Home » Posts tagged 'society'
Tag Archives: society
This blog has no trouble or problem with contrary viewpoints, in fact as site owner I just love hosting posts like Ray’s effort yesterday even though I absolutely disagree with the premise and execution of Ray’s argument. That is because unlike the sad and deluded Mr Taylor I both understand and respect political diversity. As one of the “right-wingers” he alludes to in his piece I have to totally disagree with his claims about a lack of logic or rhetorical rigour. I was banned from his blog because I had a habit of forensically dissecting the arguments of the regulars there and thus making their arguments look very silly indeed. You see Taylor is a perfect example of just why the left is losing the argument in this election. Put simply they don’t understand that they do not have a monopoly on virtue and that it takes generosity to have civil debate about issues of politics. I foresee a very dreary time in the next couple of weeks on the blogs of the left Heck we may even see a few of their stalwarts on suicide watch because its hard being on the losing side when you have been fighting the good fight in the lead up to the election (as I well recall from 2007 and 2010) Ah well it must be time to remind them that tomorrow is another day when they will have to face the defeat of a bad Labor government, So while they consider the pills and booze we more sensible “right-wingers” can enjoy the air-dance being performed by the left.
- Inside the Mind of a Right Winger – Part 1 (usualsyntax.wordpress.com)
- The mandatory tweets of the self-righteous vacillating centrist stats bore: a user’s guide (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
- Right-wingers aren’t all evil. For some reason this banal fact needs regular repeating (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
- Delingpole on Friday: Why there’s no point arguing with lefties. (bogpaper.com)
- Why Do Some People Really Seem To Hate Obama Care So Much? (americanliberaltimes.com)
- Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument (psmag.com)
Equal opportunity in education regardless of gender does not require equal numbers from each gender into science and mathematics
Pieces like this one which headlines today’s Brisbane Times and they usually take the same approach of suggesting that it is some sort of social tragedy if we can’t get more girls to study science to the nth degree. I think that this is a reflection of an unrealistic feminist dogma. Simply put this brand of Feminist thinking argues that unless women filling half of the places in every profession then the patriarchy is still dominating our society. Its the stuff of nonsense because it assumes that men and women are precisely the same in the way that their brains are “wired” and that women and men all have the same proclivities for subjects such as science and mathematics.
Ah do I hear you thinking “Iain Hall is a dinosaur who thinks women are lesser creatures”? well that is not the case at all but I think that feminists like Natalie Bochenski should be contented with the fact that those women and girls who want to devote themselves to science can do just as the boys and men in our society who want to be the primary care givers for their children can follow that path. As I see it the important thing here is that individuals can choose their own path with their choices unrestricted by the contents of their underpants. We have got to that stage in our society and I for one am very grateful that my daughter could be anything she pleases, in this country there is no profession that a woman is excluded from because of her gender. That is how it should be. However we should likewise not be concerned if young women choose not to do science or engineering. Just as we should not be concerned if our young men want to go into professions traditionally the preserve of women, like early childhood teaching or nursing do not do so in the same numbers as women do.
In an ideal society we should encourage all individuals to play to their strengths free of the ideological preconceptions of feminist dogma and while I will happily cheer and endorse the women who succeed in science and mathematics I won’t lament that they are a minority of their gender and frankly those who do are being utterly stupid.
Just a quickie this morning and it concerns the Faux rancour being produced by Penny Wong over the the claim from the Australian Christian Lobby that Gay marriage could lead to a new stolen generation:
Obviously when it comes to Same sex couples making children there has to be the intervention of a third party to supply the gametes that are necessary for conception and this means that any child thus created is going to be, to a greater or lesser extent, alienated from one half of their biological heritage. There is a great deal of evidence that most children who are adopted or created by donor insemination suffer a great deal of angst about who their missing biological parent is. Enlightened Gay parents should be aware of this issue but as homosexuals are just like everyone else in their diversity I expect that there will be a variety of way that this issue will be felt with from the pretence that the children they create are theirs alone to total openness about who the absent biological parent is and even some sort of continuing involvement of that person in the life of the children thus conceived. Only time will tell if this becomes a real problem and I hope that those who make children with the “help” of people outside their pair bond do the right thing by the children they make and that they keep their persona vanity in check.
On the issue of teaching the mechanics of “gay sex” in schools I am hardly surprised and I certainly expect that if we are going to become an even more liberal society that considers homosexuality as just another page in the book of human sexual expression that we will at some point have to make its practice part of the lexicon of sex education. Now in the past I have made jokes about “buggery 101” being taught to our children but if we are to “normalise” homosexuality in our society then we won’t be able to make the mechanics of sex between people of the same gender “Secret Gay business”. In any event I very much doubt that any same sex attracted young person won’t have seen enough online pornography before they attend sex Ed classes to know the basics anyway.
