even funnier (if your sense of humour is black enough) is how the very
same
> > restrictions you advocate guaranteed the "success" of those massacre
> > efforts, by denying the victims the means to defend themselves.
> Equally as likely that the "victims" would have accidentally shot
> each other because of lousy aim and general panic.
Bzzzzzt. Lie.
Have fun finding ONE successful random mass killing in a place where
widespread concealed carrying of firearms by civilians is permitted. Just
one.
And don't try yank school shootings in CCW States - CCW permit holders are
not permitted to take their guns near schools (we can clearly see the
results of that policy).
Do you not think it odd that the Wayde Frankums & Martin Bryants of this
world never try it on at Police Stations, Military Bases, or Shooting
Ranges?
Perhaps because potential victims could shoot back?
> But if you love guns so much,
I love freedom, guns are merely a tool used to secure it. 500 years ago, I
would have been advocating swords in their place.
> do feel free fuck off to the USA where they'll let you use them
indiscriminantly.
No, in the USA if you go out and shoot people "indiscriminately", it's
generally a nice shot in the arm for you - the lethal kind. Of course, if
you try it on in 32 states in the Union, you'll probably have your victims
shooting back at you.
I might just as well go to the UK, and participate in the handgun-related
crime boom that has taken place since they outlawed handguns.
Sheesh! And that blanket ban stuff worked so well with booze, porn and dope
in the past! Can't imagine why it wouldn't work with guns...
> >> Given that 10% of the population will be mentally ill at some time in
> >> their lives
> > Unsubstantiated bullshit.
> If anything, I'm understating that stat.
Then supply a citation.
I repeat - UNSUBSTANTIATED BULLSHIT.
> What proportion of elderly
> do *you* think end up suffering dementia before they die?
Probably a lot of those strapped to nursing home beds or wasting away in
hospitals. Not prime candidates for conducting random mass-killings with an
AK-47 from the top of a water tower.
> Add that to the numbers that get schizophrenia, manic-depression and the
other
> wide variety of illnesses.
How very un-PC, it's called "bipolar disorder" these days.
You are, presumably, content for such people to have access to cars,
matches, common household cleaning agents, etc?
> >> (probably excluding depression),
> > "Depression" is nothing at all like "mental illness". More drug company
> > propaganda.
> Temporary depression, certainly. Chronic depression, no. That's not
> natural.
What's the difference between "Temporary depression" and "chronic
depression", Dr Frasier?
> >> I'd much rather have zero people with AK-47s to be on the safe side.
> > Too bad, won't ever happen. People will do what they will, and there is
> > NOTHING you, or I, or the State can do about it, if they are determined
> > enough.
> Indeed. They can fuck off to the USA.
Or they can stay here with their AK47s. Could have some trouble getting
them through customs on the way out.
Of course, YOU could always fuck off to one of the "gun-free" paradises -
like the UK.
Or Jamaica.
Malaysia perhaps?
Cuba? (That would be right up your alley).
> And good luck to them. With luck,
> strict gun laws and enforcement here will make that option more
> attractive.
Nope, they will still do as they please, and two for you & Jackboot Johnny.
You get no say.
> > Lots of people in Australia with AK-47s, and thousands of people still
in
> > posession of SKS and SKK rifles alone (the Feds get awfully embaressed
when
> > anyone brings up the disparity between the number of these weapons
imported,
> > and the number crunched in 1996).
> Yep. Plenty of drooling hicks out there mowing down bunnies. Wouldn't
> be awfully surprised if you were one of them. You seem the type.
Sorry, never shot a bunny. Or a roo, Zebra, platypus, elephant (neither
African nor Indian), wombat, dingo, goat, etc.
Do keep digging though, boy.
> >> The tragic reality for you
> >> is that the majority of Australians are with me on this particular one.
> > I couldn't give a rat's arse what the majority of Australians think. I
will
> > do as I see fit, as directed by my conscience.
> The law is the law.
Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law.
Man has the right to live as he will, to think as he will, to walk as he
will on the Earth, to dwell where and how he will, to love as he will, to
die when and how he will, to express himself as he will - unless he violates
those same rights of others in doing so.
For the benefit of the likes of you, that doesn't mean that you can move
into someone else's house and set up shop there, or that you can "express
yourself" by urinating on your neighbour's cat. Doing so clearly violates
the inherent rights of others.
Man has the right to kill anyone who would deny him those rights.
> Obey it or get sent to the clink, just like everyone
> else who breaks the law.
You only go to the clink if you get caught, and if you are sentenced to the
clink. The vast majority of those harbouring now-banned firearms will never
be caught, and will never get sent to the clink.
Just like the vast majority of those who smoke dope, or read banned books,
or exceed the posted speed limit on the Golden Highway.
As I said, people will do as they will, and the guv'mint can go to hell.
> >> If you want to shoot bunnies out on your farm, by all means.
> > Who cares what you think about it? You get no say.
> I get a vote. Same as you.
Bully for you, but you get NO say in what I, or anyone else chooses to do.
NON SERVIAM, "Master".
> >> If you want to do target practice at a shooters club, by all means,
> > Who cares what you think about it? You get no say.
> I get a vote. Same as you.
Irrelevant, you get no say in what anyone else does.
You, sunshine, are powerless to prevent people doing things that YOU don't
approve of.
Deal with it.
> >> provided your gun is stored and secured there.
> > Bwahahahahahaha!
> > "The tragic reality for you", sunshine, is that there is no such
requirement
> > in any jurusdiction in Australia. Owners of all classes of firearms,
from
> > .22 bunny guns to .44 handguns to .223 Class D M16A2s can keep them at
home,
> > in fact are usually REQUIRED to keep them at home.
> Hardly a "tragedy". It's where the trends are moving and a change away
> from home storage of guns is something I hope to see in the next 10-20
> years.
Won't ever happen - and there's a very good reason for it. The vast
majority of arms thefts (for all your paranoia about "unsecured guns in the
home") are from large armouries. Military, police, and security firm
armouries in particular. If they can't keep their guns secured, you expect
the Toronto rifle club to?
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
Once again, you are powerless to prevent people doing what they will. Deal
with it.
> >> But there's just no justifiable
> >> reason for individuals keeping firearms in the suburbs where they can
be
> >> stolen by thieves, used in domestic disputes, found by children, etc.
> > "The tragic reality for you", sunshine, is that in all likelihood there
are
> > people doing just this in your street, and it is almost certain that
people
> > do this in your suburb.
> Gun loons, while a very noisy mob, are not all that numerous.
A double-digit percentage of the adult population, moron. None of your
selective snipping will change that.
> As you so kindly demonstrated below toward the end of your article...
Pity that you snipped the most significant portions though, Eh?
> >> If you want personal defence, learn ninjitzu or karate.
> > It's spelled "ninjutsu", and I've learned both. Neither is as effective
as
> > a 9mm automatic, or an M4 carbine.
> > Stephen K Hayes, the man largely responsible for exporting Togakure-Ryu
> > Ninjutsu to the West, teaches you how to deal with an armed assailtant.
> > He teaches you to use a gun.
> Living in the USA, that's appropriate advice.
He'd teach the same thing in any country - "gun-free" ENgland and Japan
included.
> The USA is home of the gun loon; it's enshrined in their constitution.
So why, at a time of record high civilian gun ownership, is their gun death
rate dropping?
> > Any student of Ninjutsu will tell you that there is only one reason to
fight
> > with your bare hands - because you have NOTHING else that can be used as
a
> > weapon.
> What a shame that they do not teach that "there is only one reason to
> fight with your bare hands - because you cannot walk away."
"Walking away" from an aggressor, or failing to come to the aid of a weaker
individual is precisely what I would expect from a spineless ninny like you.
> You have lowered my opinion of this fighting craft.
I'm sure there are thousands of Ninja across the globe shedding tears at the
very thought.
> [...]
Yes, let's put back what you snipped, shall we?
> > So the vast majority of handguns that are in private posession in
Australia
> > (over 60,000 licensed handgun owners in NSW alone)
> Lets see... 60,000 / 6,500,000 is 0.92% of the population.
About right. Mind you, handguns are the LEAST numerous class of firearm in
Australia, and generally the hardest (and most expensive) to obtain legally.
And my figures only count those who hold them legally, for target shooting.
To be added, of course, are all the unawful owners, security firms, holders
of the covetted "Commissioner's Permit", etc...
> So much for the vast crowds of gun-owners. More like the tiny wimpy
minority.
Well, except, of course, for the section you so dishonestly snipped, the
rest of that paragraph:
> > and the vast majority of
> > centrefire rifles that are in private hands in Australia (Class B
licence
> > holders, of which there are over 700,000 nation-wide).
All up, around 1.7 million Australians hold a shooter's licence. That's 1.7
million who LEGALLY own firearms - privately, not through a company.
Rent-a-cops with firearms accreditation aren't counted, unless they hold a
category H licence for some other reason.
