http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/christian-protesters-arrested-after-sitin-at-julie-bishops-perth-office/story-fn59niix-1226883939066

Someone has to have the guts to stand up and start protesting, because let's face it Aussies are too defeatist and submissive to do it (besides they actually condone what is being done by  'their' government).

Christianity, being one of the last representations of what are now dying patriarchal values, is our only hope as a vector for patriotism?

Consider for example how superior the Exclusive Brethren are compared to the regular Aussie 'culture'.  And their world leader is actually an Australian.

Wiki:

"Education

Brethren run private schools for their children between the ages of 11 and 17. Members are not allowed to attend university because of the campus environment.[23] In 2005 David Bell, the Chief Inspector of Schools in England, praised the Brethren schools for their standard of teaching and said in his report that "the quality of teaching, most of which is done by experienced practitioners, is generally good.

Business

Typically Brethren either own their own business or work for a business run by another Brethren member. Their businesses include manufacturing, distribution and sales, including in the fields of clothing, architecture, rehabilitation aids and food and the import and resale of industrial hardware including welding equipment and consumables.[19] Trade unions are not permitted and the Brethren have even successfully fought regulations which permit unions to visit workplaces to talk to employees."

Yes it does look like the Christians are our last hope for the salvation of a nation.

So, Go Chelsea! (Chelsea Pietsch, that is):

http://www.acl.org.au/2012/12/chelsea-pietsch-on-the-political-spot-2/

GA wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 10:48am:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/christian-protesters-arrested-after-sitin-at-julie-bishops-perth-office/story-fn59niix-1226883939066 Someone has to have the guts to stand up and start protesting, because let's face it Aussies are too defeatist and submissive to do it (they actually condone what is being done by  'their' government). Christianity, being one of the last representations of what are now dying patriarchal values, is our only hope as a vector for patriotism? Consider for example how superior the Exclusive Brethren are compared to the regular Aussie 'culture'.  Their world leader is an Australian. Wiki: "Education Brethren run private schools for their children between the ages of 11 and 17. Members are not allowed to attend university because of the campus environment.[23] In 2005 David Bell, the Chief Inspector of Schools in England, praised the Brethren schools for their standard of teaching and said in his report that "the quality of teaching, most of which is done by experienced practitioners, is generally good. Business Typically Brethren either own their own business or work for a business run by another Brethren member. Their businesses include manufacturing, distribution and sales, including in the fields of clothing, architecture, rehabilitation aids and food and the import and resale of industrial hardware including welding equipment and consumables.[19] Trade unions are not permitted and the Brethren have even successfully fought regulations which permit unions to visit workplaces to talk to employees." Yes it does look like the Christians are our last hope for the salvation of a nation. So, Go Chelsea! (Chelsea Pietsch, that is): http://www.acl.org.au/2012/12/chelsea-pietsch-on-the-political-spot-2/

Are you in agreement with the Brethren or against?

Frankly I find the thought that christianity being our last hope of patriotism a pretty sickening concept.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 11:02am:

GA wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 10:48am: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/christian-protesters-arrested-after-sitin-at-julie-bishops-perth-office/story-fn59niix-1226883939066 Someone has to have the guts to stand up and start protesting, because let's face it Aussies are too defeatist and submissive to do it (they actually condone what is being done by  'their' government). Christianity, being one of the last representations of what are now dying patriarchal values, is our only hope as a vector for patriotism? Consider for example how superior the Exclusive Brethren are compared to the regular Aussie 'culture'.  Their world leader is an Australian. Wiki: "Education Brethren run private schools for their children between the ages of 11 and 17. Members are not allowed to attend university because of the campus environment.[23] In 2005 David Bell, the Chief Inspector of Schools in England, praised the Brethren schools for their standard of teaching and said in his report that "the quality of teaching, most of which is done by experienced practitioners, is generally good. Business Typically Brethren either own their own business or work for a business run by another Brethren member. Their businesses include manufacturing, distribution and sales, including in the fields of clothing, architecture, rehabilitation aids and food and the import and resale of industrial hardware including welding equipment and consumables.[19] Trade unions are not permitted and the Brethren have even successfully fought regulations which permit unions to visit workplaces to talk to employees." Yes it does look like the Christians are our last hope for the salvation of a nation. So, Go Chelsea! (Chelsea Pietsch, that is): http://www.acl.org.au/2012/12/chelsea-pietsch-on-the-political-spot-2/ Are you in agreement with the Brethren or against?

They're not perfect, but otherwise they are doing a great job. And if it weren't for what is a prerequisite necessary as part of their success, the exclusivity factor , they would eventually supersede the regular culture that is 'Aussie'.   


Quote:

Frankly I find the thought that christianity being our last hope of patriotism a pretty sickening concept.

There are two obstacles (I believe) standing in the way of implementing patriotism, these are 'Nationalism' and the 'feminization' process. The nationalists obstruct patriots by default, due to their existence mostly. Whereas the 'X' factor is actively opposed to any representation of the 'Y', which includes all values perceived as being in any way patriarchal. Patriotism, as the term suggests, is one of these. Christianity, incidentally is another ( so there would be a mutual benefit involved).

Mmmm, not completely batshit crazy just tending towards it.

I do not agree with the beliefs and values of Exclusive Brethrens. 

- First the very definition of exclusivity is not what Christians should behave.  We should be more inclusive, more tolerant.  And when somebody slaps on your cheek, you give the other one.  To love your neighbours etc.   We should not have the mentality of "US" the good, Vs "Others" the evil.
- Restrictions of individual freedom is against the principle of liberalism.   Who are they to determine what sort of dress code a girl can or cannot wear?  Why are they restricting the educational opportunties of their young ones?   I heard that the member even had to buy their computers from their designated supplier and often at hugely inflated prices. 
- The more you read into the organizations like EB, the more you find one thing in common.  And that is CONTROL.  Control of fertility, control of member's free thoughts and control of man power.
- And you may find their leaders say: Oh members can leave at anytime - which usually dont end very well for the said member.
- This kind of society is regressive, and doomed to fail from the start. 

And furthermore, there are generaly two kinds of people that join things like EB:
1) The sheeps - the majority.  Who are kind hearted, and willing to be lead.   They generally your nice next door neighbours, and would never hurt anything.   
2) The wolves in sheep skins - the minority.  Who are usually appeared kind hearted at first.  But generally uses their hierarchal system for their own advantage - anything from dodge business to empty sense of self righteousness. 

Philosophy and ethics could have filled the void of religion but it sadly hasn't. There are many great writings that provide an excellent perspective and explanation for core values we all hold, while using the same approach to go one step further and question our current culture.

The Exclusive Brethren are a dishonest and secretive organisation.

Despite their "exclusiveness", they have interfered politically on both sides of the Tasman and tried to keep it secret.

