Society/Culture Why has political discussion become an utter shambles?

[Bradesmaen]

Interesting view as the criticism is of the ABC

No rational person can suggest the ABC doesn't run its own agenda on policy.

Dick Smith comments on the ABC are hard to dispute.

The ABC has provided both sides a platform. One side just chooses to ignore that.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Interesting view as the criticism is of the ABC

No rational person can suggest the ABC doesn't run its own agenda on policy.

Dick Smith comments on the ABC are hard to dispute.

Both your comments are factually wrong.
There is no evidence of any ABC agenda on policy.
It's easy to disagree with Smith, because he's tell porkies just to whip up free publicity.
His campaign is also founded on the blatant lie that 70,000 is the "long-term average" immigration figure.

 

[Power Raid]

Both your comments are factually wrong.
There is no evidence of any ABC agenda on policy.
It's easy to disagree with Smith, because he's tell porkies just to whip up free publicity.
His campaign is also founded on the blatant lie that 70,000 is the "long-term average" immigration figure.

I guess he is referring to this

http://www.interstaff.com/wp-content/uploads/net-long-term.gif

 

[Power Raid]

Versus

 

[Power Raid]

The ABC has provided both sides a platform. One side just chooses to ignore that.

I think you'll find media, even the ABC these days, delivers a message catered for their market/ audience.

This is why politics is a s**t fight these days as people are interested in group think rather than being informed or challenging their beliefs.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I guess he is referring to this

http://www.interstaff.com/wp-content/uploads/net-long-term.gif

Versus

I don't know what he's referring to, but migration to Australia hasn't been as low as 70,000 in any year (much less asa an average) since 1984-85.
Even NOM has only fallen below 70,000 3 times in the 32 years since 1984-85.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...bs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/MigrationStatistics

 

[RupieDupie]

No, I'm stating you used Gender roles (ie clothes each gender traditionally wears). I'm stating that gender isn't a social construct. I'm arguing it isn't a spectrum. I'm arguing chromosomal abnormalities are just that and not another gender.

But you can't define what gender is to get your world view, technically you are arguing from your world view or perception on what gender is.

Do you know who Procrustes was? Procrustes was a monster in Greek mythology, and he had a "magic" bed, the bed was "magic" because whenever a person slept in the bed they would fit perfectly, that is, tall people would not have their feet hanging off the end of the bed, and small people would, if they wanted to, be able to touch the foot of the bed.

Do you want to know how the magic trick worked? Well if the person was too big for the bed, Procrustes would hack off part of the person's legs until they fit, if the person was too small Procrustes would rack them until they fit.

This story demonstrates what is happening in this discussion, the bed represents your world view, the person represents the real world, and Procrustes represents you, in that you stretch or cut reality to fit your world view.

 

[Bradesmaen]

I think you'll find media, even the ABC these days, delivers a message catered for their market/ audience.

This is why politics is a s**t fight these days as people are interested in group think rather than being informed or challenging their beliefs.

Have you read the ABC website lately? Probably not. Another potshot by someone who has no clue

 

[scoccerroos]

What kind of bullshit is this?.....Haven't you ever heard of Hermaphrodism?

Many people are born with an admixture of both male & female genitalia & internal sex organs.

Even among men & women the levels of estrogen & testosterone can differ markedly, affecting their ability for sexual reproduction.

Yes, and is that what we're talking about? No, it isn't. Intersex people have a disorder.

Forgetting, once again, the senso stricto definition of gender, if I asked you what gender is, you might answer;

1) girls wear dresses and boys wear pants - but catholic priests wear dresses
2) girls have vaginas and boys have penises - but some people have lost their pecker
3) girls have two X chromosomes and boys have an X and Y chromosome - but some people have XXY
4) girls invest more energy in their gametes - but some people are born with ovaries that cannot produce eggs

In every case above there is an exception, it does not fall into a binary worldview, and this is why I believe I'm just arguing against your world view as opposed to the real world.

3. Male = XY and Female = XX. A genetic disorder does not constitute a new gender.

Ah, but now you are arguing from gender purely being a social and cultural construct.

Wow. Am I really going to have to explain this to you? All the categories humans invent are social constructs, by the very fact they are created by humans. A category does not need to capture 100% of scenarios for it to be useful, and the fact you need to point to the far extreme outliers speaks to the weakness of your position. People who have XXY chromosomes are said to have a genetic disorder because they're not inline with the overwhelming majority of the population, or what medical science sees as a normal and fully functional human being (ie, they are fertile).

Let me use your own logic:

1) Humans, as a species, are born with two legs and two arms.
2) Therefore, a human who is born without a two legs and two arms is either not a human or a different breed of human.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Yes, and is that what we're talking about? No, it isn't. Intersex people have a disorder.

Here is what you said in your original post:

"Our gender roles stem directly from our biology as a sexually dimorphic species (Male and Female). All other gender expressions are either fashion or mental illness."

Being born inter-sexed is neither 'fashion' nor a 'mental illness', it's a biological fact.....You do understand the meaning of the word 'All' and 'Biology' then, I take it?.....Words have specific referents & meanings.....Learn to use them in their correct context.

Approximately 1.5% of the population can broadly be defined as inter-sexed.

 

[scoccerroos]

Here is what you said in your original post:

"Our gender roles stem directly from our biology as a sexually dimorphic species (Male and Female). All other gender expressions are either fashion or mental illness."

Being born inter-sexed is neither 'fashion' nor a 'mental illness', it's a biological fact.....You do understand the meaning of the word 'All' and 'Biology' then, I take it?.....Words have specific referents & meanings.....Learn to use them in their correct context.

Approximately 1.5% of the population can broadly be defined as inter-sexed.