> > Tough titties boy, you get no say at all. Even your precious State
doesn't
> > mind people owning "military weapons", keeping them at home, and carting
> > them to the range or farm in the boot of the car.
> > Sleep well. Your armed neighbours most certainly do.
> *laughs* All 0.92% of them.
Oh, there are far more than that.
> (If you're too scared to sleep at night without a gun, move your family
> out of the shithouse neighbourhood you're living in. Duh.)
My neighbourhood is quite nice. Wide, tree-lined streets. Nice People.
Lots of Guns. Doctor and plumber in the same street (very handy). The only
problem is the rates, but we're about to fix that.
No matter how much posturing you do, you will NEVER escape the fact that
your hypocritical stance is morally bankrupt. You are a scared little boy
who cannot face up to the weight of responsibility that the universe would
thrust upon you.
Lot's of growing up to do boy. An awful lot.
Mark Addinall
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>Mark Addinall wrote:
>> Synic<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> I thought you had grown up a little ?-%
>>>
>>>Yes, you're completely correct. I been drawn into a gun-loon thread.
>>
>> So, you snipped everything?
>
>Yup. Consider it an end to my involvement in the thread. Been there,
>done that, have the t-shirt, don't really find the issue interesting
>or useful.
But you are still willing to post some untruths based on your
bias and limited experience, and when get caught, you
just fuck off with an excuse of boredom?
>
>Had I been more mature about it, I'd have asked you, Hillard and Wiley
>to take the thread to aus.politics.guns and left you to it. I take this
>opportunity to apologise to the rest of the newsgroup for not doing so.
>
>> Are you calling me a loon because I like to own firearms?
>
>No. Because you participate in these threads and care about their
>outcome. The gun debate is little more than a procession of all the
>same tired arguments for and against put forward by wit-addled
>zealots and kooks on either side. Tedious. Yawn.
Crap Caffin. Over in your building at Woodside there are
a load of shooters. I know a few. One who looks after your
new EMC SAN in fact. When I worked just over the
road from you, the sticker on my office window said
"Manager - Infrastructure and Network Operations".
Wileys' sticker says much the same thing. Speaking for
no-one except my self, I dislike being called wit-addled by
a jumped up little prick with little cognetive process.
Don't let your CV hit my desk Peter.
Mark Addinall.
Andrew D
addi...@myownemail.com (Mark Addinall) wrote:
[snip
+Crap Caffin.
[snip]
+Don't let your CV hit my desk Peter.
Oh no. Please tell me that Synic is not the Perth-based poster whose
articles litter gothic and BDSM newsgroups.
If so, then I guess it explains why he keeps coming back for more.
If not, then please accept my apologies Synic for making that connection.
Blame Mark :)
Peter Wiley
> Mark Addinall wrote:
> > Synic<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>> I thought you had grown up a little ?-%
> >>
> >>Yes, you're completely correct. I been drawn into a gun-loon thread.
> >
> > So, you snipped everything?
>
> Yup. Consider it an end to my involvement in the thread. Been there,
> done that, have the t-shirt, don't really find the issue interesting
> or useful.
>
> Had I been more mature about it, I'd have asked you, Hillard and Wiley
> to take the thread to aus.politics.guns and left you to it. I take this
> opportunity to apologise to the rest of the newsgroup for not doing so.
I would have ignored you.
Actually, I don't care much about the issue any more than I do about
taxation vs welfare bias in the current system. The firearms issue is
pretty irrelevant to me, personally. I own acreage in 2 states. What I
do like is pointing out the irrationalities of closely held viewpoints
to people like you. I know damn well that you have your internal
reality and facts aren't going to sway you but who knows, perhaps
someone silly enough to read along might just change their mind.
When you cut & run, it just reinforces your lack of credibility.
Peter Wiley
Seppo Renfors
*IF* we agreed on it my previous comment would be 100% valid - else
you DENY agreeing with me. But hey, why don't you for once develop it
fully - a workable model. At present all you have done is like saying
"I'll walk to Sydney", then take two steps and claim you are there!
HAH!
Synic
>> >>
>> >>Yes, you're completely correct. I been drawn into a gun-loon thread.
>> >
>> > So, you snipped everything?
>>
>> Yup. Consider it an end to my involvement in the thread. Been there,
>> done that, have the t-shirt, don't really find the issue interesting
>> or useful.
>>
>> Had I been more mature about it, I'd have asked you, Hillard and Wiley
>> to take the thread to aus.politics.guns and left you to it. I take this
>> opportunity to apologise to the rest of the newsgroup for not doing so.
>
> I would have ignored you.
Completely irrelevant whether you listen. You, Hillard and Addinall
are gun-loons. I don't expect you to give a toss about other people.
I set myself higher standards.
[snip: some pointless bragging and posturing]
> I know damn well that you have your internal
> reality and facts aren't going to sway you but who knows, perhaps
> someone silly enough to read along might just change their mind.
Gun threads are a waste of time, full stop.
Are you going to pull out an argument that will convince me of the
truth of your held ideology? Nope. Am I going to do something like
that to change your mind? Nope. These issues (like the abortion
debate) are not things which can be won with reason when there are
other issues driving participants' interests in the matter.
> When you cut & run, it just reinforces your lack of credibility.
Poor diddums I. But I'm sure I'll get over it, right about... now.
Seriously... You're a rabid rightwing gun-loon. Why would I give
a flying fuck whether you believe I'm credible?
Synic
>Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>>Yup. Consider it an end to my involvement in the thread. Been there,
>>done that, have the t-shirt, don't really find the issue interesting
>>or useful.
>
> But you are still willing to post some untruths based on your
> bias and limited experience, and when get caught, you
> just fuck off with an excuse of boredom?
Bollocks. There are standard stock and trade answers to all of your
objections you've raised in this thread. And there are stock and
trade answers to those stock and trade answers, pretty much ad
infinitum. All I'm doing is stepping away from the dance and
recognising that it's a dance.
>>> Are you calling me a loon because I like to own firearms?
>>
>>No. Because you participate in these threads and care about their
>>outcome. The gun debate is little more than a procession of all the
>>same tired arguments for and against put forward by wit-addled
>>zealots and kooks on either side. Tedious. Yawn.
>
> Over in your building at Woodside there are
> a load of shooters. I know a few.
Ordinary shooters (sportsmen and people who use them in their
workplace), I have no problem with. The sadcases who hoard them
beside their beds because they're frightened of the outside world?
Different story.
[...]
> When I worked just over the
> road from you, the sticker on my office window said
> "Manager - Infrastructure and Network Operations".
> Wileys' sticker says much the same thing. Speaking for
> no-one except my self, I dislike being called wit-addled by
> a jumped up little prick with little cognetive process.
You associate yourself with gun-loons in gun-loon threads, you'll
have to expect yourself to get tarred with the gun-loon brush once
in a while.
I'm quite curious about your sensitivity to "wit-addled" though. Why
the sudden thin skin? Try to remember you're in a politics newsgroup
and it may get a little flamey here and there. alt.cuddle is somewhere
first door on your right if mild stuff gets to you again.
> Don't let your CV hit my desk
Given some of the company you've kept in the past and called
'mates' (Martin and Tony ring any bells), I can't imagine that
happening any time soon. But thanks for the warning.
Synic
> Oh no. Please tell me that Synic is not the Perth-based poster whose
> articles litter gothic and BDSM newsgroups.
A Google query on this nick would have revealed my real name.
Heh, mail.indigo.net.au even responds to VRFY for gawd's sake (the
silly sods) and I've posted from this account for years now. I'm
surprised it's taken this long for the connection to be made.
Bloody few postings to BSDM groups that I remember though. But
I guess you found something in your Google query from the mid-1990s.
God knows what. I probably don't want to know ;-).
Gothic newsgroups? Yeah, I post. No surprises there. A Google query
on this nick alone would have revealed that. Haven't considered myself
part of the goth crowd proper for a good many years, but, I still
like the old music and the gothic folks in the aus.* heirarchy
are always good for a natter on a wide selection of topics.
(If you want even more daggy, BTW, I was also the author of the most
"technologically advanced" signature code ever released to the wild.
The last version, released in Jan '98, used a very nifty 7-bit byte
encoding algorithm which outgeeked The Geek Code. I also had a
250-question aus.politics Purity Test online at one stage...)
> If so, then I guess it explains why he keeps coming back for more.
*Boom-tish* ;-).
Actually, the only reason I come back to this newsgroup is because of
the slrn newsreader. It allows me to do some very hard-core filtering
to remove consistently nutty threads, topics and posters and cross-
posted kook newsgroups. It largely saves me from the never-ending
flood on Israel/Palestine, Mosley Jones III, aus.culture.true-blue,
etc, etc.
I've been hanging around Usenet regularly since late 1993 and
created my first aus.* newsgroup in 1995 (my second one's CFV is
just about to be posted, actually; watch this space). I even
created the aus.politics Net Kook Of The Year Award way back in the
long-ago mists of time.
