Support NeoGAF

[Arksy]

Yep, I think the targeting of it is absolutely criminal. I also think the total should be higher but the focus should be more social. :/

Edit: And none of that is what MOrrison is talking about. He is just trying to make the middle class hate the poors.

Well that's an assumption because he's a dolt that didn't properly articulate his position.

It could be true, but until he pulls his finger out of his ass and learns to actually articulate instead of obfuscate no one is going to be on board.

 

[Dead Man]

Well that's an assumption because he's a dolt that didn't properly articulate his position.

LOL, can't argue that.

 

[D.Lo]

Social Security spending is far too high.

And by that I am not referring to dole payments at all.

Pension for people who do not need it (people with expensive houses etc), masses of middle class welfare - it's just so dumb to take tax, and then have the same people apply to have some of it back via another department.

 

[Yagharek]

That's a silly argument, people lie and cheat naturally, use violence like almost every member of the animal kingdom. We suppress so much that is natural.

In fact, its not a silly argument, it's an incomplete argument. It's natural and harmless. So we have no reason to ask people to subdue their base desires like we do for so much harmful shit.

It's not a silly argument.

Homosexuality is a natural state. Denying people equal rights based on innate qualities which cause no harm is not fair.

 

[Dead Man]

It's not a silly argument.

Homosexuality is a natural state. Denying people equal rights based on innate qualities which cause no harm is not fair.

Eh, it is and isn't. As long as you include the no harm qualifier, but then it is more about it harming no one rather than being natural. Nothing that does no one else harm should be grounds for discrimination, natural or otherwise.

 

[Yagharek]

I'm not arguing the entire "everything natural" argument people are quick to assign on the previous page (for shame, jintor, Arksy and JC sera).

I'm saying that in a specific case here, where one artificial construct conflicts with a natural (and not pathological) human condition, then natural qualities get first preference. Especially when acknowledging those qualities imposes no duress upon people who have a certain religious sensibility. They aren't being forced to be homosexual. Their religious freedom isn't being restricted.

Honestly. It's like some people see one comment and want to dismiss it with a throwaway line akin to the old "communism is great in theory" flipoff.

 

[Jintor]

i'm not arguing that you're arguing that argument! i'm saying the argument itself is stupid no matter which side you're arguing it in any direction

for shame yahg

/edit even if homosexuality was an artificial state it would still deserve the same rights and protections as if it were a natural state. if people *chose* to be homosexual as long as it didn't harm others it wouldn't matter either way in terms of it not being constrained by other freedoms

 

[Yagharek]

Lucky no one was making the argument from nature then.

Edit: on choice, you are in another lane to the one I'm in. Where it comes to natural qualities, it's somewhat analogous to being left handed and forced to write right handed. You can't force people to act against their own nature without risking unhealthy manifestations. Just as you can't stick someone in solitary isolation and expect normal behaviour upon release. If you deny a homosexual person the ability to healthily express their mutual love, you risk causing them mental harm and anguish.

There is no harm caused, conversely, by limiting the expression of religious bigotry.

 

[Jintor]

Lucky no one was making the argument from nature then.

Aren't you saying because something is natural that it has priority over something that's an artificial construct?

 

[Yagharek]

Read my edit. It's pretty clear.

 

[Jintor]

I can get behind that, but I still hold my view also

 

[Yagharek]

I can get behind that, but I still hold my view also

Hold your view all you like, and you'll see no argument from me because it's a different topic to that which I raised.

I'm mildly annoyed to be associated with social darwinism and homeopathy from the misappropriation going on on the previous page.

 

[Jintor]

You made a statement that was easily misinterpreted as being an argument from nature and people quite naturally started talking about the argument from nature. Whether they said that you were making said argument from nature etc. is a matter of interpretation of the posts. Personally, I think they were just talking about the argument itself and not associating you with it + homeopathy or whatever.

Anyway, can we get back to talking about how our government continues to be full of shitbags and table breakers

 

[JC Sera]

Hold your view all you like, and you'll see no argument from me because it's a different topic to that which I raised.

I'm mildly annoyed to be associated with social darwinism and homeopathy from the misappropriation going on on the previous page.

sorry
thats just me going on a rant from nature and a build up of pet peeves

like i dont mind so much the from nature argument for homosexuality because its used to counter untrue claims that heterosexuality is the natural default

but I also think that independent of nature, homosexuality should be given all the rights equivalent to heterosexuality

I didn't mean to associate you with that
I'm really sorry

 

[Yagharek]

Thank you.

