Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

Remove this Banner Ad

Taylor said:
Mostly around using minority groups to discredit, demolish, destroy and then replace the existing pillars that built the society they feel so aggrieved by. You'll see this in attacks on things like religion, traditions of state going back to colonial times, attempting to change established structures of law to allow the group they are using to be the vessel through which their agendas are deployed.

The primary difference between a far leftist and a liberal is that the liberal can look out the window and see the wonderful nation for what she is, worth being protected, so that all the programs and uplifting work that both the liberals and far leftists believe needs to be done so everyone can have a chance at living their best life within the nation.

The group itself doesn't matter, the goal is to use that minority against the wider community and established structures of the nation.

It seeks to replace the inherent human need to belong that was previously filled with religion and community with the activist mentality they can then use through those well meaning people to achieve their goals of restructuring the society in as close to a communist state as possible.

Again, as distinct from a liberal, who would find the authoritarian measures required for that to be distasteful.

Liberal in this case is not to be confused with the Liberal Party, I am speaking strictly about people who base their political ideology on liberal ideas.

You can spot the difference between a liberal and a far leftist by asking questions like:

"How would that policy achieve the results you're promising?"
and
"How would you plan to pay for that?"

A leftist will respond to the first question by accusing you of something, or calling you a name designed to discourage people from attempting debate on the issue.

A liberal will engage in debate because the goal matters to them, the goal is not important to the leftist, it is the pathway with which they break the existing systems to they can replace it with as close to communism as possible.

A leftist responding to the second question will always suggest that there is more tax there to be paid by people who earn an unspecified amount with phrases like "their fair share" but never detail what that fair share actually is. It's a mythical phrase similar to "more needs to be done" that is deliberately unspecific and designed to appeal to the emotion of the argument, not the reality.

A liberal understands that the economic power of the nation is directly correlated to the public spending programs it can deploy.
Click to expand...
And what's The Rights agenda?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Taylor said:
Mostly around using minority groups to discredit, demolish, destroy and then replace the existing pillars that built the society they feel so aggrieved by. You'll see this in attacks on things like religion, traditions of state going back to colonial times, attempting to change established structures of law to allow the group they are using to be the vessel through which their agendas are deployed.

The primary difference between a far leftist and a liberal is that the liberal can look out the window and see the wonderful nation for what she is, worth being protected, so that all the programs and uplifting work that both the liberals and far leftists believe needs to be done so everyone can have a chance at living their best life within the nation.

The group itself doesn't matter, the goal is to use that minority against the wider community and established structures of the nation.

It seeks to replace the inherent human need to belong that was previously filled with religion and community with the activist mentality they can then use through those well meaning people to achieve their goals of restructuring the society in as close to a communist state as possible.

Again, as distinct from a liberal, who would find the authoritarian measures required for that to be distasteful.

Liberal in this case is not to be confused with the Liberal Party, I am speaking strictly about people who base their political ideology on liberal ideas.

You can spot the difference between a liberal and a far leftist by asking questions like:

"How would that policy achieve the results you're promising?"
and
"How would you plan to pay for that?"

A leftist will respond to the first question by accusing you of something, or calling you a name designed to discourage people from attempting debate on the issue.

A liberal will engage in debate because the goal matters to them, the goal is not important to the leftist, it is the pathway with which they break the existing systems to they can replace it with as close to communism as possible.

A leftist responding to the second question will always suggest that there is more tax there to be paid by people who earn an unspecified amount with phrases like "their fair share" but never detail what that fair share actually is. It's a mythical phrase similar to "more needs to be done" that is deliberately unspecific and designed to appeal to the emotion of the argument, not the reality.

A liberal understands that the economic power of the nation is directly correlated to the public spending programs it can deploy.
Click to expand...
All that and you forgot the most important, adopting psuedo moralistic stances to look good to strangers on the Internet.
 
Bicco said:
And what's The Rights agenda?
Click to expand...

Gotta love that. A liberal and a faaar leftist.

When do we post a left wing supporter and a faaaar right.

Most people slide into slightly left or right of centre. There seems to be a fixation of anyone who.is left wing just happens to be a far left loony.
 
Bicco said:
And what's The Rights agenda?
Click to expand...