They need to be watched very carefully.

Doesn't the Exclusive Brethren dictate that their members can't vote in government elections? So they don't believe in democracy and take a dictatorial approach to those who are members.

If the Exclusive Brethren is so anti-society, why don't they buy an island and all just live there?

I had the EB under the blanket of 'Cult'.

Christianity is a nonpolitical movement. By Jesus's teachings.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L-lGERUseTc/TqeWkX-1HiI/AAAAAAAAACM/PjihWzr7s0I/s250/warning-cult-300x168.jpg

The Exclusive Bretheren are as close as anyone would want to get to a "Cult".

If that's going to be our only saving grace then I'll take the trip

down the tubes.

EB, Jehovas, Mormons & 7 Day Adventers....... all similar dictatorial sects/cults.

tickleandrose wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 12:07pm:

I do not agree with the beliefs and values of Exclusive Brethrens.  - First the very definition of exclusivity is not what Christians should behave.  We should be more inclusive, more tolerant.  And when somebody slaps on your cheek, you give the other one.  To love your neighbours etc.   We should not have the mentality of "US" the good, Vs "Others" the evil.

It's all about their survival. When the EB exclude 'us', they're (effectively) excluding most of our evil. So it's not just something that we should be taking personally. Maybe part of the gripe is that they are also rejecting the 'ideology' that is feminism? If so, then don't worry to much, because as long as they allow even the slightest access to the outside world, the femminization process will eventually override all of their values regardless.


Quote:

- Restrictions of individual freedom is against the principle of liberalism.

It is, but liberalism is one person's values, not everyone's (obviously conservatives aren't bound by its rules).

Quote:

Who are they to determine what sort of dress code a girl can or cannot wear?

Once again it's to do with survival. If we allow no distinctions to be made, then by default we become vulnerable. For example women and men have dressed differently for thousands of years, abandon this as a 'rule' then there must be a degree of risk created. So it's a bit of a gamble 'we' are taking and although there have been gains, it does now look like we starting to lose.  And their dress code applies to the men as well (they're not allowed to wear shorts etc.)


Quote:

Why are they restricting the educational opportunties of their young ones?   I heard that the member even had to buy their computers from their designated supplier and often at hugely inflated prices.  - The more you read into the organizations like EB, the more you find one thing in common.  And that is CONTROL.  Control of fertility, control of member's free thoughts and control of man power. - And you may find their leaders say: Oh members can leave at anytime - which usually dont end very well for the said member. - This kind of society is regressive, and doomed to fail from the start.  And furthermore, there are generally two kinds of people that join things like EB: 1) The sheeps - the majority.  Who are kind hearted, and willing to be lead.   They generally your nice next door neighbours, and would never hurt anything.    2) The wolves in sheep skins - the minority.  Who are usually appeared kind hearted at first.  But generally uses their hierarchal system for their own advantage - anything from dodge business to empty sense of self righteousness.

Sure, but even if you were right about most of what you've said whose rules do we follow.  If it's Nature's then there is no rule that says anything about 'equality'. If it's God's then much the same applies. 'Equality' is a vector for control by the left (which is in itself a representation of our X chromosome) consequently it's hardly something that can be represented as being 'fair'. 

As for the EB themselves, allowing for the current trend, they will be renaming themselves the 'IS' (Inclusive Sisteren) sometime within the next 100 years.

re GA


Quote:

It's all about their survival. When the EB exclude 'us', they're (effectively) excluding most of our evil. So it's not just something that we should be taking personally. Maybe part of the gripe is that they are also rejecting the 'ideology' that is feminism? If so, then don't worry to much, because as long as they allow even the slightest access to the outside world, the femminization process will eventually override all of their values regardless.

No, I dont take it personally.  I merely disagree with their complicated set of belief and control system.  They call themselves Christians.  But its really against Jesus teaching to be 'exclusive'.  Their so called "rules" were made by man to futher their own agenda, and hardly a beacon of salvation for a nation, or a vector of patriotism.   In addition, what do you mean by "feminization" and ideology of feminism in this case?  Please clarify.


Quote:

Once again it's to do with survival. If we allow no distinctions to be made, then by default we become vulnerable. For example women and men have dressed differently for thousands of years, abandon this as a 'rule' then there must be a degree of risk created. So it's a bit of a gamble 'we' are taking and although there have been gains, it does now look like we starting to lose.  And their dress code applies to the men as well (they're not allowed to wear shorts etc.)

But society is ever changing.  What was considered acceptable in the past, does not necessary mean it is acceptable in the present and future.  "Rules" in general are made by men (or women), and can be changed over time to adapt to the changing world.  Time and time again, we see the regressive societies perish, and progressive and adaptive societies flourish. 


Quote:

Sure, but even if you were right about most of what you've said whose rules do we follow.  If it's Nature's then there is no rule that says anything about 'equality'. If it's God's then much the same applies. 'Equality' is a vector for control by the left (which is in itself a representation of our X chromosome) consequently it's hardly something that can be represented as being 'fair'.

Well, this really depend on what do you mean by "nature".   If by nature, you meant Mother Nature, Earth nature.  Then yes, it is not fair.  It is cruel.  It is a place where only the strongest survive.   It is then a matter of personal choice.  If people are content to be the sheep, to be lead and used by the wolves, then by all means do so.    However, even with no Y chromosome, I dislike the idea of been controlled, and rather like to be the wolf if I had the choice.  As such, if I was born in EB, I would have no choice but to become a sheep.  So, to me, the EB represents a regressive force in the society. 

However, I argue that since the Industrial Revolution, our society have moved beyond just "Mother nature", which allow for more diverse and 'fair' society which have their advantages.  For example, great minds like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawkings, would have never survived in 'mother nature', but made significant and material contribution to our society. 

Take a trip around the wheatbelt towns of WA, you'll soon see how "inclusive' the EB are. Rule their own with an iron fist, generally have monopolies of town business through patient attrition and takeover, exclude the non EB members of town from dealings both public and private. But they are more than willing to fleece the non EB townsfolk of their hard earned with inflated prices on goods in a one price for us / one price for you deal.

OP, if this is the superior model you think will bring Australia back from where ever you think it is now...all I can say is I hope you are an EB believer, if not, you're not gonna have the existance you hope for.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 12:57pm:

I had the EB under the blanket of 'Cult'. Christianity is a nonpolitical movement. By Jesus's teachings.

A good, precise point! Belief in a heavenly government precludes christians from being left or right!

NO!

GA wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 10:48am:

The Christian Right

Where in the article does it state that these eleven people demonstrating outside a Liberal MP's office were right wingers?


GA wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 10:48am:

Consider for example how superior the Exclusive Brethren are compared to the regular Aussie 'culture'.