It's inevitable that I get tired of seeing the same old ground covered
again and yet again on some topics, after being a Usenet addict for
close to 8 years now. Any sane person would. If I appear overly
dismissive of Wiley, Addinall and Hillard on the issue of guns, I
can only explain it as *extreme* ennui with the topic. I've read and
even participated in more of these threads than I can remember and
would be happy man if I never saw another gun-grabber vs gun-loon
thread again ;-).
Synic
> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
> +Aside from outlawing domestic abuse (punching, hitting with heavy
> +objects, starving of children, continued emotional and sexual abuse),
> +there's nothing wrong with disciplining of children.
>
> That's *your* personal opinion but I'd suggest it is hardly typical of
> "the left".
Just as a short little FYI, way back when I was a uni snot, I was
described in print as being of "the Hard Left" by the then-President
of the National Union of Students (over my call for ECU to disaffiliate
from NUS over poor value for money). I don't believe I've shifted that
far to the Right over the intervening years...
Yes, as you have noted elsewhere, I do display knowledge of how political
activism in these groups generally works, but, back then I was active
as an individual on the outside rather than relying on committee
politics to get things on the political agenda.
Peter Wiley
Funny, most people consider me to be libertarian/anarchist. But then
you lefties hate individual freedoms, so you just pigeonhole everyone
else who disagrees with your dogma as right-wing. BTW, I only label
you as a leftie because you've already labelled yourself as one
elsewhere. What you are, actually, is another sucker following a
failed ideology and you can't get over it. The world has passed you by
and rendered your belief system part of the dust of history. Your
heroes killed millions of people and trashed countries whenever they
tried to provide a better life for their citizens, and the *least* you
guys did is stand aside and studiously ignore it all. You deserve your
angst and bitterness, and I'm sure your cup of gall is full to
overflowing. Long may it stay that way.
Synic's definition of a gun-loon: anyone who disagrees with his
opinion. ROFL.
Why would I give
> a flying fuck whether you believe I'm credible?
Given your state of permanent denial of reality, you undoubtedly
don't. Makes no difference. As I've said elsewhere, I'm just here for
amusement and the joy of debate. You disappear, there are others to
tackle. What the hell.
BTW, my group holds class D firearms. In fact, we make what are for
others, prohibited weapons. Use them for sampling purposes. We still
have a torpedo somewhere, sans warhead but hey, it could be refitted.
None of us has run amuck, nor are they likely to. The fact is, the
vast, vast majority of people are law-abiding in the really important
matters of life - inflicting physical damage on their fellow human
beings. Not because the law says they mustn't hurt others, but because
their internal sense of morality tells them that harming others is a
foul and unacceptable thing to do. I never have, and I never will,
initiate an act of violence against another person. At 48 years old, I
know what I am, and am not, capable of doing. Given that personal
morality, it doesn't matter what I own. You can sleep safely.
If you spend so much time worrying about others may do, perhaps you
should look deeply at your own belief systems. I'm prepared to trust
that nearly everyone has the same moral outlook WRT harming people as
I do. The evidence supports my belief.
From your posts, I suspect that you think others have the same moral
outlook as *you* do. That's why you worry about firearms and classify
owners as loons.
Your problem.
Peter Wiley
Mark Addinall
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>Mark Addinall wrote:
>>Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>>>Yup. Consider it an end to my involvement in the thread. Been there,
>>>done that, have the t-shirt, don't really find the issue interesting
>>>or useful.
>>
>> But you are still willing to post some untruths based on your
>> bias and limited experience, and when get caught, you
>> just fuck off with an excuse of boredom?
>
>Bollocks. There are standard stock and trade answers to all of your
>objections you've raised in this thread.
Crap. You posted some assumptions, declared you
were too bored to back them and now want to run away.
> And there are stock and
>trade answers to those stock and trade answers, pretty much ad
>infinitum. All I'm doing is stepping away from the dance and
>recognising that it's a dance.
>
>>>> Are you calling me a loon because I like to own firearms?
>>>
>>>No. Because you participate in these threads and care about their
>>>outcome. The gun debate is little more than a procession of all the
>>>same tired arguments for and against put forward by wit-addled
>>>zealots and kooks on either side. Tedious. Yawn.
>>
>> Over in your building at Woodside there are
>> a load of shooters. I know a few.
>
>Ordinary shooters (sportsmen and people who use them in their
>workplace), I have no problem with. The sadcases who hoard them
>beside their beds because they're frightened of the outside world?
>Different story.
I don't think the 1.7 million shooters in this country
hide firearms under a bed in fear of the outside
world. None of my mates do.
>
>[...]
>> When I worked just over the
>> road from you, the sticker on my office window said
>> "Manager - Infrastructure and Network Operations".
>> Wileys' sticker says much the same thing. Speaking for
>> no-one except my self, I dislike being called wit-addled by
>> a jumped up little prick with little cognetive process.
>
>You associate yourself with gun-loons in gun-loon threads, you'll
>have to expect yourself to get tarred with the gun-loon brush once
>in a while.
I associate my self with Peter Wiley. He is a friend, a senior in IT,
a senior in Australian science and well respected by his peers.
Yes, I am quite glad.
>
>I'm quite curious about your sensitivity to "wit-addled" though. Why
>the sudden thin skin? Try to remember you're in a politics newsgroup
>and it may get a little flamey here and there. alt.cuddle is somewhere
>first door on your right if mild stuff gets to you again.
Hey Caffin, if you think I'm going to be worried by some
flake that has discovered he's to old to be a Goth,
takes a booth at Woodside as a programmer, then you are sadly
mistaken.
I never get into alt.* space; seems you do. BDSM? How odd.
>
>> Don't let your CV hit my desk
>
>Given some of the company you've kept in the past and called
>'mates' (Martin and Tony ring any bells),
Possibly. Paradox? Met some good people there. Guy was one,
Garrett was a hoot, the rest where pretty forgetable.
What else would you like to know?
> I can't imagine that
>happening any time soon. But thanks for the warning.
Just so you are warned.
Mark Addinall.
>
Synic
> Crap. You posted some assumptions, declared you
> were too bored to back them and now want to run away.
Take it to aus.politics.guns where your guns thread will be more
on-topic.
>>You associate yourself with gun-loons in gun-loon threads, you'll
>>have to expect yourself to get tarred with the gun-loon brush once
>>in a while.
>
> I associate my self with Peter Wiley. He is a friend, a senior in IT,
> a senior in Australian science and well respected by his peers.
> Yes, I am quite glad.
I really don't give two hoots what you do outside Usenet. To me, your
private life is 100% irrelevant to discussion. I'd have appreciated
the same courtesies, but, you've declined me that gesture. A very sad
and tragic indictment of yourself.
>>I'm quite curious about your sensitivity to "wit-addled" though. Why
>>the sudden thin skin? Try to remember you're in a politics newsgroup
>>and it may get a little flamey here and there. alt.cuddle is somewhere
>>first door on your right if mild stuff gets to you again.
>
> [...] if you think I'm going to be worried by some
> flake that has discovered he's to old to be a Goth,
> takes a booth at Woodside as a programmer, then you are sadly
> mistaken.
Yet here you are getting so angry at being described as a gun-loon
instead of a gun-grabber in a wit-addled gun-kook thread on Usenet
that you've promised to let that influence your IT hiring decisions
in the real world and attempted to influence others by making it a
public issue here. So much for the alleged policies in the oil and
gas industry against discrimination for political views. Pathetic.
[...]
>>> Don't let your CV hit my desk
>>
>>Given some of the company you've kept in the past and called
>>'mates' (Martin and Tony ring any bells),
>
> Possibly. Paradox? Met some good people there. Guy was one,
> Garrett was a hoot, the rest where pretty forgetable.
> What else would you like to know?
Nice dodge attempt. Never met Guy, Garrett was okay; he left some
badly insecure boxes a long time ago now, but, that's relatively
irrelevant.
>> I can't imagine that
>> happening any time soon. But thanks for the warning.
>
> Just so you are warned.
Your discriminatory policy-breaking warning has been noted. Care
to state which company you're working for these days so that their
'senior IT manager' and his new hiring policies may be more widely
known?
Or is this just a personal vendetta that you'll be conducting on
the sly, without their knowledge? That's known in the industry
as harassment and is equally as policy-breaching, isn't it? (In
some companies in oil and gas that may even be a demotion or sacking
offence, if memory serves.)
Inquring minds want to have answers to these questions, Mark. Time
to fess up which big business you're working for which is publically
promising to breach industry employment policy. You're more than
happy to spread my real name, and who you believe my employer is,
all over this place. Your turn now.
Synic
> Funny, most people consider me to be libertarian/anarchist. But then
> you lefties hate individual freedoms,
Incorrect. We link freedoms with responsibility and charge government
with the responsibility to ensure that people's economic station in
life is not determined by the wealth of their parents.
> so you just pigeonhole everyone
> else who disagrees with your dogma as right-wing.