I just tried to make a simple point that innate personal traits should always be accepted (unless they are pathological in which case they need help).

It's no different to saying that someone because of their race/age/political view/religion/gender/sexuality should be able to live their lives freely and without unfair restrictions because of those traits.

Because marriage is an idea that predates any extant religion, I believe it should be accessible to all so long as it is consensual and there is no impropriety (e.g. power imbalance a la child brides or settling of debts with brides as currency).

Any limitation imposed by people because of beliefs they hold (cultural, religious) that revoke rights of other need to be viewed in context that not everyone in a society holds those beliefs, and thus should not be beholden to them.

That is not an argument from nature. It's an argument that innate human qualities ought be respected.

 

[Arksy]

We agree, people should be allowed to do what they want to do as long as it doesn't cause harm to any one else. Some people are homosexual and the fact that it's harmless is the reason why no one has an issue with it. Some people are naturally violent, but because of its immense potential for harm we expect people not to engage in it unless they absolutely have to.

 

[D.Lo]

Because marriage is an idea that predates any extant religion, I believe it should be accessible to all

So it is something humans invented, but as long as it pre-dates middle eastern religion it's an 'inmate human quality'?

It's a very weak argument.

 

[Fredescu]

Social Security spending is far too high.

And by that I am not referring to dole payments at all.

Pension for people who do not need it (people with expensive houses etc), masses of middle class welfare - it's just so dumb to take tax, and then have the same people apply to have some of it back via another department.

The best part about this type of welfare is the millions of dollars worth of industry lobbying behind it. Witness the dummy spit when Gillard tried to water down car salary sacrificing. There is absolutely no justification to allow someone to claim tax discounts because they bought an expensive car for private use, but it is a huge industry that can afford an expensive marketing campaign.

We're at a point now where business is far more effective at communicating their desires to people than politicians are.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

In case anyone was a little disappointed with the politely mild adulation our former worst treasurer ever has received over the past few days:

Joe Hockey's biggest failure was his loyalty to Tony Abbott

To mangle Shakespeare, nothing in Joe Hockey's treasurership became him like no longer being it.

The usual purloining of the quote concludes "like the leaving it", but Hockey's farewell speech was largely rubbish, confirming that he had never been up to the job.

When the usual platitudes subside as the politicians and gallery wish a fellow warrior well after long years in a brutal occupation, the speech should be seen as one of the weaker attempts at self-aggrandisement, re-writing history, buck-passing and, finally, apparent disloyalty to Tony Abbott after years of being too loyal. What a mess.

And there remains a question I haven't seen answered: which came first, Hockey's decision to leave Parliament or the understanding of being offered an ambassadorship? Is the Member for North Sydney being paid to go, or did he bargain his resignation?

After this lamentable farewell speech, his suitability for a major post must be doubted.

Hockey the fantasy economist may as well have farewelled Middle Earth

Joe Hockey’s apology for his time as treasurer – that the policy was good, the politics less so – is far from reality. Both were dreadful, unfair and half-baked

 

[Shaneus]

I didn't see it mentioned here, but does anyone know what happened with Bernard Keane of Crikey fame? Someone my girlfriend was following tweeted something asking about rumours of him being escorted from the Crikey offices and hasn't tweeted himself for a few days.

 

[danm999]

So Warren Entsch wants Parliament to vote to make the promised marriage equality plebiscite scheduled after the next election binding.

Basically, he wants to make it so that if the plebiscite suceeds, MPs cannot simply disregard it and vote against it anyway.

Now Eric Abetz has come out and called that an "ambush" and that he wouldn't want to bind the next Parliament to a vote of this one, almost admitting the plebiscite is worthless and there's a strong possibility the MP of the next Parliament will ignore it anyway.

Puts Turnbull in a spot of bother.

 

[Arksy]

Abetz is right, can't bind future parliaments. But it would be absolute electoral suicide to ignore the plebiscite. Unthinkable.

 

[danm999]

I'm still of the opinion the plebiscite was designed by Abbott to never actually occur.

 

[Fredescu]

I didn't see it mentioned here, but does anyone know what happened with Bernard Keane of Crikey fame? Someone my girlfriend was following tweeted something asking about rumours of him being escorted from the Crikey offices and hasn't tweeted himself for a few days.