The Exclusive Brethren are not a mainstream Christian group.  There is also no evidence contained in the article that they were involved in this protest.  Why are you dragging them into it?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 11:40am:

Mmmm, not completely batshit crazy just tending towards it.

What's the point of conceding anything, if you then follow it up with an ad-hominem? But of course you are just allowing an 'out' for yourself (you're an opportunist?). Politics relates to people more than it does to individuals, so leave the ego aspect out, that is if you can manage to do that.

Vuk11 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 12:13pm:

Philosophy and ethics could have filled the void of religion but it sadly hasn't. There are many great writings that provide an excellent perspective and explanation for core values we all hold, while using the same approach to go one step further and question our current culture.

Philosophy has never had an effective hold on society because it's not really offering anything of of 'substance'. I mean it has no 'God' for example. Besides it's to lofty in most cases to appeal to a majority. And would be mostly irrelevant in a Godless universe anyhow, because it would be overridden in most instances by all 'survival of the fittest' type values. What religion needs to do is adopt a more philosophical approach, that way in itself it becomes a vector for logic as well as morality etc. But of course it must be kept in mind that there may be philosophies that are in themselves Darwinistic, capitalism for example.

GA wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 10:05am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 11:40am: Mmmm, not completely batshit crazy just tending towards it. What's the point of conceding anything, if you then follow it up with an ad-hominem? But of course you are just allowing an 'out' for yourself (you're an opportunist?). Politics relates to people more than it does to individuals, so leave the ego aspect out, that is if you can manage to do that.

No i'm simply saying that I can trust religious folk as far as I can kick them.

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 12:17pm:

The Exclusive Brethren are a dishonest and secretive organisation.

That's what the left will have you believe. Kevin Rudd, for example, and as you'll remember, branded them: " an extremist cult and sect". And followed it up with: "They split families and I am deeply concerned about their impact on communities across Australia." Only to backtrack on it all all later when no doubt he realized he had got his rhetoric all arse about. For example, the Brethren may split some families, but that's absolutely nothing in comparison to the destructive effects that our own Aussie 'cult'-ure has had on the family. That is the number of EB families that actually stay together is far greater as ratio than is just about any (I'm guessing) in the western world.

And they really are a culture, more than they are simply a 'cult', or just an organization. 


Quote:

Despite their "exclusiveness", they have interfered politically on both sides of the Tasman and tried to keep it secret.

They have just as much right to lobby politicians as does any other group or individual. And by lobbying they are in effect still staying as detached from politics as is possible without making too many concessions to those who want to impose 'alternate' moral values on society. 


Quote:

They need to be watched very carefully.

You bet. They're emerging as a cultural group that needs to be examined closely as an example of an improvement on our presently decaying society. 

Try 'watching' some of them yourself, the first thing you'll notice is that they are generally more physically attractive than are the typical Aussies. I'd noticed this about ten years back when I didn't know any thing at all about them, but I was of course looking at the 'sisteren' (their womenfolk).

GA wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 11:20am:

Try 'watching' some of them yourself, the first thing you'll notice is that they are generally more physically attractive than are the typical Aussies. I'd noticed this about ten years back when I didn't know any thing at all about them, but I was of course looking at the 'sisteren' (their womenfolk).

Hahahaha, wait you're serious, let me laugh even harder.

Schu wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:

Doesn't the Exclusive Brethren dictate that their members can't vote in government elections? So they don't believe in democracy and take a dictatorial approach to those who are members.

Our society is presently dictating plenty of things to us. For example who has had the opportunity to vote against (or for) gay rights? (the argument being that it would be appropriate for a government to cater to those that are different, but should we the people be made to pander to them just because they are different?)


Quote:

If the Exclusive Brethren is so anti-society, why don't they buy an island and all just live there?

If you are so anti-Brethren wouldn't it be easier for you to buy the island and move to it.

The Brethren are well within their rights to express a bias by doing their best to remain as separate as is possible from the rest of society. So it's people like you that should follow that example and isolate yourselves rather than attack them for their values. It's the 'Aussies' that are on the attack here in this country, not the Brethren.

GA wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 11:49am:

Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 12:32pm: Doesn't the Exclusive Brethren dictate that their members can't vote in government elections? So they don't believe in democracy and take a dictatorial approach to those who are members. Our society is presently dictating plenty of things to us. For example who has had the opportunity to vote against (or for) gay rights? (the argument being that it would be appropriate for a government to cater to those that are different, but should we the people be made to pander to them just because they are different?) Quote: If the Exclusive Brethren is so anti-society, why don't they buy an island and all just live there? If you are so anti-Brethren wouldn't it be easier for you to buy the island and move to it. The Brethren are well within their rights to express a bias by doing their best to remain as separate as is possible from the rest of society. So it's people like you that should follow that example and isolate yourselves rather than attack them for their values. It's the 'Aussie's' that are on the attack here in this country, not the Brethren.

Why would we need to vote for or against gay rights? Do we need to vote for human rights? Shouldnt those rights just be assumed.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 11:51am:

GA wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 11:49am: Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 12:32pm: Doesn't the Exclusive Brethren dictate that their members can't vote in government elections? So they don't believe in democracy and take a dictatorial approach to those who are members. Our society is presently dictating plenty of things to us. For example who has had the opportunity to vote against (or for) gay rights? (the argument being that it would be appropriate for a government to cater to those that are different, but should we the people be made to pander to them just because they are different?) Quote: If the Exclusive Brethren is so anti-society, why don't they buy an island and all just live there? If you are so anti-Brethren wouldn't it be easier for you to buy the island and move to it. The Brethren are well within their rights to express a bias by doing their best to remain as separate as is possible from the rest of society. So it's people like you that should follow that example and isolate yourselves rather than attack them for their values. It's the 'Aussie's' that are on the attack here in this country, not the Brethren. Why would we need to vote for or against gay rights? Do we need to vote for human rights? Shouldnt those rights just be assumed.

Gays aren't human?

GA wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 11:53am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 11:51am: GA wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 11:49am: Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 12:32pm: Doesn't the Exclusive Brethren dictate that their members can't vote in government elections? So they don't believe in democracy and take a dictatorial approach to those who are members. Our society is presently dictating plenty of things to us. For example who has had the opportunity to vote against (or for) gay rights? (the argument being that it would be appropriate for a government to cater to those that are different, but should we the people be made to pander to them just because they are different?) Quote: If the Exclusive Brethren is so anti-society, why don't they buy an island and all just live there? If you are so anti-Brethren wouldn't it be easier for you to buy the island and move to it. The Brethren are well within their rights to express a bias by doing their best to remain as separate as is possible from the rest of society. So it's people like you that should follow that example and isolate yourselves rather than attack them for their values. It's the 'Aussie's' that are on the attack here in this country, not the Brethren. Why would we need to vote for or against gay rights? Do we need to vote for human rights? Shouldnt those rights just be assumed. Gays aren't human?

