Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11
th, 2014 at 3:01pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 11
th, 2014 at 1:50pm:
Misty, you know too well that I called you an extremist because of the colourful words you tried to use to describe issues. Remember? And especially when you start talking about feces.
Incorrect. Read here:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391510268/255 Read particularly reply 258, as most of the conversation is in quote boxes. Nowhere did I use "colourful words". I merely described what topics I'd like to see on Q&A. You dismissed and ridiculed topics I'd like to see discussed on the show. It's not hard to see who is the extremist when someone flat out refuses to talk about some topics.
Quote:May I also add Misty, my dearest old friend, that ethnic crime is a very nice strawman created by dummies like yourself to try and lay blame on the rise of crime on "multiculturism", instead of on the true cause, being the growing divide in social equality.
There is so much wrong here I do not know where to start. "Social equality"?! What is that? What does it even mean?
Alevine didn't indicate a preference for "social equality", Mistie. He referred to a "
divide in social equality".
By this, Alevine alludes to the growing divide in income distribution, as highlighted by such hotbeds of "progressivism" as the US government and the agenda at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-h-morial/income-inequality_b_4688614.htmlPersonally, I don't think this wealth divide is as extreme in Australia as it is in other developed countries such as the US and UK, and especially in most developing countries. However, it's one of the most crucial issues facing the world today.
Who knows? it may even be more important than gay marriage and your concerns about anal sex.
How do you measure "social equality"? Easy: in capitalism, you measure it by income levels.
Do they teach economics at the Acadame these days, Mistie?
While I do believe that people should have access to minimum subsistence, "equality" is just an excuse for the envious to tear down the more successful. When will the preachers of equality be happy? When everyone has a two BMWs in the drive way? When everyone has 2 plasma screen tvs? When everyone can have a disposable income of $2,000 a week? The list is endless.
Equality is actually a destructive social policy. It brings out envy, rage, and every other negative emotion. And the "progressives" want to base their entire social policy on such a thing. What a society they want to engineer; one where people are constantly agitated that Joe Blow down the road has an extra car in the drive way or a better ride on lawnmower.
The "progressives" are actually very bourgeois here; they are materialists just like the capitalists. Perhaps some Stoicism or Buddhist style meditation might calm their nerves better.
I fully agree that everyone should have access to basic human needs, but I completely disagree with the goal and driving force behind equality.