So on balance I think the ACL and Wong are each partially right the former are correct to be concerned about the children created in same sex unions being alienated from one of their biological parents, but they are wrong to be absolutely horrified that our children might have the mechanics of gay sex discussed in our schools. The latter is wrong to dismiss concerns about the children like the one that she and her partner are nurturing as nonsense.The thing that we must ensure above all when it comes to Sex education is that anything that children are told is entirely age appropriate and that no matter what nut and bolt stuff they are taught it is essential that such things are accompanied by some exploration of the value of enduring pair bonds over sex being just another sport devoid of a reproductive or social purpose.
I think I must have been about 17 and still living at home when it happened. We had opened our home to a young man who was what the bleeding hearts would call “troubled” he was about my age, utterly illiterate and eventually we had to ask him to leave for stealing from us, but not in a nice way and we were rather surprised to find him coming in the back door the next night. I was even more surprised to see my father shouting at him to “Get out of my house NOW!” even though this young thug was fit, strong and armed with a large knife, Thug boy retreated the way that he had come in and at that moment I was amazed at the bravery of my father because he has faced down thug boy empty handed and succeeded in keeping his family safe.
As adults we know that if we do the wrong thing that being brought before the beak will have real consequences to our lives but just imagine if we faced nothing of consequence even if we were to, say, rob an elderly couple at knife point do you think that we would have anything but contempt for the police and the courts? Well that is the situation for juvenile offenders here in Queensland, heck even if a Juvenile offender breaches the conditions of their correction orders there are no consequences, it is not even an offence under the current legal system to ignore the directions of the courts. Thankfully there are moves afoot to reform the way that young
scrotes offenders are “punished” by the courts and most importantly to get rid of the ridiculous idea that locking up young offenders should be a “last resort” as the act currently requires. Of course this change won’t mean that first offenders will automatically do the monopoly “Go to jail, do not pass go , do not collect $200” thing but in the age of the internet we can no longer pretend that clued up young crims don’t know the score and don’t know that even if they are caught that they will essentially get off Scott free. that breaching corrections orders is not even a chargeable offence.
Thankfully the Newman government is currently working on reforming the Juvenile justice system to fix these shortcomings in the system as a community we need the law to have meaningful sanctions for those who break it no matter how young they may be because its clear to the wider community that the status-quo is just not working. The intentions of the compassionate and naive to give young offenders the chance to be redeemed is noble but when such chances are endless the sanctions of the courts become utterly impotent. As a society we need the courts to be effective and its very clear that the juvenile justice system here is utterly broken and I really hope that the current review fixes it and if it means that the current generation of young thugs actually do some real porridge then that will be a very good outcome.
Now if they could just bring back hanging then we could really make a dent in the numbers of criminals in our midst 😉
I have been saying for years that if the proponents of Gay marriage are so sure of the community’s support then they should be advocating for a plebiscite to truly measure the real amount of public support for the the concept of same sex “marriage”. Well it seems that it might even happen if the report in today’s Fairfax press is to be believed:
Personally I doubt that the plebiscite will get up or even be debated in the parliament because neither Labor nor the Coalition are that keen on the “gay marriage” , then again Labor might go for it on the basis that they may get some small amount of positive PR from suggesting that they are putting the question to the people. Its no surprise to me that the Gay marriage advocates like Rodney Croome are less than enthusiastic about the idea because the experience of votes like the one held in California on proposition 8 showed a substantially lower level of public support for Gay marriage than the often claimed 80+% that he and his fellow travellers are so often citing on the issue.
It could be bit more spice into the pot for September 14 but I suspect that when it comes down to it that we won’t be having a plebiscite and that the only reason that this idea is being floated now is that the bit players want an issue to campaign on that will differentiate them from both Labor and the Coalition, the former because Australia’s oldest party has such a stench of death all around them and the later because they have so much momentum that independents will otherwise be consigned to the dustbin of history…
I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
I have long been of the habit of referring to the inner city lefty trendies as “latte sippers” its a somewhat sneering description that suggests that such individuals are dilettantes, posers and, well silvertail socialists, who actually despise the ordinary people their likes and aspirations and who have the arrogance of thinking that if only the poor would, see the truth of the world the way that they do then the poor would magically have all disadvantage lifted from their backs and the world would be a far better place. Such a belief is really the stuff of nonsense that reveals the shallowness of the thinking from that class of lefty thinkers but it is a rich source of well deserved mockery. Thus when I read of a scheme to help the poor enjoy the benefits of “good coffee” and “cafe′ society” I could not help but think that it must be an idea from the mind of a satirist but no its a dinkum scheme from the Darebin Council:
Like most people I enjoy a good coffee and its becoming ever more easy to get one at a decent price, heck even the Fine Scottish restaurant does reasonable coffee these days and its sold at a rather modest price as well. Sorry but I cant see this as anything other than a very stupid and indulgent waste of ratepayer’s money that is worthy of the most strident disdain. Is it any wonder that our politicians are held in such contempt by the public when they invent silly schemes like this one?