Actually, I normally clasify libertarians as border-line insane but
I haven't followed your writings here closely enough to make that
judgement of you.
> BTW, I only label
> you as a leftie because you've already labelled yourself as one
> elsewhere.
Fair enough.
> What you are, actually, is another sucker following a
> failed ideology and you can't get over it. The world has passed you by
> and rendered your belief system part of the dust of history.
Doubtful. I am a supporter of democracy and regulated capitalism.
Were you correct about my being a neo-communist kook, I'd have to be
the first neo-communist kook to have put forward an RFD for a
business discussion newsgroup on Usenet.
> Your
> heroes killed millions of people and trashed countries whenever they
> tried to provide a better life for their citizens,
Stalin was not a socialist, he was a totalitarian despot who masked
himself with a label. Masking a party with a contrary label is
something done even these days:
o The far-Right Liberal Party,
o The Labor Party which dislikes its unions,
o The National Party which claims to cater mainly for rural and
regional electorates,
o Australian Democrats Party which voted for a GST when the
majority of voters voted against the Coalition in the two-party
prefered, etc.
The wierdest thing is that it always seems to be Libertarians who
have the most difficulty with the idea of parties not named in a
way which accurately describes their policies. I'd be interested
in your explanation of why that might be so.
> and the *least* you
> guys did is stand aside and studiously ignore it all. You deserve your
> angst and bitterness, and I'm sure your cup of gall is full to
> overflowing. Long may it stay that way.
Keep up the fight against that straw man!
> Synic's definition of a gun-loon: anyone who disagrees with his
> opinion. ROFL.
Nope: A gun-loon is anyone in a guns thread who is not a gun-grabber
or undecided. Entirely standardised terms for those threads, not
at all new, and hardly terms first used by me. I seriously find it
hard to imagine that you've not seen those terms used before elsewhere
in similar threads in the past.
>> Why would I give
>> a flying fuck whether you believe I'm credible?
>
> Given your state of permanent denial of reality, you undoubtedly
> don't. Makes no difference. As I've said elsewhere, I'm just here for
> amusement and the joy of debate. You disappear, there are others to
> tackle. What the hell.
Same here, but, only on topics of interest that haven't been done
to death. Guns is one such topic. Abortion is another. Israel vs
Palestine is almost another, aside from the current-events angle.
The arguments remain the same in these threads. At best, it becomes
a game of waiting for someone to stumble and mumble the wrong lines
or take an extreme view too far into the absurd. In the end, it gets
a bit boring.
[...]
> From your posts, I suspect that you think others have the same moral
> outlook as *you* do. That's why you worry about firearms and classify
> owners as loons
Nope. Just convinced of humanity's general stupidity, arrogance and
lack of forethought and concern for others. I'm occasionally proven
wrong, but, very often proven right. This perhaps makes me a mite
too cynical, but, such is life in the big city.
[aus.flame kook group snipped. Not my playground.]
Mark Addinall
You are. It seems you have yet to grow up.
What makes you think I have anything to do with Oil and Gas?
>
>[...]
>>>> Don't let your CV hit my desk
>>>
>>>Given some of the company you've kept in the past and called
>>>'mates' (Martin and Tony ring any bells),
>>
>> Possibly. Paradox? Met some good people there. Guy was one,
>> Garrett was a hoot, the rest where pretty forgetable.
>> What else would you like to know?
>
>Nice dodge attempt.
Hardly. Made the association. Not mates of mine. Spoken to Martin
on 2 occasions since I left Paradox, John 0 times. Guy, a few times
(and a beer in Freo), Garret several times (and he was my ISP
for a while) and made it out to the Addinall boat and bagged a shark
and rather a nice Cod.
> Never met Guy, Garrett was okay; he left some
>badly insecure boxes a long time ago now, but, that's relatively
>irrelevant.
>
>>> I can't imagine that
>>> happening any time soon. But thanks for the warning.
>>
>> Just so you are warned.
>
>Your discriminatory policy-breaking warning has been noted. Care
>to state which company you're working for these days so that their
>'senior IT manager' and his new hiring policies may be more widely
>known?
For sure. Thanks for the plug.
Addinall Engineering.
>
>Or is this just a personal vendetta that you'll be conducting on
>the sly, without their knowledge? That's known in the industry
>as harassment and is equally as policy-breaching, isn't it? (In
>some companies in oil and gas that may even be a demotion or sacking
>offence, if memory serves.)
My company, I'll hire who I like.
>
>Inquring minds want to have answers to these questions, Mark. Time
>to fess up which big business you're working for which is publically
>promising to breach industry employment policy.
Well there you go. Currently I'm designing a widget for
Wiley and a widget for the Army.
> You're more than
>happy to spread my real name, and who you believe my employer is,
Left Woodside?
>all over this place. Your turn now.
What next?
Mark Addinall.
>
Peter Wiley
> Peter Wiley wrote:
> > Funny, most people consider me to be libertarian/anarchist. But then
> > you lefties hate individual freedoms,
>
> Incorrect. We link freedoms with responsibility and charge government
> with the responsibility to ensure that people's economic station in
> life is not determined by the wealth of their parents.
Taking them in order:
The first - freedom with responsibility - reminds me of a Heinlein
definition where a free press was defined as 'responsible' and the
Govt of the day defined what was responsible.
The second - I've always subscribed to the 3 generation rule, by and
large. The first makes it, the 2nd conserves it, the 3rd blows it.
Packers & Murdochs are showing early signs of following this path.
There's hope...
> > so you just pigeonhole everyone
> > else who disagrees with your dogma as right-wing.
>
> Actually, I normally clasify libertarians as border-line insane but
> I haven't followed your writings here closely enough to make that
> judgement of you.
Nah, idealists. Impractical for the same reason communists are. I can
live with being defined as above, tho.
> > Your
> > heroes killed millions of people and trashed countries whenever they
> > tried to provide a better life for their citizens,
>
> Stalin was not a socialist, he was a totalitarian despot who masked
> himself with a label.
True. Why? The fundamental imperfectability of humans. He found that
the ideals of communism conflicted with human aspirations. Therefore,
he tried force to alter human nature. IMHO the same thing will happen
every time people try to deny the fundamental aspiration of
individuals to better their lot, and that of their children.
Masking a party with a contrary label is
> something done even these days:
>
> o The far-Right Liberal Party,
Right of centre, maybe.
> o The Labor Party which dislikes its unions,
Right of centre too.
> o The National Party which claims to cater mainly for rural and
> regional electorates,
Agrarian socialists.
> o Australian Democrats Party which voted for a GST when the
> majority of voters voted against the Coalition in the two-party
> prefered, etc.
Idiots who haven't a clue, but if anything left-wing.
> The wierdest thing is that it always seems to be Libertarians who
> have the most difficulty with the idea of parties not named in a
> way which accurately describes their policies. I'd be interested
> in your explanation of why that might be so.
Dunno. I'm not into labels. I don't join organisations.
> > Synic's definition of a gun-loon: anyone who disagrees with his
> > opinion. ROFL.
>
> Nope: A gun-loon is anyone in a guns thread who is not a gun-grabber
> or undecided. Entirely standardised terms for those threads, not
> at all new, and hardly terms first used by me. I seriously find it
> hard to imagine that you've not seen those terms used before elsewhere
> in similar threads in the past.
Believe it or not, I don't pay much attention to gun threads, and my
contributions are generally to point out the futility of unenforceable
laws, and their lack of application to reality anyway. Which is why I
took issue with you. Ditto on drugs, where by common classification
I'd be far left, on abortion, on censorship, on pretty much every
issue where the freedom of an individual to do as they wish subject to
not harming others conflicts with people who have a 'Mission From God'
and know better what's good for the hoi polloi. Just like you & guns.
> >> Why would I give
> >> a flying fuck whether you believe I'm credible?
> >
> > Given your state of permanent denial of reality, you undoubtedly
> > don't. Makes no difference. As I've said elsewhere, I'm just here for
> > amusement and the joy of debate. You disappear, there are others to
> > tackle. What the hell.
>
> Same here, but, only on topics of interest that haven't been done
> to death. Guns is one such topic. Abortion is another. Israel vs
> Palestine is almost another, aside from the current-events angle.
> The arguments remain the same in these threads. At best, it becomes
> a game of waiting for someone to stumble and mumble the wrong lines
> or take an extreme view too far into the absurd. In the end, it gets
> a bit boring.
Agreed. I'm about to give a.p the flick for another few months. Lack
of worthy talent. Kate Orman won't answer the hard questions and I'm
getting sick of wading through regurgitated postings about how tough
life is in detention camps. I'm sure it is, but so what? Obviously the
alternative is worse, and for the poor bastards sitting in camps
overseas, it's a hell of a lot worse. Bet we could do a one for one
swap every day, someone in an Australian camp for someone in a
Pakistani camp, provided the people in the Pakistani camp got to make
the choice.