Yes, yes they clearly are. So therefore we shouldnt need to vote for or against gay rights. They should be assumed.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 12:57pm:

I had the EB under the blanket of 'Cult'.

Cults usually have cult leaders, charismatic psychopath types. If Bruce Hales were one of these he'd be a lot better known, but he's not. It's the left that are trying to label the EB as being a cult, and Aussies in general want to see them lopped down for being tall poppies/successful types. 

The Aussie: " If my kids are always in trouble with the law, then why shouldn't theirs be too" kind of thing.


Quote:

Christianity is a nonpolitical movement. By Jesus's teachings.

That's right it's not a political movement. But that not saying it's not entitled to a political influence. Some people misunderstand what secular government exactly means. And it's not that religion can't have its influence, but is provided that religion is itself not 'legislated' in any way. Otherwise the theists have the same democratic rights as everyone else. Liberalism is taking  advantage of this freedom 'from' religion aspect to try and deny the democratic rights of believers.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 11:25am:

GA wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 11:20am: Try 'watching' some of them yourself, the first thing you'll notice is that they are generally more physically attractive than are the typical Aussies. I'd noticed this about ten years back when I didn't know any thing at all about them, but I was of course looking at the 'sisteren' (their womenfolk). Hahahaha, wait you're serious, let me laugh even harder.

Until I'd become aware of what the Brethren were, I'd wondered why it is that Americans look so good. The answer I now believe relates to Christianity. I'm still not quite sure why this is so, but?

fezz wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 4:50pm:

Take a trip around the wheatbelt towns of WA, you'll soon see how "inclusive' the EB are. Rule their own with an iron fist, generally have monopolies of town business through patient attrition and takeover, exclude the non EB members of town from dealings both public and private. But they are more than willing to fleece the non EB townsfolk of their hard earned with inflated prices on goods in a one price for us / one price for you deal.

Sounds a lot like the chinese.

Frances wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 12:00am:

GA wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 10:48am: The Christian Right Where in the article does it state that these eleven people demonstrating outside a Liberal MP's office were right wingers?

It doesn't, and if anything they are from the Christian left. But it's still an example of a group that's on the right, in the social sense, standing up against the actions of nationalistic government.  And don't get me wrong, I'm not actually agreeing with their motivations anyhow, because for one thing they are showing signs typical of a group that's really being motivated by the X factor thing. That is they are concerned for the 'children' involved, when that concern is really the domain of the children's parents. What I mean is help the adults, and those that are parents then are allowed to carry out the responsibility for taking care of their own children. The response is an 'emotionally based one rather than a combination of emotion and logic. But still it's better than no-one doing anything.


Quote:

GA wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 10:48am: Consider for example how superior the Exclusive Brethren are compared to the regular Aussie 'culture'. The Exclusive Brethren are not a mainstream Christian group.  There is also no evidence contained in the article that they were involved in this protest.  Why are you dragging them into it?

Once again you are right, but they were brought into the picture as being an example of what might be a superior culture that has arisen separate (out of necessity) from our own. What I mean is the only way possible that something 'new', in a cultural sense, can come about here in Underdogland, with it's enforced egalitarianism, is if it starts off for example as a religious cult. A diversity that being brought about by necessity kind of thing too .

GA wrote on Apr 17^th, 2014 at 10:19am:

Frances wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 12:00am: GA wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 10:48am: The Christian Right Where in the article does it state that these eleven people demonstrating outside a Liberal MP's office were right wingers? It doesn't, and if anything they are from the Christian left. But it's still an example of a group that's on the right, in the social sense, standing up against the actions of nationalistic government.  And don't get me wrong, I'm not actually agreeing with their motivations anyhow, because for one thing they are showing signs typical of a group that's really being motivated by the X factor thing. That is they are concerned for the 'children' involved, when that concern is really the domain of the children's parents. What I mean is help the adults, and those that are parents then are allowed to carry out the responsibility for taking care of their own children. The response is an 'emotionally based one rather than a combination of emotion and logic. But still it's better than no-one doing anything. Quote: GA wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 10:48am: Consider for example how superior the Exclusive Brethren are compared to the regular Aussie 'culture'. The Exclusive Brethren are not a mainstream Christian group.  There is also no evidence contained in the article that they were involved in this protest.  Why are you dragging them into it? Once again you are right, but they were brought into the picture as being an example of what might be a superior culture that has arisen separate (out of necessity) from our own. What I mean is the only way possible that something 'new', in a cultural sense, can come about in Underdogland, with it's enforced egalitarianism, is if it starts off for example as a religious cult. A diversity that being brought about by necessity kind of thing too .

So this is just another Christian bashing thread?

Frances wrote on Apr 17^th, 2014 at 10:27am:

GA wrote on Apr 17th, 2014 at 10:19am: Frances wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 12:00am: GA wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 10:48am: The Christian Right Where in the article does it state that these eleven people demonstrating outside a Liberal MP's office were right wingers? It doesn't, and if anything they are from the Christian left. But it's still an example of a group that's on the right, in the social sense, standing up against the actions of nationalistic government.  And don't get me wrong, I'm not actually agreeing with their motivations anyhow, because for one thing they are showing signs typical of a group that's really being motivated by the X factor thing. That is they are concerned for the 'children' involved, when that concern is really the domain of the children's parents. What I mean is help the adults, and those that are parents then are allowed to carry out the responsibility for taking care of their own children. The response is an 'emotionally based one rather than a combination of emotion and logic. But still it's better than no-one doing anything. Quote: GA wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 10:48am: Consider for example how superior the Exclusive Brethren are compared to the regular Aussie 'culture'. The Exclusive Brethren are not a mainstream Christian group.  There is also no evidence contained in the article that they were involved in this protest.  Why are you dragging them into it? Once again you are right, but they were brought into the picture as being an example of what might be a superior culture that has arisen separate (out of necessity) from our own. What I mean is the only way possible that something 'new', in a cultural sense, can come about in Underdogland, with it's enforced egalitarianism, is if it starts off for example as a religious cult. A diversity that being brought about by necessity kind of thing too . So this is just another Christian bashing thread?

Hardly. I'm a theist myself. Is it my writings that bad that it comes across as though I'm 'against' Christianity? I mean, I've believed for quite a few decades that the Christians will one day be part of a solution to our problems. 

The only thing the Christian Right are interested in saving, are the Christian Right.