Asher Wolf tweeted that as a joke. She suspects he's on holidays.

 

[Aarglefarg]

I dread the plebiscite for the nasty fear mongering that will come with it.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Speaking of Abetz:

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: On that issue, more broadly on that issue, you took a swipe at the media for unfairly treating conservative Christian politicians earlier this week.

Do you really think Christian values don't get a fair hearing?

ERIC ABETZ: What I said was that there was a negative sentiment over Right- conservative politicians, and a subset of that was the treatment of Christian conservative politicians.

And yes, I do. How often for example have I had to put up with the tag of "Religious Right" or "Far Right", whereas hardly ever hear it of the "Religious Left" or the "Irreligious Left" or the "Far Left" or the "Extreme Left" when talking about the Australian Greens or vast elements of the Australian Labor Party?

And it's this sort of subtle stereotyping and slapping labels on people that a number of my colleagues have got a bit sick and tired of and as a result I gave expression to it.

And if I might say, Michael, the public reaction has been overwhelming, people saying…

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Religious right, though - it's not an inaccurate description though, is it?

ERIC ABETZ: Well the term - well, if you are into labels Michael, and this is where all I'm seeking is fair treatment. If you say "Religious Right", why don't you say "Irreligious Left" or "Godless Left"? That is what I'm talking about.

If you want accurate descriptors where religion all of a sudden becomes so important, fine, but then call out atheists for what they are - atheists. And that never happens, does it Michael?

And that is what I am concerned about.

And, can I tell you, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of our fellow Australians are concerned about that unfair treatment as well, keeping in mind that more people go to church of a weekend than go to the football.

But yeah, this twisting and spinning on the plebiscite is, for all the humour it entails, pretty sad. Shorten actually made a good point when he mentioned that a plebiscite would inevitably involve the sort of campaigns that would contribute to depression and self harm. Between that and the pointlessness/cost of it all they could actually pressure Turnbull to do something about it.

 

[danm999]

Turnbull seems boxed in by the Nationals agreement. Which gives the lie to the issue being an irrelevant one if they held it as a condition of forming government.

 

[bobnowhere]

I'm still of the opinion the plebiscite was designed by Abbott to never actually occur.

I was waiting for all the conditions. There are already Coalition members saying if their electorates vote against then they'll cross the floor despite the overall result. A plebiscite can be anything really, maybe it will require 75% approval, or all state and territories and electorates to vote for the change or anyone with under XX% support will be given free choice or anyone wearing a hat has a free vote etc... It was always a BS stalling mechanism.

At the moment it's all the ALP has and I think they are starting to make a little hay, they are starting to expose Malcolm's faux social progressivism. Malcolm looked uncomfortable yesterday when he said a yes vote would bind his party. Does anyone believe that? Cory Bernardi would have a fit.

 

[danm999]

Malcolm looked uncomfortable yesterday when he said a yes vote would bind his party. Does anyone believe that? Cory Bernardi would have a fit.

He knows it's a vote loser; his words were something like we have given Shorten a stick to beat us with everyday.

 

[Jintor]

Speaking of Abetz:


But yeah, this twisting and spinning on the plebiscite is, for all the humour it entails, pretty sad. Shorten actually made a good point when he mentioned that a plebiscite would inevitably involve the sort of campaigns that would contribute to depression and self harm. Between that and the pointlessness/cost of it all they could actually pressure Turnbull to do something about it.

lol. Religious is a dirty term apparently as opposed to an actual description. Maybe that's true, but in that case, maybe you should examine why religiousity isn't positively regarded anymore, me old china...

 

[danm999]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-...ke-fighter-jets-could-cost-100m-extra/6877028

Canada's newly elected prime minister Justin Trudeau has pledged to not proceed with plans to buy 65 F-35A jets, but to instead open a new tender to find a replacement for his country's aging CF-18s.

At a congressional hearing in Washington overnight, the head of the JSF program, US Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, warned that would push up the cost for other nations.

"If there are 65 less A-model airplanes in that production profile from any country, whether it be Canada or someone else, we have estimated that the increase in price for everyone else is about 0.7 to 1 per cent," Lieutenant General Bogdan told the House Armed Services Committee.

"For an A-model today that's about $US1 million a copy."

In Australia this would translate to a cost blowout of almost $100 million, because the Federal Government has committed to purchasing another 70 new Joint Strike Fighters.