I don't even bother reading Palestine-Israel threads. Pox on the whole
lot of them, they deserve each other and it'll take a generational
change on both sides to make a difference. There, truly, lies plenty
of evidence to support your cynicism.
> > From your posts, I suspect that you think others have the same moral
> > outlook as *you* do. That's why you worry about firearms and classify
> > owners as loons
>
> Nope. Just convinced of humanity's general stupidity, arrogance and
> lack of forethought and concern for others. I'm occasionally proven
> wrong, but, very often proven right. This perhaps makes me a mite
> too cynical, but, such is life in the big city.
As I said, that's where we differ. I find most people helpful,
friendly and intelligent. Occasionally I'm wrong, but mostly I find
people to meet my expectations.
Peter Wiley
Synic
>
> You are. It seems you have yet to grow up.
> What makes you think I have anything to do with Oil and Gas?
Something you mentioned in email once. I stand corrected. Looks like
the oil and gas industry's anti-discrimination policies are safe
for now ;-).
> Hardly. Made the association. Not mates of mine. Spoken to Martin
> on 2 occasions since I left Paradox, John 0 times. Guy, a few times
> (and a beer in Freo), Garret several times (and he was my ISP
> for a while) and made it out to the Addinall boat and bagged a shark
> and rather a nice Cod.
Ah. I'll take you at your word then. Suffice to say that when Paradox
finally went into Administration, the Administrators report was very
critical of Tony and Martin and their business practices. Back in
2000, I seem to recall your mentioning catching up with one or
both of these characters well after Garret and Guy left. Around that
time we chatted on the hornblower.
>>Your discriminatory policy-breaking warning has been noted. Care
>>to state which company you're working for these days so that their
>>'senior IT manager' and his new hiring policies may be more widely
>>known?
>
> For sure. Thanks for the plug.
No drama. It helps to know who to avoid sending the CV to ;-).
> Addinall Engineering.
*laughs* Don't take this the wrong way, but, I wouldn't have applied
to work for Addinall Engineering anyway. It's therefore moot points
on both sides.
> My company, I'll hire who I like.
Fair enough.
> Well there you go. Currently I'm designing a widget for
> Wiley and a widget for the Army.
Fair enough.
> Left Woodside?
When my personal career becomes relevant to any of the topics we might
discuss on Usenet, I'll let you know. You'll eventually find out
anyway if you have an enquiring mind and my career is of absurdly high
interest to you. Perth is too small for it to be otherwise ;-).
> What next?
I think we end this sub-thread and find something more interesting
to do.
Synic
> Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>> Peter Wiley wrote:
>> > Funny, most people consider me to be libertarian/anarchist. But then
>> > you lefties hate individual freedoms,
>>
>> Incorrect. We link freedoms with responsibility and charge government
>> with the responsibility to ensure that people's economic station in
>> life is not determined by the wealth of their parents.
>
> Taking them in order:
>
> The first - freedom with responsibility - reminds me of a Heinlein
> definition where a free press was defined as 'responsible' and the
> Govt of the day defined what was responsible.
Interesting point. By the same token, a completely unrestrained
press without any sort of watchdog leads to ACA randomly picking on
unemployed people (eg, the Paxtons), the 'Barcelona Tonight' incident,
dodgy quacks with miracle cures being touted as real news (ACA, Today
Tonight), and un-announced advertorials being touted as real news
(John Laws and The Parrot). The UK tabloids paparazi probaby take
press abuses of freedom to further extremes.
While I don't want every current affairs show to be 'The 7.30 Report'
or 'Business Sunday', there does have to be some means of policing the
worst abuses.
> The second - I've always subscribed to the 3 generation rule, by and
> large. The first makes it, the 2nd conserves it, the 3rd blows it.
> Packers & Murdochs are showing early signs of following this path.
> There's hope...
*grin*
>> > so you just pigeonhole everyone
>> > else who disagrees with your dogma as right-wing.
>>
>> Actually, I normally clasify libertarians as border-line insane but
>> I haven't followed your writings here closely enough to make that
>> judgement of you.
>
> Nah, idealists. Impractical for the same reason communists are. I can
> live with being defined as above, tho.
>
>> > Your
>> > heroes killed millions of people and trashed countries whenever they
>> > tried to provide a better life for their citizens,
>>
>> Stalin was not a socialist, he was a totalitarian despot who masked
>> himself with a label.
>
> True. Why? The fundamental imperfectability of humans. He found that
> the ideals of communism conflicted with human aspirations. Therefore,
> he tried force to alter human nature. IMHO the same thing will happen
> every time people try to deny the fundamental aspiration of
> individuals to better their lot, and that of their children.
Actually, Stalin was never an idealist or a believer in communism.
There's a very good description of how Stalin came to power and his
corruption in Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed". Stalin was just a
straight-out despot who liked the perks of power. There are terrible
stories about his 'minor' abuses, just as there are for the millions
who perished.
(It really would have been interesting if Lenin had survived longer
or even if Trotsky had won the power struggle after Lenin died. The
observation that communism suffers from the fact that people need
financial incentive to strive is a sound one. However, Lenin's
investment in public education and economic infrastructure is
something unrivalled to this day. Before their revolution, they'd
been a flat-broke feudalist agrarian nation. It only took a decade
or so for them to become a less flat-broke industrialised nation.)
>> Masking a party with a contrary label is
>> something done even these days:
>>
>> o The far-Right Liberal Party,
>
> Right of centre, maybe.
I would have described them as just "rightwing" were it not for
their picking up of Pauline Hanson's "swamped by Asians" guff, the
continued serious attacks on the court system, and the new Anti-
Terrorism Bill. The latter, in particular.
>> o The Labor Party which dislikes its unions,
>
> Right of centre too.
Agreed.
>> o The National Party which claims to cater mainly for rural and
>> regional electorates,
>
> Agrarian socialists.
Yup. Those that don't have their heads so far up Abbot's arse they
could clean his teeth from the inside.
>> o Australian Democrats Party which voted for a GST when the
>> majority of voters voted against the Coalition in the two-party
>> prefered, etc.
>
> Idiots who haven't a clue, but if anything left-wing.
Yup. Their policies are created very democratically within their
party, but, unfortunately they can occasionally be mutually exclusive.
They really did pay for their support of the GST though.
>> The wierdest thing is that it always seems to be Libertarians who
>> have the most difficulty with the idea of parties not named in a
>> way which accurately describes their policies. I'd be interested
>> in your explanation of why that might be so.
>
> Dunno. I'm not into labels. I don't join organisations.
The reason I ask is that you're not the first Libertarian I've written
that paragraph for.
>> Nope: A gun-loon is anyone in a guns thread who is not a gun-grabber
>> or undecided. Entirely standardised terms for those threads, not
>> at all new, and hardly terms first used by me. I seriously find it
>> hard to imagine that you've not seen those terms used before elsewhere
>> in similar threads in the past.
>
> Believe it or not, I don't pay much attention to gun threads, and my
> contributions are generally to point out the futility of unenforceable
> laws, and their lack of application to reality anyway. Which is why I
> took issue with you.
Fair enough. My entry to the gun thread was taking issue with one of
Hillard's laughably extreme "nothing should be regulated at all"
blatherings. He'd learned nothing from his spanking in the film
censorship thread (where he backed himself into advocating that
child pornography and live cat skinning videos should be universally
available on demand).
> Ditto on drugs, where by common classification
> I'd be far left, on abortion, on censorship, on pretty much every
> issue where the freedom of an individual to do as they wish subject to
> not harming others conflicts with people who have a 'Mission From God'
> and know better what's good for the hoi polloi. Just like you & guns.
For the most part, I'd be fairly much with you on most victimless
crimes. Any further debate on specifics should really go to
aus.politics.guns though.
>> Same here, but, only on topics of interest that haven't been done
>> to death. Guns is one such topic. Abortion is another. Israel vs
>> Palestine is almost another, aside from the current-events angle.
>> The arguments remain the same in these threads. At best, it becomes
>> a game of waiting for someone to stumble and mumble the wrong lines
>> or take an extreme view too far into the absurd. In the end, it gets
>> a bit boring.
>
> Agreed. I'm about to give a.p the flick for another few months. Lack
> of worthy talent. Kate Orman won't answer the hard questions and I'm
> getting sick of wading through regurgitated postings about how tough
> life is in detention camps.
Killfiling really can be the way to go, even if just giving yourself a
holiday from the same old tedious people and topics and finding things
you'd otherwise overlooked.
> I'm sure it is, but so what? Obviously the
> alternative is worse, and for the poor bastards sitting in camps
> overseas, it's a hell of a lot worse. Bet we could do a one for one
> swap every day, someone in an Australian camp for someone in a
> Pakistani camp, provided the people in the Pakistani camp got to make
> the choice.
My take on the situation was that it was financially cheaper to give
them their freedom (with or without chipping and regular checkins) and
the dole for five years (assuming some don't find work) than to build
these prisons on remote islands and pay the cited Pacific Solution
Charges for one year. The math should be in the Google archives. At
the moment, we're spending much more money than we need to just to be
inhumane.
> I don't even bother reading Palestine-Israel threads. Pox on the whole
> lot of them, they deserve each other and it'll take a generational
> change on both sides to make a difference. There, truly, lies plenty
> of evidence to support your cynicism.
Absolutely.
>> > From your posts, I suspect that you think others have the same moral
>> > outlook as *you* do. That's why you worry about firearms and classify
>> > owners as loons
>>
>> Nope. Just convinced of humanity's general stupidity, arrogance and
>> lack of forethought and concern for others. I'm occasionally proven
>> wrong, but, very often proven right. This perhaps makes me a mite
>> too cynical, but, such is life in the big city.
>
> As I said, that's where we differ. I find most people helpful,
> friendly and intelligent. Occasionally I'm wrong, but mostly I find
> people to meet my expectations.
Half your luck. Still, healthy cynicism and a dose of distrust has been
handy to me in my profession in IT over the years; from client support
through systems and network admin through to LARTing spammy/net-abusing
client ISPs and SMEs.
Mark Addinall
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>Mark Addinall wrote:
>>Synic <revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
>>>[...] So much for the alleged policies in the oil and
>>>gas industry against discrimination for political views. Pathetic.
>>
>> You are. It seems you have yet to grow up.
>> What makes you think I have anything to do with Oil and Gas?
>
>Something you mentioned in email once. I stand corrected. Looks like
>the oil and gas industry's anti-discrimination policies are safe
>for now ;-).
I used to work over the road from you.
Minerals and Energy. Mineral House.
Contract of course, helping the guvmint out
of a pickle. More rocks and sand rather than
Oil and Gas. Did some consulting to Schluemernberger (the ones
with the funny name) whilst on St George Tce. Not much.
>
>> Hardly. Made the association. Not mates of mine. Spoken to Martin
>> on 2 occasions since I left Paradox, John 0 times. Guy, a few times
>> (and a beer in Freo), Garret several times (and he was my ISP
>> for a while) and made it out to the Addinall boat and bagged a shark
>> and rather a nice Cod.
>
>Ah. I'll take you at your word then. Suffice to say that when Paradox
>finally went into Administration, the Administrators report was very
>critical of Tony and Martin and their business practices. Back in
>2000, I seem to recall your mentioning catching up with one or
>both of these characters well after Garret and Guy left. Around that
>time we chatted on the hornblower.
I did. I caught up with Martin as I was shopping around the
world for a sizeable chunk of bandwidth and a convenient
satellite.
>
>>>Your discriminatory policy-breaking warning has been noted. Care
>>>to state which company you're working for these days so that their
>>>'senior IT manager' and his new hiring policies may be more widely
>>>known?
>>
>> For sure. Thanks for the plug.
>
>No drama. It helps to know who to avoid sending the CV to ;-).
>
>> Addinall Engineering.
>
>*laughs* Don't take this the wrong way, but, I wouldn't have applied
>to work for Addinall Engineering anyway. It's therefore moot points
>on both sides.
>
>> My company, I'll hire who I like.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>> Well there you go. Currently I'm designing a widget for
>> Wiley and a widget for the Army.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>> Left Woodside?
>
>When my personal career becomes relevant to any of the topics we might
>discuss on Usenet, I'll let you know. You'll eventually find out
>anyway if you have an enquiring mind and my career is of absurdly high
>interest to you. Perth is too small for it to be otherwise ;-).
>
>> What next?
>
>I think we end this sub-thread and find something more interesting
>to do.
Fairy nuff.
Mark Addinall.
>
Tom Osborn
"Peter Wiley" <peter_...@hotmail.com> wrote
>...48 years old, I know what I am, and am not, capable of doing.
Nothing wrong with that.
Tomasso.
Scott Hillard
> >> Had I been more mature about it, I'd have asked you, Hillard and Wiley
> >> to take the thread to aus.politics.guns and left you to it. I take this
> >> opportunity to apologise to the rest of the newsgroup for not doing so.
> > I would have ignored you.
> Completely irrelevant whether you listen. You, Hillard and Addinall
> are gun-loons. I don't expect you to give a toss about other people.
> I set myself higher standards.
In aus.politics, we refer to this as "The Peter Terry Defence".
When backed into a corner, lable everyone opposed to you as a "Nazi" (or
something equally convenient - "gun loon" seems to work well for you), and
bugger off.
> Gun threads are a waste of time, full stop.
Guns are incidental to the discussion at hand. It's about freedom &
responsibility - two concepts that you are equally afraid of.
> > When you cut & run, it just reinforces your lack of credibility.
Peter's right.
> Poor diddums I. But I'm sure I'll get over it, right about... now.
> Seriously... You're a rabid rightwing gun-loon. Why would I give
> a flying fuck whether you believe I'm credible?
The Peter Terry Defence.
Synic
> [...] Did some consulting to Schluemernberger (the ones
> with the funny name) whilst on St George Tce.
Traditionally pronounced "scum burger" unless bribed with with branded
mugs and other small trinkets :-).
While it may be a tradition to joke a little about their name, at least
their apps aren't programmed by retarded monkeys on crack like some of
the other commercial software in the industry.
Scott Hillard
> Peter Wiley wrote:
> > The first - freedom with responsibility - reminds me of a Heinlein
> > definition where a free press was defined as 'responsible' and the
> > Govt of the day defined what was responsible.
> Interesting point. By the same token, a completely unrestrained
> press without any sort of watchdog leads to ACA randomly picking on
> unemployed people (eg, the Paxtons),
Yet this has happened, without a completely unrestrained press, in the
presence of a "watchdog".
And other agencies were free to pick the piss out of ACA for the clear
falsehood, and make it known to all.
> the 'Barcelona Tonight' incident,
> dodgy quacks with miracle cures being touted as real news (ACA, Today
> Tonight),
So what? If people don't want to see that shit, the ratings will dive, and
a commercial decision will be made to remove or alter the programme. Big
deal.
> and un-announced advertorials being touted as real news
> (John Laws and The Parrot).
Which even blind Freddy could see through. Who cares if a few stupids get
strung along? That's their problem. Laws, the Parrot, even that clown who
does the JJJ morning show should be allowed to say whatever they damn well
please. If people don't like it, there are plenty of other radio stations
out there.
> While I don't want every current affairs show to be 'The 7.30 Report'
> or 'Business Sunday', there does have to be some means of policing the
> worst abuses.
There will always be the competition, waiting to ambush the bastards for any
such slip-ups. Imagine the hiding ACA could cop from other networks over
the Paxton affair, if there was no regulation?
> >> o The far-Right Liberal Party,
> > Right of centre, maybe.
> I would have described them as just "rightwing" were it not for
> their picking up of Pauline Hanson's "swamped by Asians" guff,
What restrictions have they placed on Asian entering Australia for tourist,
business, or migration purposes?
None. In fact, they've made it even easier for wealthy asians.
What restrictions have they plced on Asian ownership of Australian assets?
None. In fact, they've permitted SingTel to buy up Optus, etc.
> the continued serious attacks on the court system,
The entire court system needs the cleaners put through it. The Judiciary
are the ultimate example of "unrepresentative swill", and need to be held
accountable (Roddy Meagher, NSW Supreme Court, excepted - he's a legend).
The only way to do this is via an elected judiciary.
> and the new Anti- Terrorism Bill. The latter, in particular.
Shock, horror, end of civilisation as we know it.
> > Believe it or not, I don't pay much attention to gun threads, and my
> > contributions are generally to point out the futility of unenforceable
> > laws, and their lack of application to reality anyway. Which is why I
> > took issue with you.
> Fair enough. My entry to the gun thread was taking issue with one of
> Hillard's laughably extreme "nothing should be regulated at all"
> blatherings.
Nor should it. So long as you do not directly harm innocent people, or
their property (animals included), nobody - guv'mint or otherwise - should
tell you how to live your life.
> He'd learned nothing from his spanking in the film
> censorship thread
Probably because no such "spanking" occured. You see a problem with:
> (where he backed himself into advocating that
> child pornography and live cat skinning videos should be universally
> available on demand).
I don't.
If such material exists, then the damage has already been done. You cannot
undo it by throwing people in gaol (or more likely fining them) for
posessing, viewing, distributing or broadcasting it.
When you forge the first link in the chain, sunshine, it takes on a life of
its own - and you can't undo it when you wake up and think "whoops, this has
gone a bit too far!".
> > Ditto on drugs, where by common classification
> > I'd be far left, on abortion, on censorship, on pretty much every
> > issue where the freedom of an individual to do as they wish subject to
> > not harming others conflicts with people who have a 'Mission From God'
> > and know better what's good for the hoi polloi. Just like you & guns.
> For the most part, I'd be fairly much with you on most victimless
> crimes. Any further debate on specifics should really go to
> aus.politics.guns though.