All others are going to Hell.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 11:54am:

GA wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 11:53am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 11:51am: GA wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 11:49am: Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 12:32pm: Doesn't the Exclusive Brethren dictate that their members can't vote in government elections? So they don't believe in democracy and take a dictatorial approach to those who are members. Our society is presently dictating plenty of things to us. For example who has had the opportunity to vote against (or for) gay rights? (the argument being that it would be appropriate for a government to cater to those that are different, but should we the people be made to pander to them just because they are different?) Quote: If the Exclusive Brethren is so anti-society, why don't they buy an island and all just live there? If you are so anti-Brethren wouldn't it be easier for you to buy the island and move to it. The Brethren are well within their rights to express a bias by doing their best to remain as separate as is possible from the rest of society. So it's people like you that should follow that example and isolate yourselves rather than attack them for their values. It's the 'Aussie's' that are on the attack here in this country, not the Brethren. Why would we need to vote for or against gay rights? Do we need to vote for human rights? Shouldnt those rights just be assumed. Gays aren't human? Yes, yes they clearly are. So therefore we shouldnt need to vote for or against gay rights. They should be assumed.

What about 'nudists rights' can they also be assumed? Being undressed is very natural state.

Rights are fundamental things, they are different to laws. For example many consider it a right to bear arms. But that's not saying there can't also be a law (in parallel) prohibiting the bearing of arms (the particular situation deciding which is the stronger the right or the law). So the problem really is that gay rights are something that is being legislated. And by doing this you in fact legislate homosexuality itself. Creating a legal precedent that has all sorts of ramifications for the future of society.

GA wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 10:31am:

Philosophy has never had an effective hold on society because it's not really offering anything of of 'substance'. I mean it has no 'God' for example. Besides it's to lofty in most cases to appeal to a majority. And would be mostly irrelevant in a Godless universe anyhow, because it would be overridden in most instances by all 'survival of the fittest' type values. What religion needs to do is adopt a more philosophical approach, that way in itself it becomes a vector for logic as well as morality etc. But of course it must be kept in mind that there may be philosophies that are in themselves Darwinistic, capitalism for example.

I disagree that it offers nothing of substance, it offers confirmation and validation of our principles and allows us to deconstruct and criticize society to find logical inconsistencies and immoralities we can all agree on.

With philosophy + economics we can see how it's okay that people stand in line at the shops and how it's become a social norm, that is immoral to go against even though some do.

We can look at concepts like ownership and really find out where it comes from so as to resolve issue that include disputes over ownership. We can get property rights from it that put forward things we can all agree on like the fact that we own ourselves and use this principle to find contradictions in society.

It's place is to ask the hard questions and make us reflect as a society, which I argue is very important. Though anyone in ethics would agree that regardless survival trumps morality and that's okay. If someone is starving and steals an apple, theft is still wrong but we can understand those grey areas where it goes out the window.

Religion is viewed now by younger generations as an archaic form of control that is illegitimate. The east doesn't face this problem because Lao Tzu didn't cause millions of deaths, nor did Confucious. However Catholicism has a lot to answer for a lot of immorality that people won't forgive it won't be able to transform itself to anything but what it is.

I would add as well that I think we all want to live in a more moral society. That we want to recognise when laws are immoral and when religions are immoral and change as a society for the better. Who wants to live in a society full of immoral laws that control people with things they all disagree they should be forced to do? Just because it's "legal".

Gnads wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 1:06pm:

The Exclusive Bretheren are as close as anyone would want to get to a "Cult". If that's going to be our only saving grace then I'll take the trip down the tubes. EB, Jehovas, Mormons & 7 Day Adventers....... all similar dictatorial sects/cults.

But the 'Aussie's' is a failed cult-ure, so shouldn't we be looking at successful alternatives? And we've got nothing to be worried about regarding the Brethren anyhow, as the limitations are built in. Their exclusiveness is itself a limiter (as far as multiplication goes), one that can't be relaxed  in any way if they are to maintain their momentum, and leaving them with a limited gene pool (something that is already showing itself I believe).

Kat wrote on Apr 17^th, 2014 at 10:59am:

The only thing the Christian Right are interested in saving, are the Christian Right. All others are going to Hell.

It's in the mutual interest of the two groups both presently fighting a losing battle, to align themselves. The Christian right, without effective political representation (something they haven't got) will fail. Patriots without a movement (and money) will also fail. The left, as a representation of the 'X' factor will be victorious.  The patriarchs, all males (includes God and Jesus) and all things considered patriarchal, including patriotism itself, will eventually be eliminated. 

GA wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 11:49am:

Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 12:32pm: Doesn't the Exclusive Brethren dictate that their members can't vote in government elections? So they don't believe in democracy and take a dictatorial approach to those who are members. Our society is presently dictating plenty of things to us. For example who has had the opportunity to vote against (or for) gay rights? (the argument being that it would be appropriate for a government to cater to those that are different, but should we the people be made to pander to them just because they are different?)

With one fundamental difference: as a democratic society we can vote out governments at elections if we do not like their approach. This is not possible in a dictatorship.

In the society in which we live, we elect representatives to make the decisions for us. It would be impractical for the entire population to vote on every issue.

Your comment about "gay rights" is completely beyond the scope of what was said. Why single that out? We don't vote directly on the construct of most of society, from health to education to tax to crime.

But unlike the Exclusive Brethren we do have a say in how things are run by whom we vote to be our representatives.


Quote:

[quote] If the Exclusive Brethren is so anti-society, why don't they buy an island and all just live there?

If you are so anti-Brethren wouldn't it be easier for you to buy the island and move to it.

The Brethren are well within their rights to express a bias by doing their best to remain as separate as is possible from the rest of society. So it's people like you that should follow that example and isolate yourselves rather than attack them for their values. It's the 'Aussies' that are on the attack here in this country, not the Brethren. [/quote]
Actually, voting in Australia is compulsory so their position breaches the law and they are not "well within their rights" to tell their members not to vote.

Further, to attack democracy and compulsory voting, both fundamental components of Australian society and culture IS an attack on our values.

Exclusive Bretheren a bunch of cultists who worship behind locked doors.

Think we've heard enough about cultists like Scientology. They are bad news...cults never bring common good with them.

Do you think God wanted cultists?

His son Jesus Christ's teachings were for everyone and the rules are as simple now as they were then, they're called the Ten Commandments.

Schu wrote on Apr 17^th, 2014 at 7:19pm:

GA wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 11:49am: Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 12:32pm: Doesn't the Exclusive Brethren dictate that their members can't vote in government elections? So they don't believe in democracy and take a dictatorial approach to those who are members. Our society is presently dictating plenty of things to us. For example who has had the opportunity to vote against (or for) gay rights? (the argument being that it would be appropriate for a government to cater to those that are different, but should we the people be made to pander to them just because they are different?) With one fundamental difference: as a democratic society we can vote out governments at elections if we do not like their approach. This is not possible in a dictatorship.