Did you want to take a stab at it before I did?

I'd try and keep it to Conservative and Far Right, similar to how I drew clear distinction between a traditional liberal, slightly to the left, person and what is trending towards an outright marxist in a far leftist.
 
Taylor said:
Did you want to take a stab at it before I did?

I'd try and keep it to Conservative and Far Right, similar to how I drew clear distinction between a traditional liberal, slightly to the left, person and what is trending towards an outright marxist in a far leftist.
Click to expand...

It’s interesting you said in your original post that people’s need to belong used to be filled in part by religion yet religion(s) make a practice of excluding people who don’t fit their belief system. As recently as the last federal government we had a prime minister trying to enshrine in law the right to exclude people.

All the social movements that have stopped things like homosexuality being punishable by law or not allowing black people in whites only spaces have been started by the left wing or in the US Liberal side of society.

People don’t have to resort to championing minorities if they’re not being persecuted in the first place. It’s disingenuous to say there is never any need to stick up for minorities.

The sort of people you describe are just authoritarians who use political correctness as their chosen stick to beat others with and are no different to people on the right who punch down.
 
Randomizor said:
Controlling women and abolishing trans people I think?
Click to expand...

This post makes zero sense.

How do you abolish a person? Do you mean killing them? Abolishing someone is impossible by definition.

Secondly, how is it the agenda of the right to control women?

Taylor at least gave examples of far left and liberal. Perhaps you could look at centre right and far right?
 
E Shed said:
It’s interesting you said in your original post that people’s need to belong used to be filled in part by religion yet religion(s) make a practice of excluding people who don’t fit their belief system.
Click to expand...
I have been big on this theory for a while, it's like another religion people have created to replace the old made up ones.

Accepted positions on this and that also tend to imo really be just about themselves looking good to others in the religion and feeling part of it. Underneath it's often just all fake.
 
Last edited:
People who are religious are complete fools. They choose to not believe in thousands of religions invented throughout the thousands of years but choose one religion and say that is the word of God.

The creationists are full wacko and choose interpreting the bible in a certain way and refuse modern science.

Religious people are so close minded. They back in the day would also choose who would or wouldn't attend their place of worship and some still do.

What a crock
 
E Shed said:
The sort of people you describe are just authoritarians who use political correctness as their chosen stick to beat others with and are no different to people on the right who punch down.
Click to expand...

I agree. Entirely. It's far worse that people are used for political outcomes while pretending to care for them and you're right that there are genuine structural injustices that have been resolved through liberals arguing why that human is the same as any other human while conservatives seek to hold society exactly where it is for fear of losing the social success the community currently enjoys.
 
King Huskii said:
People who are religious are complete fools. They choose to not believe in thousands of religions invented throughout the thousands of years but choose one religion and say that is the word of God.

The creationists are full wacko and choose interpreting the bible in a certain way and refuse modern science.

Religious people are so close minded. They back in the day would also choose who would or wouldn't attend their place of worship and some still do.

What a crock
Click to expand...

To completely write of all religious people as fools is rather close minded don't you think?

You are calling at least 65% of the worlds population fools. I am not sure if that would be classified as brave or foolish.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Taylor said:
I agree. Entirely. It's far worse that people are used for political outcomes while pretending to care for them and you're right that there are genuine structural injustices that have been resolved through liberals arguing why that human is the same as any other human while conservatives seek to hold society exactly where it is for fear of losing the social success the community currently enjoys.
Click to expand...

Completely agree - there are strengths to both sides that benefit society.
 
Snuffaluphagus , poshman, King Huskii and Taylor I'm sorry for being abusive and not properly engaging in this thread.
<and others>

Snuffaluphagus had previously messaged me and informed me of the standards of interaction and desire for a thread of communication rather than moralising, abuse or grandstanding.

I will try to be more logical and less emotionally invested in my posts on here.

Thank you.
 
King Huskii said:
So creationists aren't foolish? Yeah, nah.
Click to expand...

You said 'People who are religious are complete fools'.

You said creationists are wacko. Which ones? The Indigenous Australians who believe in creation?