Nobody elected you the moderator of aus.politics, boy. You get no say in
what discussion takes place here.
> >> Nope. Just convinced of humanity's general stupidity, arrogance and
> >> lack of forethought and concern for others. I'm occasionally proven
> >> wrong, but, very often proven right. This perhaps makes me a mite
> >> too cynical, but, such is life in the big city.
I agree with Peter's criticism of the company you keep.
> > As I said, that's where we differ. I find most people helpful,
> > friendly and intelligent. Occasionally I'm wrong, but mostly I find
> > people to meet my expectations.
> Half your luck. Still, healthy cynicism and a dose of distrust has been
> handy to me in my profession in IT over the years; from client support
> through systems and network admin through to LARTing spammy/net-abusing
> client ISPs and SMEs.
Irrelevant. Peter's point about human behaviour is correct.
The vast majority of people don't avoid murder/ rape/ theft/ vandalism/ etc
because they are ILLEGAL, they avoid them because they are WRONG.
Tom Osborn
"Tom Osborn" <osb...@ntf.com.au> wrote in message
news:aej305$boo$1...@merki.connect.com.au...
>
> "Peter Wiley" <peter_...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >...48 years old, I know what I am, and am not, capable of doing.
>
> Nothing wrong with that.
However, in my case, I know what I'm not wanting to do. The capability
thing (including future capabilities, etc) is up in the air. It's important
to
know how hard something is to do. Over the years I have become
pretty good at determining that. After that, it's about deciding whether
to find out wheter the hardness estimate is accurate.
Petey's neural circuitry may be more streamlined than mine, and the
decision comes out in one step, rather than revealing the intermediate
assessment. [But if you know how hard something is, you know how
much to charge, or how much time to put aside...].
Tomasso.
Andrew D
aware of yet another pro-family group - The Australian Family Alliance.
Whilst this group may not be labelled "rightwing" (they are opposed to
economic rationalism and the sell-off of assets) they, like many other
pro-family groups and individuals recognise radical feminism as a major
cause of family breakdown in Australia.
"We believe that the anti-family forces of radical feminism and secularism
have to be countered."
<http://www.familyalliance.org.au/introduction.html>
Peter Wiley
> "Tom Osborn" <osb...@ntf.com.au> wrote in message
> news:aej305$boo$1...@merki.connect.com.au...
> >
> > "Peter Wiley" <peter_...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > >...48 years old, I know what I am, and am not, capable of doing.
> >
> > Nothing wrong with that.
>
> However, in my case, I know what I'm not wanting to do. The capability
> thing (including future capabilities, etc) is up in the air.
I was only referring to internal morality issues, like inflicting
unprovoked and undeserved harm on other human beings for financial
gain, asdistic pleasure or just downright wilful ignorance.
It's important
> to
> know how hard something is to do. Over the years I have become
> pretty good at determining that. After that, it's about deciding whether
> to find out wheter the hardness estimate is accurate.
>
> Petey's neural circuitry may be more streamlined than mine, and the
> decision comes out in one step, rather than revealing the intermediate
> assessment.
One functional neuron limits the possible decision trees quite
nicely....
[But if you know how hard something is, you know how
> much to charge, or how much time to put aside...].
Let's not forget the Wiley copyrighted invoice acronym APF followed by
a large dollar amount. When queried - which IME didn't happen all that
often - you look the client in the eye, say 'Aggravation Penalty
Factor' and wait to see the reaction.
Or my other line - 'That will be very difficult and expensive to
implement'. Translation: that's stupid but if you want to pay a
fortune for it, I'll swallow my objections.
Best not to need or want the client first, of course, but for people
like us, need is rarely a problem, especially for nuisances. Software
design was a lot of fun.
Peter Wiley
Scott Steel
They look like just another bunch of superficial, moralising
dipsticks.
Ban the movie Lolita :
http://www.familyalliance.org.au/press/lolita.html
Apparently adults arent to be trusted watching fiction in
case it sends them the "wrong message".
They take the usual, head-up-the-arse approach to drug law
that's par for the course for moralising wankers.Not
realising that they vehemently support the legislative
regime that *_creates_* most of the problems relating to
family breakdown that they say they are against.Hypocritical
posers.
http://www.familyalliance.org.au/press/drugs.html
They want to use inefficient welfare and redistribution
mechanisms rather than the tax system to provide financial
incentives to have rugrats.Someone should tell them that
$150 a week wont do fuck all for anyone except those already
on the welfare system.Completely clueless:
http://www.familyalliance.org.au/press/birthrate.html
They dont believe that people can be trusted to decide
whether or not they should die when they're terminally ill:
http://www.familyalliance.org.au/press/euthanasia.html
They apparently want taxpayers to subsidise the cost of
"families" to attend live sporting events (or otherwise this
piece of piss and wind is just that):
http://www.familyalliance.org.au/press/sports.html
They bitch and moan about government not addressing the
"causes of crime" while hypocritically supporting the drug
law regime that is the biggest cause of 'em all:
http://www.familyalliance.org.au/press/crimeprevention.html
I like this one - their "Comprehensive Development Plan for
Regional NSW".All 560 words of it! B^D
They're hearts are sort of in the right place, but their
heads are somewhere else entirely.... if only things were so
simple:
http://www.familyalliance.org.au/press/ruraldevelopment.html
Surely Andy, there must be a better quality group to support
than this bunch of fruitloops?
Scott Steel
Andrew D
scott...@news.iprimus.com.au wrote:
+On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:39:07 +0800,
+right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote:
+
+>Just gettihng back to the original theme of this thread. I've just become
+>aware of yet another pro-family group - The Australian Family Alliance.
+>Whilst this group may not be labelled "rightwing" (they are opposed to
+>economic rationalism and the sell-off of assets) they, like many other
+>pro-family groups and individuals recognise radical feminism as a major
+>cause of family breakdown in Australia.
+>"We believe that the anti-family forces of radical feminism and secularism
+>have to be countered."
+><http://www.familyalliance.org.au/introduction.html>
+They look like just another bunch of superficial, moralising
+dipsticks.
[snip]
They want to use inefficient welfare and redistribution
mechanisms rather than the tax system to provide financial
incentives to have rugrats.Someone should tell them that
$150 a week wont do fuck all for anyone except those already
on the welfare system.Completely clueless:
http://www.familyalliance.org.au/press/birthrate.html
[snip]
+Surely Andy, there must be a better quality group to support
+than this bunch of fruitloops?
Just one more group to add to the growing list. Every lobby has it's
extremist members - I don't assume the family lobby is any different. The
main difference I do see is that while the entire family lobby is largely
ignored, the fundamentalist arm of the feminist lobby is influencing
policy at all levels of government.
As for "inneficient welfare...", I'd have to say that this is currently
the mainstream view. Labor and The Democrats both look to welfare as the
preferred way of dealing with the inequity generated by our family-blind
tax system. The problem is, neither of them proposes making the welfare
system family blind so that family members are not penalised by the
current anti-marriage (co-habitation) penalties.
And whilst the Coalition appears to use the tax system to "assist"
families, it does so through the use of rebates which are often mirrored
by welfare payments for families not able to claim the rebate. Since the
"recognition" of dependants is not in the form of an actual *tax
deduction*, it is just another complicated "welfare" payment.
I'm still waiting for Synic to provide evidence that the feminist movement
is pro-family, pro-motherhood, pro-choice.
Synic
> Just gettihng back to the original theme of this thread. I've just become
> aware of yet another pro-family group - The Australian Family Alliance.
>
> Whilst this group may not be labelled "rightwing" (they are opposed to
> economic rationalism and the sell-off of assets) they, like many other
> pro-family groups and individuals recognise radical feminism as a major
> cause of family breakdown in Australia.
As I've mentioned before, I have no particular disagreement with the
principle of family unit taxation. However, I believe the feminists are
a red herring. They are not the real barrier to getting family unit
taxation in place.
The real enemies to your family unit taxation model will be the same
people in the ALP/Coalition who fought to have individual contractors,
who set themselves up in a company structure, designated to be
employees. It comes down to big business lobbyists who want individuals
and families taxed highly to subsidise the tax obligations that would
otherwise fall more upon big business.
Seriously, do you think the Coalition would give a flying toss about
what feminists think? They certainly don't care about ACOSS, ATSIC,
the charities, former ALP and Liberal PMs, small business who didn't
want a bar of the GST, etc.
As it stands, you're still off on your tangent and in no danger of
putting the major parties on notice that their status quo might be
unpopular with Mum and Dad Australia. They're able to just write
you off as being yet another kook who has a grudge against women
and the Family Court.
> "We believe that the anti-family forces of radical feminism and secularism
> have to be countered."
><http://www.familyalliance.org.au/introduction.html>
There lies a squidgy path of red herrings to a watery lake of obscurity.
Synic
> I'm still waiting for Synic to provide evidence that the feminist movement
> is pro-family, pro-motherhood, pro-choice.
Why should I bother providing the irrelevant? Feminists are not serious
barriers to family unit taxation. They may not be gung-ho for it, but,
they're hardly gung-ho against it either. Feminists are in the 'who
the fuck really cares either way' basket.
Unfortunately, it looks like a previous posting never made it to the
server, so I'll repost with what I responded in that one (with one
or two minor additions):
As I've mentioned before, I have no particular disagreement with the
principle of family unit taxation. However, I believe the feminists are
a red herring. They are not the real barrier to getting family unit
taxation in place.
The real enemies to your family unit taxation model will be the same
people in the ALP/Coalition who fought to have individual contractors,
who set themselves up in a company structure, designated to be
employees. It comes down to big business lobbyists who want individuals
and families taxed highly to subsidise the tax obligations that would
otherwise fall more upon big business.
Seriously, do you think the Coalition would give a flying toss about
what feminists think? They certainly don't care about ACOSS, ATSIC,
the charities, former ALP and Liberal PMs, small business who didn't
want a bar of the GST, etc, etc, etc.
As it stands, you're still off on your tangent and in no danger of
putting the major parties on notice that their status quo might be
unpopular with Mum and Dad Australia. They're able to just write
you off as being yet another kook who has a grudge against women
and the Family Court (primarily due to your obsession with feminists).
> "We believe that the anti-family forces of radical feminism and
> secularism
> have to be countered."
><http://www.familyalliance.org.au/introduction.html>
There lies a squidgy path of red herrings to a watery lake of obscurity.
Scott Hillard
Scott Steel <scott...@news.iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:f772huslnlmmnciac...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:39:07 +0800,
> right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote:
> >"We believe that the anti-family forces of radical feminism and
secularism> >have to be countered."
> ><http://www.familyalliance.org.au/introduction.html>
Sounds like a bit of a worry. All too reminiscent of Freaky Fred Vile and
his fugly life-partner Elaine.
> They look like just another bunch of superficial, moralising
> dipsticks.
> Ban the movie Lolita :
> http://www.familyalliance.org.au/press/lolita.html
Gas the bastards! What sort of world would it be if Jeremy Irons couldn't
indulge his fetish for under-age girls on screen?
(Lolita, Waterland, Swan in Love...does anyone else see a pattern here?)
> Apparently adults arent to be trusted watching fiction in
> case it sends them the "wrong message".
Base Moi all over again. The censors should all be lined up and shot.
Doesn't matter if they want to put a stop to Lolita, Terminator II, Evil
Dead IV (rumoured to be coming) or Ulysees - they're all tarred with the
same brush. The human race will advance faster, once their defective genes
are removed from the species.
> They dont believe that people can be trusted to decide
> whether or not they should die when they're terminally ill:
> http://www.familyalliance.org.au/press/euthanasia.html
This is even worse than the censorship hobby-horse. Gas them slowly.
> They apparently want taxpayers to subsidise the cost of
> "families" to attend live sporting events (or otherwise this
> piece of piss and wind is just that):
> http://www.familyalliance.org.au/press/sports.html
Getting beyond a joke....
Scott Hillard
> In article <right-20060...@i160-108.nv.iinet.net.au>, Andrew D
wrote:
> > I'm still waiting for Synic to provide evidence that the feminist
movement
> > is pro-family, pro-motherhood, pro-choice.
> Why should I bother providing the irrelevant?
Translation:
"I've been out-done yet again, so I'll cut and run - yet again."
You have no stamina, boy. None whatsoever. Even Che will stay in a fight
longer than you will.
Andrew D
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
+Andrew D wrote:
+> Just gettihng back to the original theme of this thread. I've just become
+> aware of yet another pro-family group - The Australian Family Alliance.
+>
+> Whilst this group may not be labelled "rightwing" (they are opposed to
+> economic rationalism and the sell-off of assets) they, like many other
+> pro-family groups and individuals recognise radical feminism as a major
+> cause of family breakdown in Australia.
+
+As I've mentioned before, I have no particular disagreement with the
+principle of family unit taxation. However, I believe the feminists are
+a red herring. They are not the real barrier to getting family unit
+taxation in place.
+The real enemies to your family unit taxation model will be the same
+people in the ALP/Coalition who fought to have individual contractors,
+who set themselves up in a company structure, designated to be
+employees. It comes down to big business lobbyists who want individuals
+and families taxed highly to subsidise the tax obligations that would
+otherwise fall more upon big business.
I think you'll find business are overall supporters of independent
contractors because it relieves them of a lot of employee-related
responsibility. I also think you'll find the business community overall
would welcome a tax system that delivers relief to families - it's mostly
a rightwing thing (which is the point I've been making from the start).
Imagine the savings on accountant fees for a business director who no
longer has to channel money through the wages book or a family trust in
order to have his family recognised as rightful shareholders in the
business profits.
+Seriously, do you think the Coalition would give a flying toss about
+what feminists think? They certainly don't care about ACOSS, ATSIC,
+the charities, former ALP and Liberal PMs, small business who didn't
+want a bar of the GST, etc.
Perhaps ACOSS, ATSIC and others don't have influential members within the
Liberal party. Amanda Vanstone and others are strong opponents of homecare
because they apparently believe the feminist rhetoric that real women
should be in the paid workforce, not frittering their lives away raising
children. It appears Joe Hockey has jumped aboard that bandwagon this week
too.
+As it stands, you're still off on your tangent and in no danger of
+putting the major parties on notice that their status quo might be
+unpopular with Mum and Dad Australia. They're able to just write
+you off as being yet another kook who has a grudge against women
+and the Family Court.
Women? How do I have a grudge against women? I'm against today's feminists
- nothing to do with women on the whole. I've repeatedly pointed you to an
organisation dedicated to the support of women's rights - a women's group
run largely (entirely?) by women for women - and I have expressed large
amounts of support for their cause - but they are not feminists. If that
makes me anti-women then I'll wear the label proudly.
Andrew D
<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
+In article <right-20060...@i160-108.nv.iinet.net.au>, Andrew D wrote:
+> I'm still waiting for Synic to provide evidence that the feminist movement
+> is pro-family, pro-motherhood, pro-choice.
+
+Why should I bother providing the irrelevant? Feminists are not serious
+barriers to family unit taxation. They may not be gung-ho for it, but,
+they're hardly gung-ho against it either. Feminists are in the 'who
+the fuck really cares either way' basket.
I've provided plenty of contrary evidence. To date, all you've provided is
personal opinion. It isn't irrelevant when the most vocal feminist lobby
groups in the country are AGAINST fulltime homecare.
Clearly you haven't signed onto AusFem-PolNet. I'd suggest you do if you
want a clue as to what Australia's leading feminists are up to.
Unfortunately they do not have an archive (to my knowledge) but if they
did you would find fulltime housewives and mothers referred to as
"rabbits" - and not because they're cute and cuddly.
So whilst it's true that the real problem, as always, is politicians -
they are able to use today's feminists as a convenient post on which to
lean. If the feminist lobby changed its attitude to homecare, the pollies
would have to act on family tax inequity or search for new ways to defend
their failure to act.
Andrew D
right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote:
+In article <slrnah039p.6v0...@lark.autons.net.au>, Synic
+<revers...@indigo.net.au> wrote:
[snip]
++As it stands, you're still off on your tangent and in no danger of
++putting the major parties on notice that their status quo might be
++unpopular with Mum and Dad Australia. They're able to just write
++you off as being yet another kook who has a grudge against women
++and the Family Court.
+Women? How do I have a grudge against women? I'm against today's feminists
+- nothing to do with women on the whole. I've repeatedly pointed you to an
+organisation dedicated to the support of women's rights - a women's group
+run largely (entirely?) by women for women - and I have expressed large
+amounts of support for their cause - but they are not feminists. If that
+makes me anti-women then I'll wear the label proudly.
I was reminded today of just how pro-woman my arguments are. A lady who
recognised my name from numerous letters to the paper came over to
congratulate me and voice her strong support for my views. When I think
about it, almost everyone who's ever commented to me about my letters (and
many of these have been strangers who recognise my name) have been women
and they invariably offer support and wish me luck.
Geez, maybe I'm a misandrist!!!???
Synic
[...]
> Clearly you haven't signed onto AusFem-PolNet. I'd suggest you do if you
> want a clue as to what Australia's leading feminists are up to.
> Unfortunately they do not have an archive (to my knowledge) but if they
> did you would find fulltime housewives and mothers referred to as
> "rabbits" - and not because they're cute and cuddly.
Possibly true of that mailing list. Join any mailing list and you'll see
extremists.
> So whilst it's true that the real problem, as always, is politicians -
> they are able to use today's feminists as a convenient post on which to
> lean.
I doubt these sort of feminists are even on the radar of most politicians.
> If the feminist lobby changed its attitude to homecare, the pollies
> would have to act on family tax inequity or search for new ways to defend
> their failure to act.
Doubtful.
I'll leave you to your jihad. Have fun.