We don't live in a democratic society, as well you are aware. It's the election process only (thank God) that's democratic. And voting out a government on an issue that appears insignificant wouldn't happen, and even if it did it'd be to late, the legislation would already be in place.


Quote:

In the society in which we live, we elect representatives to make the decisions for us. It would be impractical for the entire population to vote on every issue.

It would be entirely practical (using the internet), and the scenario of the 'workers running the factory' should be a real worry to any patriot.


Quote:

Your comment about "gay rights" is completely beyond the scope of what was said. Why single that out? We don't vote directly on the construct of most of society, from health to education to tax to crime.

It might appear off-topic, but it's relevance relates to the lobbying by the Brethren on that particular issue (a moral one from their perspective).


Quote:

But unlike the Exclusive Brethren we do have a say in how things are run by whom we vote to be our representatives.

Our government is made up of what are representations of primary effects. The left for example being representative of our soft-side, the right our hard-side. And as these two sides predominate, there's is no effective representation for our logical side. A thinking party does not exist (it can only exist I believe in the form of patriotism). In that context the Brethren are effectively 'more' democratic than we are. Their members can at least leave, whereas any defiance of 'our laws' might land us in jail.


Quote:

[quote][quote] If the Exclusive Brethren is so anti-society, why don't they buy an island and all just live there?

If you are so anti-Brethren wouldn't it be easier for you to buy the island and move to it.

The Brethren are well within their rights to express a bias by doing their best to remain as separate as is possible from the rest of society. So it's people like you that should follow that example and isolate yourselves rather than attack them for their values. It's the 'Aussies' that are on the attack here in this country, not the Brethren. [/quote]

Actually, voting in Australia is compulsory so their position breaches the law* and they are not "well within their rights" to tell their members not to vote.[/quote]

The Boston Tea party revolt was against the law too, Americans don't look back at that with any regrets. And beside even in Aussieland they are within their rights, not voting is not a 'crime'. And free speech is a right (QLD being a notable exception) for now. Besides they would hardly need to tell their members not to vote. And on religious grounds they would (should) be allowed exemptions anyhow.


Quote:

Further, to attack democracy and compulsory voting, both fundamental components of Australian society and culture IS an attack on our values.

Yes it is an attack on our 'values', which is something I do all the time.

Vuk11 wrote on Apr 17^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

GA wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 10:31am: Philosophy has never had an effective hold on society because it's not really offering anything of of 'substance'. I mean it has no 'God' for example. Besides it's to lofty in most cases to appeal to a majority. And would be mostly irrelevant in a Godless universe anyhow, because it would be overridden in most instances by all 'survival of the fittest' type values. What religion needs to do is adopt a more philosophical approach, that way in itself it becomes a vector for logic as well as morality etc. But of course it must be kept in mind that there may be philosophies that are in themselves Darwinistic, capitalism for example. I disagree that it offers nothing of substance, it offers confirmation and validation of our principles and allows us to deconstruct and criticize society to find logical inconsistencies and immoralities we can all agree on.

You're are trying to sell philosophy to philistines, they wont buy unless there is some sort of back up. A God is needed as the substance, otherwise philosophy itself is kind of an abstract thing that's not being seen as going anywhere in particular. 


Quote:

With philosophy + economics we can see how it's okay that people stand in line at the shops and how it's become a social norm, that is immoral to go against even though some do.

Fairness vs those(the queue jumpers) who may in the end turn out to be the fittest?


Quote:

We can look at concepts like ownership and really find out where it comes from so as to resolve issue that include disputes over ownership. We can get property rights from it that put forward things we can all agree on like the fact that we own ourselves and use this principle to find contradictions in society. It's place is to ask the hard questions and make us reflect as a society, which I argue is very important. Though anyone in ethics would agree that regardless survival trumps morality and that's okay. If someone is starving and steals an apple, theft is still wrong but we can understand those grey areas where it goes out the window.

Without religion there are no other rules, which include the 'survival' aspect itself, as it's not guaranteed (a meteorite might destroy civilization tomorrow for example). 


Quote:

Religion is viewed now by younger generations as an archaic form of control that is illegitimate. The east doesn't face this problem because Lao Tzu didn't cause millions of deaths, nor did Confucious. However Catholicism has a lot to answer for a lot of immorality that people won't forgive it won't be able to transform itself to anything but what it is.

Religion is representative of the 'Y' chromosome as well as the X, so it's seen as being patriarchal to a degree and therefor must be destroyed. The reality is that we've gained far more from religion than we've ever lost by it's existence.


Quote:

I would add as well that I think we all want to live in a more moral society. That we want to recognize when laws are immoral and when religions are immoral and change as a society for the better. Who wants to live in a society full of immoral laws that control people with things they all disagree they should be forced to do? Just because it's "legal".

Morality has been declining for the past 50 or more years. The decline has been masked by a pseudo-morality that's based on our emotional side, the 'X' factor. For example we show great concern when children are gunned down in a school somewhere, by aren't all that interested in the greater number of children that lose their lives in backyard pools or being run over in driveways.

red baron wrote on Apr 17^th, 2014 at 8:01pm:

Exclusive Bretheren a bunch of cultists who worship behind locked doors. Think we've heard enough about cultists like Scientology. They are bad news...cults never bring common good with them. Do you think God wanted cultists? His son Jesus Christ's teachings were for everyone and the rules are as simple now as they were then, they're called the Ten Commandments.

The teachings were for everyone, but who's ignoring those us or the EB. Looks to me like they are the ones following the rules better than we are, their crime rate is a lot lower than ours is (I believe). And maybe Jesus would have approved of diversity. We know our selves that having a diverse society improve the chances of there being a break-thru as far as a successful culture goes. Look at the Americans, how diverse they are, variations in the cultures of different states, including people like the Amish.

fezz wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 4:50pm:

Take a trip around the wheatbelt towns of WA, you'll soon see how "inclusive' the EB are. Rule their own with an iron fist, generally have monopolies of town business through patient attrition and takeover, exclude the non EB members of town from dealings both public and private. But they are more than willing to fleece the non EB townsfolk of their hard earned with inflated prices on goods in a one price for us / one price for you deal. OP, if this is the superior model you think will bring Australia back from where ever you think it is now...all I can say is I hope you are an EB believer, if not, you're not gonna have the existence you hope for.

They were presented as an example of a subculture that is at least being dynamic. They are actually moving forward rather than regressing like the 'Aussie' is presently doing.

GA wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 2:41pm:

fezz wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 4:50pm: Take a trip around the wheatbelt towns of WA, you'll soon see how "inclusive' the EB are. Rule their own with an iron fist, generally have monopolies of town business through patient attrition and takeover, exclude the non EB members of town from dealings both public and private. But they are more than willing to fleece the non EB townsfolk of their hard earned with inflated prices on goods in a one price for us / one price for you deal. OP, if this is the superior model you think will bring Australia back from where ever you think it is now...all I can say is I hope you are an EB believer, if not, you're not gonna have the existance you hope for. They were presented as an example of a subculture that is at least being dynamic. They are actually moving forward rather than regressing like the 'Aussie' are presently doing.

Excellent, have they solved the NBN crisis?

tickleandrose wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 3:27pm:

re GA Quote: It's all about their survival. When the EB exclude 'us', they're (effectively) excluding most of our evil. So it's not just something that we should be taking personally. Maybe part of the gripe is that they are also rejecting the 'ideology' that is feminism? If so, then don't worry to much, because as long as they allow even the slightest access to the outside world, the femminization process will eventually override all of their values regardless. No, I dont take it personally.  I merely disagree with their complicated set of belief and control system.  They call themselves Christians.  But its really against Jesus teaching to be 'exclusive'.  Their so called "rules" were made by man to further their own agenda, and hardly a beacon of salvation for a nation, or a vector of patriotism.   In addition, what do you mean by "feminization" and ideology of feminism in this case?  Please clarify.

I'm a theist but I don't let that dictate my thought processes, that's because we cant be objective if we let our beliefs set an agenda for our thoughts. If you for example are a feminist, then that alone might make it hard for you to look at any particular issue with an open mind ( it's the 'ist' factor).

The Brethren are an example only of success relative to our Aussie culture.  If anything they can be seen as an active example of an American culture existing within our own cockney convict culture.  And they don't actually refer to themselves as being 'exclusive' even if in effect that's what they are.

The feminization thing is simple, it's just is a little bit hard to explain for me with my poor word skills. It goes something like this: We are all humans and our humanness can be represented by the Chromosomes XX, with XY being the variation. Making us 'more human' in the balance of things on average than if somehow we could have turned out to be XX - YY, so we are softer than we are harder in effect. And because we can't separate ourselves from the rest of physical reality, as much as we might believe we are, the imbalance will represent itself as a 'force' if it's allowed to. The vector for this force, our soft-side, is the media, TV in particular. We are being pushed from the left in other words, and all things that might in some way represent our harder side, those thing we perceive as being in anyway patriarchal, will be under threat from this force. If the normal balance is not restored, logic is not given any say, the X will eventually destroy the Y completely, these things not being conscious decisions, but are a product of a deterministic reality. 



Quote:

[quote]Once again it's to do with survival. If we allow no distinctions to be made, then by default we become vulnerable. For example women and men have dressed differently for thousands of years, abandon this as a 'rule' then there must be a degree of risk created. So it's a bit of a gamble 'we' are taking and although there have been gains, it does now look like we starting to lose.  And their dress code applies to the men as well (they're not allowed to wear shorts etc.)

But society is ever changing.  What was considered acceptable in the past, does not necessary mean it is acceptable in the present and future.  "Rules" in general are made by men (or women), and can be changed over time to adapt to the changing world.  Time and time again, we see the regressive societies perish, and progressive and adaptive societies flourish.[/quote]

It is changing, but there are no rules that say for the better. And if we look back over fifty years we see that things have actually changed for the worse at least as far as statistics go. But this has been masked by increasing wealth in the form of abundance of consumer products for example. Crime rates, drug abuse, suicide & psychosis have increased as have marriage breakups. We ignore most of this because technology has given us plenty of things to occupy our time in an enjoyable way.  

Continued in next post.

Depends which creimes GA. Most violent crime is decreasing.

GA wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 3:37pm:

The feminization thing is simple, it's just is a little bit hard to explain for me with my poor word skills. It goes something like this: We are all humans and our humanness can be represented by the Chromosomes XX, with XY being the variation. Making us 'more human' in the balance of things on average than if somehow we could have turned out to be XX - YY, so we are softer than we are harder in effect. And because we can't separate ourselves from the rest of physical reality, as much as we might believe we are, the imbalance will represent itself as a 'force' if it's allowed to. The vector for this force, our soft-side, is the media, TV in particular. We are being pushed from the left in other words, and all things that might in some way represent our harder side, those thing we perceive as being in anyway patriarchal, will be under threat from this force. If the normal balance is not restored, logic is not given any say, the X will eventually destroy the Y completely, these things not being conscious decisions, but are a product of a deterministic reality.  .

I also think your grasp of genetics needs work.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 2:43pm:

GA wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 2:41pm: fezz wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 4:50pm: Take a trip around the wheatbelt towns of WA, you'll soon see how "inclusive' the EB are. Rule their own with an iron fist, generally have monopolies of town business through patient attrition and takeover, exclude the non EB members of town from dealings both public and private. But they are more than willing to fleece the non EB townsfolk of their hard earned with inflated prices on goods in a one price for us / one price for you deal. OP, if this is the superior model you think will bring Australia back from where ever you think it is now...all I can say is I hope you are an EB believer, if not, you're not gonna have the existance you hope for. They were presented as an example of a subculture that is at least being dynamic. They are actually moving forward rather than regressing like the 'Aussie' are presently doing. Excellent, have they solved the NBN crisis?

They haven't got the contract.

And by the way which of the world's problems has Mensa ever solved.

GA wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 4:04pm:

They haven't got the contract. And by the way which of the world's problems has Mensa ever solved.

Maybe so, but I'm not the one claiming Mensa are being dynamic and moving forward. I fail to see how a religious cult can move anything forward.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 3:48pm:

Depends which creimes GA. Most violent crime is decreasing.

Violent crime should decrease as the Y factor is suppressed. And there is technology too playing a part in preventing violence.

GA wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 4:06pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 3:48pm: Depends which creimes GA. Most violent crime is decreasing. Violent crime should decrease as the Y factor is suppressed. And there is technology too playing a part in preventing violence.

The Y factor? I suppose you mean the Y chromosome, but since theres a shitload of males around, I fail to see how its being suppressed. Maybe the alpha male bullshit is, but not the chromosome itself. If anything we'll gain chromosomes not lose them

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 3:48pm:

GA wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 3:37pm: The feminization thing is simple, it's just is a little bit hard to explain for me with my poor word skills. It goes something like this: We are all humans and our humanness can be represented by the Chromosomes XX, with XY being the variation. Making us 'more human' in the balance of things on average than if somehow we could have turned out to be XX - YY, so we are softer than we are harder in effect. And because we can't separate ourselves from the rest of physical reality, as much as we might believe we are, the imbalance will represent itself as a 'force' if it's allowed to. The vector for this force, our soft-side, is the media, TV in particular. We are being pushed from the left in other words, and all things that might in some way represent our harder side, those thing we perceive as being in anyway patriarchal, will be under threat from this force. If the normal balance is not restored, logic is not given any say, the X will eventually destroy the Y completely, these things not being conscious decisions, but are a product of a deterministic reality.  . I also think your grasp of genetics needs work.