Again - you are the one calling the majority of the population foolish. Stand by it if you are convicted on the matter. I just don't think you can criticise others of not being open minded and in the same post call all people who are religious fools.
 
The only position not relying on some form of faith is to not care to know where the universe came from. Everything else is a form of fairy tale attempting to draw reason out of a barely understood chaos.

Even the big bang theory is the theory of expansion beyond the start of the universe, not that which actually began it.

The desire for the answer is inherently human but until our science can create universes for whatever reason, it could be energy, it could be experimenting with evolution, we will not know the answer and maybe it's best to not need to have an answer.

Humanity forever has been seeking to find a justification for their existence within a chaos of suffering. The idea of a creator gives meaning to the suffering because it means there's a purpose, even if it's unclear. Without which the purpose of being alive seems to be struggle, pain and suffering into tomorrow.

Nothing scares a human quite like a cold clinical evil, to their perspective, that doesn't consider them at all as it squishes them and their loved ones out of existence. Like being eaten by a giant space worm that doesn't even notice Earth.

It could drive someone mad rationalising their place in a universe that will inflict suffering on them with no conciousness or ability to negotiate.
 
King Huskii said:
Nah, there isn't.
Click to expand...

Ok.

King Huskii said:
People who are religious are complete fools. They choose to not believe in thousands of religions invented throughout the thousands of years but choose one religion and say that is the word of God.

The creationists are full wacko and choose interpreting the bible in a certain way and refuse modern science.

Religious people are so close minded. They back in the day would also choose who would or wouldn't attend their place of worship and some still do.

What a crock
Click to expand...

Having studied World Religions as part of a philosphy course, I can let you know that most of the known religions have a creation story. As do Australian Indigenous people. I assume you are calling them and all religious people 'full wacko'?

To the second bolded section. Is it possible you are being closed minded? At all?
 
poshman said:
Ok.



Having studied World Religions as part of a philosphy course, I can let you know that most of the known religions have a creation story. As do Australian Indigenous people. I assume you are calling them and all religious people 'full wacko'?

To the second bolded section. Is it possible you are being closed minded? At all?
Click to expand...

Isn't people who bang on about the bible and refuse to look at evolution because of the way they interpret the bible closed minded? Yes it is. It's world wide.

You do realise that many Indigenous Australians did believe in the dream time and have a deep spiritual connection with the land but majority aren't creationists? Majority of Indigenous people these days use dream time stories as I was of describing how the earth and all It's beauty came to be but not as gospel truth. I would know as of my family connection to this. You are twisting things again.
 
King Huskii said:
Isn't people who bang on about the bible and refuse to look at evolution because of the way they interpret the bible closed minded? Yes it is. It's world wide.

You do realise that many Indigenous Australians did believe in the dream time and have a deep spiritual connection with the land but majority aren't creationists? Majority of Indigenous people these days use dream time stories as I was of describing how the earth and all It's beauty came to be but not as gospel truth. I would know as of my family connection to this. You are twisting things again.
Click to expand...

I know many Aboriginals who say they have a deep spiritual connection to the land and many elders who say they believe in Dream Time. How is stating what they believe twisting it? Just like many indigenous people believe wholly or partially that the smoking ceremonies do cleanse people of evil Spirits.

I notice you keep coming back to the bible in your examples. You say all religious people but then your ire is directed at Christians. Would it ever occur to you that Christians go through schools where evolution is taught, hold high level positions in science and still believe in creation?

Anyone who has studied the theory of evolution knows that there are aspects of the theory that require faith. You are speaking with all the certainty of someone who is experiencing the Dunning Kruger effect. Some of the most brilliant people I have met from around the world are people of faith (different varieties). The more I study and read widely, the more I realise I don't know about subjects. The more I know about something the narrower my focus gets. The narrower my focus becomes the less I know about other areas of study within the one I am interested in. Language is the same.

To think that someone would look at Evolution (your phrasing). Which has been mandatory teaching in schools for decades, even religious schools. And that the only reason they wouldn't believe it is that they refused to look at it and were therefore closed minded is a brave logical leap.

Of the most brilliant people I have met, from across the globe and the expanse of socio economic groups, many have been religious. All have grappled with evolution and come to answers through rigorous study. If you don't believe me, go ask some of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top