 

[wonzo]

https://twitter.com/BevanShields/status/657093810376183809

 

[danm999]

https://twitter.com/BevanShields/status/657093810376183809

Wow.

And a few days ago he was complaining the media was portraying him as an "old fart not to be taken seriously" because he was a Christian.

 

[D.Lo]

When did that word become offensive?

It's the term Martin Luthor King used in his famous speech and many others.

It's no longer the preferred term, but it was still seen as non-offensive I thought.

Wow.

And a few days ago he was complaining the media was portraying him as an "old fart not to be taken seriously" because he was a Christian.

Everything Abetz said there is true. The liberal element of the media gives Isalm a free pass (for 'diversity') on the same things it ridicules Christianity for.

 

[Jintor]

When did that word become offensive?

It's the term Martin Luthor King used in his famous speech and many others.

It's no longer the preferred term, but it was still seen as non-offensive I thought.

It depends on who's saying it, usually.

It's like the way Chinaman can be a descriptor or a pejorative.

By the way, this is almost entirely unrelated, but Americans here tend to say "Japanese do this" instead of "Japanese people do this" and it shits me to no end for some reason. It's the noun ending, I think.

 

[D.Lo]

I'll give Abetz a pass on that, because it does make him sound like a fogey (I'd have to hear the intonation too I think), but it was, at the very least, once seen as a polite term, instead of the 'other' N word. And like I said was once even the preferred term of famous black activists.

 

[Jintor]

I'll give Abetz a pass on that, because it does make him sound like a fogey (I'd have to hear the intonation too I think), but it was, at the very least, once seen as a polite term, instead of the 'other' N word. And like I said was once even the preferred term of famous black activists.

I don't have a lot of experience talking about racial politics on that side of any fence you care to name, but it is definitely a word where your intonation can really carry you into safe harbours or... the opposite of that. So I guess I'll refrain from crapping on Abetz too much for that.

I mean, I can crap on him over the Religiousity thing instead, the poor persecuted wanker.

By the way, this Chris Kenny Somalian refugee debacle is getting weirder by the second.

Everything Abetz said there is true. The liberal element of the media gives Isalm a free pass (for 'diversity') on the same things it ridicules Christianity for.

Yeah, but the liberal element of the media is frequently drowned out by the vile abuse-spilling megaspeakers of the right, so idk brah

 

[hirokazu]

I'll give Abetz a pass on that, because it does make him sound like a fogey (I'd have to hear the intonation too I think), but it was, at the very least, once seen as a polite term, instead of the 'other' N word. And like I said was once even the preferred term of famous black activists.

I didn't find his statement offensive based on the Twitter quote, but why didn't he just say African American? It almost reads like he was looking for emphasis.

The liberal element of the media gives Isalm a free pass (for 'diversity') on the same things it ridicules Christianity for.

What sort of stuff is that?

 

[danm999]

When did that word become offensive?

It stopped being used like that decades ago, except by white supremacists.

I'll give Abetz a pass on that, because it does make him sound like a fogey (I'd have to hear the intonation too I think), but it was, at the very least, once seen as a polite term, instead of the 'other' N word. And like I said was once even the preferred term of famous black activists.

That's kind of the point I'm making. You don't call black people Negroes anymore (at least I hope not, you're not liable to have a good time of it).

That's why Abetz is labelled an old fart by the media, not because he's a Christian. For goodness sake pretty much everyone at the top of Australian politics is Christian.

He's labelled an old fart because he is.

I didn't find his statement offensive based on the Twitter quote, but why didn't he just say African American? It almost reads like he was looking for emphasis.

He was saying because Clarence Thomas, a 'negro', voted against same sex marriage in Obergefell vs. Hodges the argument of not allowing interracial marriage and same marriage were different.

A pretty pathetic argument for any number of reasons.

 

[D.Lo]

I didn't find his statement offensive based on the Twitter quote, but why didn't he just say African American? It almost reads like he was looking for emphasis.

Because he is an old fogey. Who shouldn't be taken seriously lol.

But to me it makes him sound out of touch, not racist.

Edit: oh okay danm999. I just read an SMH article about it and apparently the outcry is 'racism' though.

What sort of stuff is that?

Well, like he said. The 'lol religion' ('belief in magical space fairies' etc) stuff comes out for Christians, but instantly evaporates as soon as Islam is involved, because 'we must respect people's culture and spirituality'.