Anyway with that thought its time for my second morning coffee…
If you have listened to this song before then it should not have escaped your attention that the process of making good gravy is just as important as the nature of the the ingredients I hear the song on the radio this morning as I read Janet Albrechtsen this morning.
Gay marriage is not akin to securing the vote for women or ending apartheid. After all, civil unions are commonplace. Gay couples enjoy the same substantive rights as heterosexual couples. If they don’t they should. But the political battle to claim the word “marriage” for homosexuals is an elite agenda of the political classes for reasons not always honest.
Take the disingenuous claim that traditional marriage is an evil form of discrimination against gays. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in Hollingsworth last week, “when the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.”
Yet, those who oppose gay marriage for legitimate reasons are too often treated as morally inferior, out-of-date, and worse, bigoted.
Whether it’s a snooty editorial from The New York Times ridiculing the “incoherence” of opposing gay marriage in Hollingsworth or mocking grumbles from the audience on ABC1’s Q&A, too many gay marriage advocates have chosen the wrong way to advance their cause.
Redefining marriage in a way that promotes social cohesion means winning people over with reasoned arguments rather than trying to guilt them into agreeing.
What our activist friends seem to forget is that for the sort of social changes they desire they have to convince rather than coerce a change from those of us who want to see marriage remain as a heterosexual institution.
Patience is a virtue that seems far too removed from the activist mindset, maybe it shouldn’t be so if they want the changes they desire to be enduring accepted and effective.
We live our lives steeped in expectations that we should be eternally vigilant lest we upset the feelings of others and you know what I can see the social value of that in providing a sort of social lubricant that belies the need to explain what you really feel and then to subsequently ameliorate any unintended hurt or offence that your straight shooting honesty may have caused. This when someone asks us what we think about that new outfit or hairdo we are more likely than to give them some sort of positive affirmation even when we sincerely think the result is, well, not an improvement or even at all atheistically pleasing. It takes an effort to do this if you are at all self-aware and one thing that chronic pain does is make you hyper-self -aware and often rather strapped for tact.
In the normal course of the day I don’t actually see that many people and those I do see tend to be those I genuinely care about so its rather easy to make the effort not to be brutally honest in my interactions with them. For those who are out side this circle of compassion I seem to be generally able to at least be neutral in my responses to their clear need for affirmation.
One of the downsides of our Christian society seems to be the rather bizarre expectation that no matter how much someone has sinned against you you are expected to offer them compassion and concern when they are laid low by some major health crisis. No matter how much of an arse they have been it is clearly considered bad form to be radically honest with them about your indifference to their plight or worse yet to suggest that they may have even deserved their medical misfortune. Frankly I say no to this sort of dishonesty and if ever there is a time for some radical honesty its when your self styled enemies are having to perform a bit of self reflection about the way they live their lives and to contemplate their own mortality. If they have offended you I see nothing wrong whatsoever in sharing to the seductive pleasure of schadenfreude with the object of your disdain an appreciation of Karma, that in the larger scheme of things there is a sort of divine justice. It is after all just how I feel about the acts and behaviour of others and even myself. We all carry a chain that is forged by the things that we do in our lives and of course I acknowledge that I have my own clanking baggage, but I can’t change the past and I refuse submit to any regret or the vain wish that the timeline be different. All that I can do is live in the now as I now think is the most honest and honourable manner to show as much kindness as I can to the deserving and as little cruelty to those who deserve it as I can.
Cruelty is rather like chilli, a little is a fine garnish but too much causes burning at both ends and can even be fatal in a high concentrations. If we are radically honest with ourselves then we can admit that we all, on occasion, take some delight in the suffering of an enemy or unpleasant opponent in an argument. I am all together too radically honest sometimes but that is just the way I am and I see no reason to change that. In fact I think that the world would be a better place if at least some of the hypocritical artifice of faux eternal care and compassion were stripped away from our social intercourse in person and especially on the internet where false flags are sadly all to common. I can’t help thinking that those who make the biggest fuss about my radical honesty are not actually upset by the apparent cruelty of my disdain but the underlying fear that I might just be right. Frankly there is nothing that upsets a sinner like pointing out their sins and the divine justice that they have so well earned by the way that they conduct themselves in this all too short turn upon the wheel of life.