I said gender expressions (ie how we express gender culturally), not biological gender/sex. In the case of intersex people, they have a genetic disorder.

 

[Bradesmaen]

I said gender expressions (ie how we express gender culturally), not biological gender/sex. In the case of intersex people, they have a genetic disorder.

But is it really a genetic disorder? Couldn't you say that having two X chromosomes is a genetic disorder?

 

[scoccerroos]

But is it really a genetic disorder? Couldn't you say that having two X chromosomes is a genetic disorder?

If a human is born with four fully functional limbs, who's to say that he isn't the one with the defect as opposed to the person who was born with four stubs? It comes down to what medical science classifies a fully functional and normally developed human being.

 

[Power Raid]

Have you read the ABC website lately? Probably not. Another potshot by someone who has no clue

great post.

I love guessing games.

 

[RupieDupie]

Yes, and is that what we're talking about? No, it isn't. Intersex people have a disorder.




3. Male = XY and Female = XX. A genetic disorder does not constitute a new gender.



Wow. Am I really going to have to explain this to you? All the categories humans invent are social constructs, by the very fact they are created by humans. A category does not need to capture 100% of scenarios for it to be useful, and the fact you need to point to the far extreme outliers speaks to the weakness of your position. People who have XXY chromosomes are said to have a genetic disorder because they're not inline with the overwhelming majority of the population, or what medical science sees as a normal and fully functional human being (ie, they are fertile).

Let me use your own logic:

1) Humans, as a species, are born with two legs and two arms.
2) Therefore, a human who is born without a two legs and two arms is either not a human or a different breed of human.

Ah, you seem to be weakening another poster's argument.

With regards to your first post, you are stating that there are only two sexes, yet people who do not conform to this worldview are a "disorder" thus creating a third category.

But this could be better dealt with by your second post, where you attempt to explain to me the senso stricto definition of gender, and within this realm you note that people can also create words as an expression, therefore a person who does not fit into the binary definition of sex can create subsequent categories / expressions that best define themselves.

Your final point is not a good analogy as to my argument because you are not discussing a spectrum. Say if there were an inorganic chemist and an organic chemist, yet the "inorganic chemist" used the C-H bond in their work with metals, they would neither be strictly an organic nor an inorganic chemist. Do you know what this scientist might do? They might create a new sub-discipline and name it, "organometallic". Which is a better expression for their science.

Your analogy would imply I'm stating the Organometallic chemist is not a chemist because they do not fit neatly within the historical subdisciplines. Your argument is that the Organomtellic chemist should be classified as an abnormal chemist.

 

[Major Colvin]

Definitely anything to do with Climate Change - so much so, that it's barely even discussed any more. There's so much disinformation and spin out there that most people just assume politicians are lying or paying lip service to it. In reality, it is outside of the political sphere's ability to resolve - though subsiding and investing in renewables would be a start.

 

[Power Raid]

Definitely anything to do with Climate Change - so much so, that it's barely even discussed any more. There's so much disinformation and spin out there that most people just assume politicians are lying or paying lip service to it. In reality, it is outside of the political sphere's ability to resolve - though subsiding and investing in renewables would be a start.

agree

politicians need something like "climate Armageddon" (different to anything based on actual reality) to make themselves relevant. Same said with the media.

How hard would it be for a organisation separate to the executive government (like the RBA) to set up a quota desk with a benchmark pricing system for clean, reliable power?

like any commodity variance from benchmark incurs penalty or bonus and most importantly a take or pay and deliver or pay.

this could and should have been done within 6 months and by jurisdiction.


Given it wasn't, it says a lot about climate change and government.

 

[Bradesmaen]

great post.

I love guessing games.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-06/donald-trump-russia-conspiracy-theory/8870892

more left wing trash, amirite?

 

[11sjw]

Given it wasn't, it says a lot about climate change and government.

For mine the fact that big polluters (China & India for example) aren't being held to account in this area says way more. Any changes we make will be worth as much as a beer fart in a windstorm if these countries aren't made adjust their ways.

Surely if CC was the issue proponents like Al "My Mansion has the carbon footprint of a small town" Gore make it out to be then immediate steps would be Cut out unnecessary emissions, eg Motor racing, you'd cull air travel back to an absolute minimum and ration the * out of anything that creates CO2.

 

[Power Raid]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-06/donald-trump-russia-conspiracy-theory/8870892

more left wing trash, amirite?

would the republicans or democrats cut the ABCs budget if elected?

 

[Bradesmaen]

would the republicans or democrats cut the ABCs budget if elected?

Republicans would, but it has nothing to do with its output.

 

[Power Raid]

For mine the fact that big polluters (China & India for example) aren't being held to account in this area says way more. Any changes we make will be worth as much as a beer fart in a windstorm if these countries aren't made adjust their ways.

Surely if CC was the issue proponents like Al "My Mansion has the carbon footprint of a small town" Gore make it out to be then immediate steps would be Cut out unnecessary emissions, eg Motor racing, you'd cull air travel back to an absolute minimum and ration the glory be out of anything that creates CO2.

if we were serious:
ban all combustion and introduce the electric car
powered by nuclear energy or hydro
ban beef production
use a cement that does release CO2 when setting

job done in three focus areas and 10 years

 

[Power Raid]

Republicans would, but it has nothing to do with its output.

the ABC is a **** to the purser

and it uses it's voice accordingly as opposed to presenting the facts

 

[Bradesmaen]

the ABC is a **** to the purser

and it uses it's voice accordingly as opposed to presenting the facts

And you are factually incorrect like always.

 

[Power Raid]

And you are factually incorrect like always.

nah

you can see a pattern when ever their budget is in question