Post: #26

7 day ban for CactusCat589.

Post: #27

(05-05-2015 06:29 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Quote:'One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

So what he's saying seems to be "Gays and Lesbians should not be allowed to adopt children."

Nothing new here: the destruction of the family unit was always a Leftist goal.

This reminds me of the Rush song "Trees." Anyone heard that? The oaks get more sunlight than the "oppressed" maples. So what's the solution for equality?

Post: #28

(05-05-2015 08:41 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  So what's the solution for equality?

Widespread acceptance that it's an fantasy construct, unachievable in reality, due to human nature.

Post: #29

As others have pointed out, this bollocks is sounding more and more communist with each passing day...

These people are not liberals. We shouldn't keep allowing them to pass themselves off as liberal. They are authoritarian. Extreme Authoritarian.

Post: #30

(05-05-2015 05:11 PM)Grange Wrote:  ‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

The same passage that jumped out at everyone else amazed me too. and Vonnegut's story Harrison Bergeron was exactly what I thought as well (synopsis for anyone who wants to understand how prescient Vonnegut was).

I have to think this is satire. anyone who genuinely thinks this way, that this is a valid means to address a problem, is so far detached from reality as to be crazy. the simplest solution to the family structure providing advantages for children would be to encourage families, but that's such... staid, conservative, 20th century thinking isn't it?

Of course, a few more generations raised by single mothers and daddy government and this approach will gradually become more acceptable.

Post: #31

(05-05-2015 08:51 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 08:41 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  So what's the solution for equality?

Widespread acceptance that it's an fantasy construct, unachievable in reality, due to human nature.

I was asking that question in reference to the song: The oaks are bigger than the maples, so how did they make them "equal?" The answer is the same as in the Vonnegut story someone else cited. It's in the last line of the song. Neil Peart could write some great lyrics.

Post: #32

I can´t believe this. I thought, the solution would be to promote nuclear families. And let everybody know about its advantages. And then this moron suggests eliminating them?

While we´re at it. We should also fine or put in Jail people that are smarter or work harder, than the average man. You know, to level the playing field, right? That´s progress right there.

The retardation of the left is truly:

Post: #33

(05-05-2015 10:32 PM)kmhour Wrote:  I have to think this is satire. anyone who genuinely thinks this way, that this is a valid means to address a problem, is so far detached from reality as to be crazy. the simplest solution to the family structure providing advantages for children would be to encourage families, but that's such... staid, conservative, 20th century thinking isn't it?

Of course, a few more generations raised by single mothers and daddy government and this approach will gradually become more acceptable.

This is far from satire. This is absolutely real and desired.

Abolishing of the nuclear family - abolishing any family bonds is the end goal. So far it is progressing very well. The Muslims let into the West do not adhere to that and likely never will, so in order to destroy their culture I guess a nice big civil war will do fine. By 2100 if all goes according to their plan, then families might be a thing of the past.

Post: #34

So Marxism is due the unfairness from families?

Funny how the biggest mouth pieces tend to come from families.

Post: #35

In Cambodia, as in other south eastern Asian countries, allegiance and loyalty to one's family is everybody's first priority, as in was in western countries in a bygone era.

When the Khmer Rouge entered Phnom Phen, Battangbang and other cities in 1975, the entire population was forced to evacuate and march into the countryside to initiate the glorious socialist plan of creating a truly egalitarian society where everyone would be equals and nobody would be disadvantaged due to perceived inequalities manufactured by the bourgeois elite. The evacuation was swift and the cities were empty within a day. In the process, families were torn apart since people were forced to march in different directions towards the place they were to eventually be relocated - basically, if you had left home to buy a newspaper at the time the Khmer Rouge entered, there would have been a reasonable chance you wouldn't see your family again.

During the march, families who were worried about being separated from family members were assured that the benevolent Khmer Rouge had everything under control and that all families would eventually be reunited. As months and years passed and the population began to realise the true nature of the regime, most people gave up hope of ever seeing their loved ones again. After the Vietnamese invaded and people returned to their homes, many were reunited. However, to this day there are many people who are lucky to even guess what happened to their family members due to the millions of people who were "smashed" - (the lovely translation of a Khmer word that refers to shattering a person’s skull with a stick of bamboo, (bullets were too valuable), and throwing them into a pit of corpses).

If you complained about being separated from your family, you could be killed for not being willing to make sacrifices to the revolution. If a neighbour reported that you expressed sadness for not knowing the whereabouts of your husband after many years, you could be killed for distrusting the regime.

Because Angkor* had a plan. Angkor knew what was best. Angkor would ensure that everyone was provided with what Angkor saw fit. It was not up to the individual to decide what was best for him/herself. There was no need for familial bonds in the presence of Angkor, that benevolent, wise and egalitarian entity on whom one could trust to eventually bring about a socialist utopia and upon which each citizen should confer his/her allegiance and loyalty. Angkor was the head of the new family to which everyone belonged and which would treat each of its children equally and fairly.

*Angkor was a concept often discussed at the nightly re-education meetings, but there was never any explanation as to what this meant. Nobody questioned this of course. It was understood to be the revolutionary government, but it was more than that. It took the place of a divine figure which was always watching, and which was to be simultaneously loved and feared.

Is this the kind of equality for which we should aim?

Post: #36

Quote:Joe Gelonesi meets a philosopher with a rescue plan very much in tune with the times.

Isn't that lovely? The Elect are going to rescue those less fortunate, less wise than themselves, to save us from ourselves and bring us into a glorious dawn.

This is fucking insane. The happy face mask that the left wears is eroding by the day. They are getting more and more open about their ultimate designs. I think they're starting to believe that their momentum is now so advanced that the machine cannot be stopped anymore.

And all for "equality." As AB said, we need to wake up and realize that equality is a myth. These people are getting away with this first and foremost because normal people still have this fuzzy and warm idea about "equality."

It's time for society to wake up. Equality is a myth. You cannot have these fantastical notions of equality without tyrannical absurdity.

That's what this is.

Post: #37

Post: #38

Quote:‘I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.’

What a mothafucking genius! So the reason the children of well educated and well off parents fare better in life compared to those of drug addicts and alcoholics is because of what happens in their families? Who could've though of that? Sweden must give him a noble prize in left wing crackpotism. Actually it is one of the characteristics of leftists that they keep discovering things that everybody knew since the dawn of civilization.

We live in societies in which personal space, privacy and human affection are under constant attack. People who don't have much emotional bonds with each other are much easier to control. Even in 1984 the elite... ehmm...the government didn't explicitly try to abolish families.


You know, I really like the field to be leveled for Mr Swift. Just imagine how much "unfair advantage" he's had over the kids with Down syndrome? Over young men who had to deliver pizas instead of going to graduate school?

Post: #39

Given the Australian Federal Budget cuts and long-term questions about the relevance of the ABC, they're not doing themselves any favours publishing this nonsense.