All while at the same time Christians gets slipped in with the negative Muslim stuff since 'all religions are the same'. Like the commentator on the ABC the other day who said (paraphrased) 'we must stamp out our youth being radicalised to terrorism in schools, mosques, in church groups...' - please provide an example of a kid in a church group goes off killing in the name of Jesus, lady.

 

[Jintor]

But to me it makes him sound out of touch, not racist.

(not being entirely serious)

Well, like he said. The 'lol religion' ('belief in magical space fairies' etc) stuff comes out for Christians, but instantly evaporates as soon as Islam is involved, because 'we must respect people's culture and spirituality'.

All while Christians gets slipped in with the negative Muslim stuff since 'all religions are the same'. Like the commentator on the ABC the other day who said (paraphrased) 'we must stamp out our youth being radicalised to terrorism in schools, mosques, in church groups...' - please provide an example of a kid in a church group goes off killing in the name of Jesus, lady.

The reason the knives come out for Christians in politics is because Christians in politics have more power and influence than Muslims in politics, at least in Australia.

By the way, radicalisation obviously is by the name alone more focused towards violent acts of terrorism being inspired by radicalisation, but I wouldn't call it a stretch to say that religion does influence policy decisions which may in the long run cause more harm (depending on your pov obviously) than individual acts of terror. Not so much in Australia, though. Whether you want to call that radicalisation is a matter of degrees.

Spoiler

it's probably insufficient, but the argument is there

 

[Arksy]

Well, if you take the position that you can be unintentionally racist, then maybe. On the other hand, if you believe you have to be deliberately malicious or at the very least aware of the racist potential of an action or statement then no.

I believe you can be unintentionally racist, but I'd honestly be pretty hard pressed trying to categorise someone as a racist if they don't know any better.

 

[danm999]

I've no idea whether or not Abetz is a genuine racist, but his track record (abortions lead to breast cancer, Dolce & Gabana don't want to get married etc) really makes it hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt when he accidentally pops a slur into a conversation.

The argument he's attempting to make there is some nonsense tokenism shit as well; Thomas wasn't the only ethnic minority to rule on that case, he was picked because he was the one who agreed with Abetz's position.

 

[D.Lo]

That's still discrimination and hypocrisy though.

Unthinking lefties tie themselves in knots supporting 'diverse culture' when it contains severe sexism too.

Edit: replying to jintor.

 

[Jintor]

Do they?

I haven't personally seen any articles where a writer crapped on Christians and then gave Islamic sexism a free pass specifically, but I haven't been paying the closest of attentions to Australian opinion writing over the last year or so

Spoiler

(I mean even if you find an example it's probably just going to be No True Scotsman'd, right?)

 

[D.Lo]

Do they?

I haven't personally seen any articles where a writer crapped on Christians and then gave Islamic sexism a free pass specifically, but I haven't been paying the closest of attentions to Australian opinion writing over the last year or so

Spoiler

(I mean even if you find an example it's probably just going to be No True Scotsman'd, right?)

No, it's not any particular article. But your reply evan acknowledged they are treated differently.

Regarding culture vs sexism, I wasn't comparing the treatment of different religions, but the clash between respecting cultures and anti-sexism ideas.

The first thing off the top of my head were the confused mealy-mouth responses to some of the reasons for shutting some of the WA remote communities (institutionalised rape at some). The four corners about it clearly started with people spouting the premise 'those evil racists want to shut them' but the program kind of ended with the position 'um yeah we should shut some of them'.

 

[Jintor]

Things in different positions will be treated differently. Calling a white person a slur is, from a power balance standpoint, different to calling a minority a slur. Criticism of a socio-politically dominant religion will have a different meaning than criticism of a minority religion. And it's also going to have people who care more about the effects of the dominant religion than of the minority.

I agree that people who promote diversity can have a hard time reconciling certain branches of diversity with other principals of equality, but surely that doesn't immediately invalidate their position - it just indicates there's levels of complexity and nuance to explore. It's not like people who defend freedom of speech are immediately invalidated because of dickhead racists.

 

[wonzo]

 

[Yrael]

More like "Bob, Backwater"

 

[Dryk]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-...ke-fighter-jets-could-cost-100m-extra/6877028

Agreeing to a flexible unit price was always a bad idea