Genetics don't come into it. It's the 'imbalance', not anything to do with our hormones or genes.

GA wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 4:10pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 3:48pm: GA wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 3:37pm: The feminization thing is simple, it's just is a little bit hard to explain for me with my poor word skills. It goes something like this: We are all humans and our humanness can be represented by the Chromosomes XX, with XY being the variation. Making us 'more human' in the balance of things on average than if somehow we could have turned out to be XX - YY, so we are softer than we are harder in effect. And because we can't separate ourselves from the rest of physical reality, as much as we might believe we are, the imbalance will represent itself as a 'force' if it's allowed to. The vector for this force, our soft-side, is the media, TV in particular. We are being pushed from the left in other words, and all things that might in some way represent our harder side, those thing we perceive as being in anyway patriarchal, will be under threat from this force. If the normal balance is not restored, logic is not given any say, the X will eventually destroy the Y completely, these things not being conscious decisions, but are a product of a deterministic reality.  . I also think your grasp of genetics needs work. Genetics don't come into it. It's the 'imbalance', not anything to do with our hormones or genes.

Ummm, right. Considering you're talking about chromosomes, its genetics.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 4:08pm:

GA wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 4:06pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 3:48pm: Depends which creimes GA. Most violent crime is decreasing. Violent crime should decrease as the Y factor is suppressed. And there is technology too playing a part in preventing violence. The Y factor? I suppose you mean the Y chromosome, but since theres a shitload of males around, I fail to see how its being suppressed. Maybe the alpha male bullshit is, but not the chromosome itself. If anything we'll gain chromosomes not lose them

There's an equal number of females to males, but not an equal number of X to Y. Which is not a problem in normal 'village' life. But we don't live in villages anymore, the 'wise-men' have no say in our lives, instead we have the idiot box telling us what is right or wrong.

GA wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 4:13pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 4:08pm: GA wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 4:06pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 3:48pm: Depends which creimes GA. Most violent crime is decreasing. Violent crime should decrease as the Y factor is suppressed. And there is technology too playing a part in preventing violence. The Y factor? I suppose you mean the Y chromosome, but since theres a shitload of males around, I fail to see how its being suppressed. Maybe the alpha male bullshit is, but not the chromosome itself. If anything we'll gain chromosomes not lose them There's an equal number of females to males, but not an equal number of X to Y. Which is not a problem in normal 'village' life. But we don't live in villages anymore, the 'wise-men' have no say in our lives, instead we have the idiot box telling us what is right or wrong.

True, but in terms of active Xs, its equal. IN females, 1 X chromosome takes control and asserts dominance and one is switched off. In males with we have one X that works and one Y that works.

Continued:


tickleandrose wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 3:27pm:

However, I argue that since the Industrial Revolution, our society have moved beyond just "Mother nature", which allow for more diverse and 'fair' society which have their advantages.  For example, great minds like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawkings, would have never survived in 'mother nature', but made significant and material contribution to our society.  Quote: Sure, but even if you were right about most of what you've said whose rules do we follow.  If it's Nature's then there is no rule that says anything about 'equality'. If it's God's then much the same applies. 'Equality' is a vector for control by the left (which is in itself a representation of our X chromosome) consequently it's hardly something that can be represented as being 'fair'.  Well, this really depend on what do you mean by "nature".   If by nature, you meant Mother Nature, Earth nature.  Then yes, it is not fair.  It is cruel.  It is a place where only the strongest survive.   It is then a matter of personal choice.  If people are content to be the sheep, to be lead and used by the wolves, then by all means do so.    However, even with no Y chromosome, I dislike the idea of been controlled, and rather like to be the wolf if I had the choice.  As such, if I was born in EB, I would have no choice but to become a sheep.  So, to me, the EB represents a regressive force in the society.

Nature (when capitalized) means a naturally occurring random universe, as opposed to 'nature' all things not made by humankind.

And a 'determinist' would argue that your present position has been dictated to you in every-much the same way as it has a Brethren woman whose day might be made up doing entirely domestic duties. What I mean is suppose you were born with an identical twin sister who for one reason or another was adopted out to caring but childless Brethren couple, she would behave in many ways opposite to yourself, that's despite being genetically identical. 'Choice' would be an illusion in a Natural world.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 4:11pm:

GA wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 4:10pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 3:48pm: GA wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 3:37pm: The feminization thing is simple, it's just is a little bit hard to explain for me with my poor word skills. It goes something like this: We are all humans and our humanness can be represented by the Chromosomes XX, with XY being the variation. Making us 'more human' in the balance of things on average than if somehow we could have turned out to be XX - YY, so we are softer than we are harder in effect. And because we can't separate ourselves from the rest of physical reality, as much as we might believe we are, the imbalance will represent itself as a 'force' if it's allowed to. The vector for this force, our soft-side, is the media, TV in particular. We are being pushed from the left in other words, and all things that might in some way represent our harder side, those thing we perceive as being in anyway patriarchal, will be under threat from this force. If the normal balance is not restored, logic is not given any say, the X will eventually destroy the Y completely, these things not being conscious decisions, but are a product of a deterministic reality.  . I also think your grasp of genetics needs work. Genetics don't come into it. It's the 'imbalance', not anything to do with our hormones or genes. Ummm, right. Considering you're talking about chromosomes, its genetics.

The chromosomal imbalance 'symbolizes' the problem, it's not actually causing it in the clinical sense. The problem really is that the natural balance has been disrupted, shallow emotions are controlling the direction society is taking. We are upset (understandably) by school children being gunned down, but not by the far greater number of kids that would be dying from easily preventable reasons, why? Because they aren't on the TV, Why? because they are an old story that no longer sells.

So, if there were some way we could perform an 'X'-orcism', it would not improve the outlook for society, in fact it would only make it worse. We need to instead inject some logic back into the system. The only way to do this is politics, as it's not a problem for the 'majority' to be worrying about.

GA wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 10:48am:

Members are not allowed to attend university

When Christianity had Europe in its grip, it was not called the Dark Ages for nothing.



Quote:

The Early Middle Ages (or Early Mediaeval Period) was the period of European history lasting from the 5th century to the 10th century. The Early Middle Ages followed the decline of the Western Roman Empire...The period saw a continuation of trends begun during late classical antiquity, including population decline, especially in urban centres, a decline of trade, and increased immigration. The period has been labelled the "Dark Ages", a characterization highlighting the relative scarcity of literary and cultural output from this time, especially in Western Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

Quote:

...Christianity emerged in...the Roman Empire in 380... Christianity became common to all of Europe in the Middle Ages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Europe

Fall of the Western Roman Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire