View Poll Results: How will you vote (or have you voted) in the Marriage Law Postal Survey

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 62.50%
  • No

    4 16.67%
  • Not voting (not enrolled)

    4 16.67%
  • Not voting (not interested or can't decide)

    0 0%
  • Not voting (boycotting survey)

    1 4.17%
Page 4 of 174 FirstFirst ... 234561454104 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 2599
  1. #46
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    If I read your intention correctly you are advocating for the dismantling of social welfare and programs which attempt to deal with inequities in the state.
    Which inequities you are talking about? Inequities of treatment by the law?
    Inequities of opportunity? Or inequities of outcome? (of which inequities of income is an example). How do they relate to lifestyle subsidised by the government?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    But to a large extent the social vs conservative debate is different to the liberal vs illiberal, except that social democracies tend to be more liberal than conservative ones for the reason above.
    You can debate social vs conservative to your heart content. Everyone define conservative as they wish and it means different things every time.

    As for liberal vs illiberal, it is quite simple.
    The word "liberal" is from "liberty", which is synonymous to "freedom".
    Democracy (translated from Greek as "rule of people") means forming a government as a choice of majority.

    Principles of liberal society are quite simple:
    Everyone have freedom to do whatever they are pleased with two exceptions:
    - Do not initiate force against other people.
    - Do not initiate force against other people's property.

    The rest can be derived from those principles.

    Liberal is about what government can do.
    Democracy is how the government is formed.

    Social democracy disregards second principle of liberal society, therefore it is not liberal.

    I haven't heard the term "Conservative democracy", therefore I cannot comment whether it's liberal or not. If you define the term (without contradicting the meaning of "conservative" or "democracy"), them it can be debated.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  2. #47
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    You didn't quote the fun bit where he lumped pedophiles in with homosexuals.
    Blame the leftmedia who refer to "pedophile priests" when in reality they are gay priests, as well as traitors to their faith.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  3. #48
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Democracy (translated from Greek as "rule of people") means forming a government as a choice of majority.

    Principles of liberal society are quite simple:
    Everyone have freedom to do whatever they are pleased with two exceptions:
    - Do not initiate force against other people.
    - Do not initiate force against other people's property.

    The rest can be derived from those principles.

    Liberal is about what government can do.
    Democracy is how the government is formed.

    Social democracy disregards second principle of liberal society, therefore it is not liberal.
    In the Nov 08 Quadrant there is a good article by David Flint, “320 years of Freedom” about the English “Glorious revolution”. In this, he makes points independently made by Sowell and Williams: that in England, that it's once successful democracy was “preceded by ‘constitutional liberalism’”:

    Constitutional liberalism, with the people enjoying basic freedoms, including the protection of their property, and stable limited government with adequate checks and balances, came before democracy.

    This point was not fully appreciated int the occupation of Iraq. … It was in the attempt to introduce democracy that the lessons of history were not fully appreciated. … Good limited government requires not only the rule of law but a panoply of checks and balances, sufficient to prevent abuse, but not so great as to cause instability or paralysis in government. … Democracy can really only come when a libeal constitution is well and truly in place.

    Williams argued in 2000 that free markets are more important than democracy for economic prosperity:

    ... democracy is not a necessary condition for economic growth and, in fact, democracy might impede economic growth. Let's look at it. There are several, once very impoverished countries that experienced significant and rapid economic growth without democratic institutions. Some examples and their respective per capita GDPs are: Chile ($12,700), Hong Kong ($25,200), Taiwan ($12,000), Singapore ($28,000) and South Korea ($13,600). To the extent that political democracy exists in these countries today, it has only recently emerged.

    What's true about these once-backward countries is they all have relatively free markets -- in a word, they're economically free.
    ...

    Political democracy, and India is an excellent example, can jeopardize economic prosperity because people, forming interest groups and using their political freedom, can subvert and compromise the free market institutions vital to economic growth.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  4. #49
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Blame the leftmedia who refer to "pedophile priests" when in reality they are gay priests, as well as traitors to their faith.
    Are you saying that there is no such thing as pedophilia, only homosexuality?
    meep meep

  5. #50
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    Are you saying that there is no such thing as pedophilia, only homosexuality?
    Not at all. I'm saying that those who prey on teenage boys are gays not pedophiles.

    Tammy Bruce, herself a lesbian atheist, points out in The Death of Right and Wrong that those with promiscuous appetites are more likely to head for younger partners more likely to be free of STDs, so are drawn to occupations where they will be in authority over younger people. Hence the high incidence of sexual abuse in the teaching profession as well. She also opposes male homosexual scoutmasters for the same reason she opposes male heterosexual leaders in girl guides: that it's unwise to put a group of same-sex kids in the charge of an adult attracted to their sex.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  6. #51
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Not at all. I'm saying that those who prey on teenage boys are gays not pedophiles.
    I'd say they are both.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  7. #52
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Not at all. I'm saying that those who prey on teenage boys are gays not pedophiles.
    Talking about actual teenagers, i.e. 13 and up, you might have an arguable case, but I was under the impression that the majority of cases would be kids younger than that.
    meep meep

  8. #53
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    Talking about actual teenagers, i.e. 13 and up, you might have an arguable case, but I was under the impression that the majority of cases would be kids younger than that.
    Not according to the research by Tammy Bruce as well as former CBS journalist Bernard Goldberg pointed out in his book Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite. If it was really pedophilia among this (tiny minority of) Catholic priests, then just as many girl abuse cases would be reported.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  9. #54
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    I'd say they are both.
    There you have a point, but it is just the one I was making above.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  10. #55
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    As for liberal vs illiberal, it is quite simple.
    The word "liberal" is from "liberty", which is synonymous to "freedom".
    Democracy (translated from Greek as "rule of people") means forming a government as a choice of majority.

    Principles of liberal society are quite simple:
    Everyone have freedom to do whatever they are pleased with two exceptions:
    - Do not initiate force against other people.
    - Do not initiate force against other people's property.
    I disagree with your definition of the meaning of liberal in this context. Perhaps you grew up in a foreign tradition but the Australian concept of liberal democracy embodies the idea that the state has an ethical duty to provide equal opportunity for development of human capabilities. This includes a public education system and regulation of the labour market. Both these fundamental tenets of out liberal democracy are necessary to allow the citizenship to actively participate in society and avoid the tyranny of majority which is the outcome of an unregulated system which is how you seem to define a liberal democracy.

    If you want to find out more about what liberal democracy means in Australia I can recommend the Oxford Companion to Australian Politics.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #56
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    I disagree with your definition of the meaning of liberal in this context. Perhaps you grew up in a foreign tradition but the Australian concept of liberal democracy embodies the idea that the state has an ethical duty to provide equal opportunity for development of human capabilities.
    If the State just gets out of the way, there will be equal opportunity. In practice, lefties want the State to act for more equal outcomes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    This includes a public education system and regulation of the labour market.
    That in practice results in equal opportunities for miseducation and poverty, respectively.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  12. #57
    CC International Master Miranda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,047
    I hate to point it out, but ANY person who preys on kids/teenagers, no matter either person's sex, are pedophiles.
    It's time for man to enter the Solar System - Dan Quayle

  13. #58
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Miranda
    I hate to point it out, but ANY person who preys on kids/teenagers, no matter either person's sex, are pedophiles.
    I agree.
    meep meep

  14. #59
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Miranda
    I hate to point it out, but ANY person who preys on kids/teenagers, no matter either person's sex, are pedophiles.
    Not usually applied to teens long past puberty. Pedophilia comes from From Greek παις, παιδ– "child" and φιλία "love, friendship", and is defined by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (F65.4) as "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."

    So Goldberg and Bruce are right: wayward priest who prey on teenage boys are really gays not pedophiles.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  15. #60
    CC International Master Miranda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Not usually applied to teens long past puberty. Pedophilia comes from From Greek παις, παιδ– "child" and φιλία "love, friendship", and is defined by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (F65.4) as "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."

    So Goldberg and Bruce are right: wayward priest who prey on teenage boys are really gays not pedophiles.
    OK then, wayward preists who prey on teenage boys are just disgusting, despicable people.

    Phrased nicely enough for you?
    It's time for man to enter the Solar System - Dan Quayle

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ACF website updating [STRICTLY ON-TOPIC THREAD]
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 31-08-2018, 07:00 PM
  2. off-topic flaming sf parliament thread
    By Redmond Barry in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 18-04-2016, 05:54 PM
  3. NZ Chess Off Topic Thread
    By LNah in forum New Zealand Chess
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 24-12-2014, 05:28 PM
  4. off topic stuff from mobile phone thread
    By ER in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 20-04-2009, 10:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •