Countdown to the Election

[Shannow]

Spiff, I used to bite mine (in the privacy of the home), so toenails aren't an issue.

BTW, Dan (I can't do the : sideways thing) must have been listened to the last few days.

The polls are showing dead even again.

 

[Celestial-Todd]

I've never trusted polls.... how many times have we been told before the last two elections that the Coalition was behind

 

[Dän]

A guy goes away for a couple of days and a thread lights up, it's good though, and Dan, just when people were saying how smart you were looking, you go and fuck yourself over again

Yes, I am good at that aren't I?

 

[Dän]

Spiff, I used to bite mine (in the privacy of the home), so toenails aren't an issue.

BTW, Dan (I can't do the : sideways thing) must have been listened to the last few days.

The polls are showing dead even again.

And its because the Libs turned climate change into an economic issue as I said it was a couple of days ago. Who do you trust with your money? Is the question Howard is pushing again, I'm not sure it will play out as well this time as there are many other factors at play this time round, the greatest of which is Labor actually have a sudo-competant leader for the first time in a decade.

All that Labor need to do is this; Make some Economic policies that are backed up by fact and which numbers arent pluked out of no where. Create policies which are consistant with their goals and provide me with reasons why I should trust them not to fuck my country up. Until they are able to do that then I will always vote Liberal because, as I have said before, I have no reason not to, and Labor is not giving me any incentive to. In case you haven't noticed Im a very conservative person and am steadfast in my ways, it will take a good counter opinion or argument to persuade me, an thus far no one at all has answered the question I asked a few pages ago; so I guess Labor really do have no economic policies; if they do the voters for them on this board certainly have no knowledge of them.

 

[Dän]

Mate, whether you prescribe to homosexuality being a genetic outcome, or a learned social behaviour; it is indeed natural.

Human instincts and behaviours go very far beyond the simple pursuit of reproduction. Humans only become recognisably so through belonging to a society. Although many of us feel dissociated from the natural world, we are by no means removed from it and our society is an expression of our involvement with it. Thus all behavioural products could be considered natural.


Supposing such behaviour is not natural, from whence then does it stem?

Maybe you're right but I still dont believe homosexuality to be a natural thing. For it to be a natural thing it would be nature rather than nurture, and so there would exist something from birth, maybe a 'Gay gene', that would make someone homosexual from birth to death. If thats the case, and it's proven, then I'm wrong and I would rethink my views on homosexuality. But I dont believe that's the case; my argument is crude but valid nonetheless. You state that our instincts go far beyond the means of reproduction and procreation, I agree; but you must also agree that one of the main reasons we are alive is to procreate, if that wasn't the case we would not exist. If we lived in a hypothetical world, which would never ever exist, but say it did, where everybody was gay, then human life would cease to exist as procreation would be impossbile, assuming we leave out the aspect of genetics and test tube babies. I believe their is a reason why we are created we are, why men and and women and made in a such a way that enables us to procreate. Sure, that is far from our sole purpose, and nor should it be our sole purpose; fucking without having a kid is fun is it not?! But my argument is thus; If homosexuality was a natural thing then gay people would have the means to procreate, since they don't, and heterosexuals do, I believe being gay to be un-natural and heterosexuality to be natural.

 

[Goreripper]

I believe we had this discussion before and someone pointed out that homosexuality has been found to exist across the animal kingdom, particularly among apes, monkeys, rodents and cetaceans. So your argument that it's not natural may in fact be wrong. There's certainly something that controls sexuality. I don't know whether it's a gene, but it would appear that it could well be a "natural" thing, if not necessarily "normal".

 

[Shannow]

goreripper,
I've read a few articles from psychologists indicating that what we abserve as "deviant" sexual behaviour and violence are founded in stress.

We look at the monkey at the zoo going hammer and tongs, because they are in an un-natural, stressful environment. The Chimps beat the bejezus out of each other, the cetaceans do it.

Articles went on to explain that we all share the same basic brain structure, and that should we all be fearful, and under stress, feeling that there's no way out, then the we can become predators, sexually and physically.

Or we can sit huddled in a corner, rocking backwards and forwards.

 

[Shannow]

so I guess Labor really do have no economic policies; if they do the voters for them on this board certainly have no knowledge of them.

I know it's a cop-out on my part, but I'd like you to list them and deconstruct them for me.

I'm not a labor voter, I'm voting against JW Howard, just haven't fully formed my strategy as yet.

 

[Dän]

I believe we had this discussion before and someone pointed out that homosexuality has been found to exist across the animal kingdom, particularly among apes, monkeys, rodents and cetaceans. So your argument that it's not natural may in fact be wrong. There's certainly something that controls sexuality. I don't know whether it's a gene, but it would appear that it could well be a "natural" thing, if not necessarily "normal".

Yeh I think it was Wenda on the Lord forum; I agree that homosexuality exists in animals; but I dont believe there to be a correlation between animal and human sexuality. Sure human and animals share things in common in regards to our behavioural patterns, I still dont believe homosexuality to be natural and hence its un-natural. Until I see evidence that suggests otherwise then I will stick to my point of view.

 

[Dän]

I know it's a cop-out on my part, but I'd like you to list them and deconstruct them for me.

I'm not a labor voter, I'm voting against JW Howard, just haven't fully formed my strategy as yet.

Thats the thing, they really dont have any economic polcies, and Im not just saying that to be a smart arse tool; go to the ALP website and go to the policies section, then click on the 'Secure The Future: Boost National Productivity' file, theres a section in it on economic prosperity or something to that effect. In it Rudd mentions what he wants to achieve, but not how he's going to do it; and for the most part he slanders Howard as opposed to looking at his own policies. If that article were to sey, for example, we want to cut geenhouse emmissions by 60% by whenever, and this is how were are going to do it...or this is how we aim to keep interest rates low, or this is how we are going to ensure Unemployment stayes low, that wages keep rising etc.... And most importantly, if he said 'These are the mistakes made by our past gov in regards to eco policies, and this is why we wont allow the country to fall into another recession' and then went on to list sound economic reasoning behind this, then I would consider voting for them. They simply do not do this.

edit - dont get me wrong, Rudd has some good policies according to education, and the education system, at least in this state, is such that you can have no mathematical skills and still pass school, which is rediculous; at least Rudd is doing something to raise the standard. But all that, to me, is elimentary compared to the bigger picture.

 

[Shannow]

I went to
http://www.liberal.org.au/

and looked for anything to do with the future, and only got the past. The past isn't a strategy.

They've got a section called "labor watch"

 

[Shannow]

which site has "search", and which site has no search, but includes "sign up" ?

 

[Dän]

Meh, I should have checked out Libs site as well before I mouthed off. My point still stands, answer the question I posed a few pages back and Ill vote Labor. I say that because you cannot answer, as there is no answer, the same answer that Labor has for the economic future of the country. I enourage you to read the artcile I sourced because it will show to you what I am talking about.

 

[FerretallicA]

a sudo-competant leader

Did you mean psuedo-competant or are you suggesting Rudd is talented at solving sudoku?

 

[Spiff]

I've been quiet in this thread since I started it (the main reason it even exists is because I thought the cartoon in the first post was funny and wanted to share it) because, to be honest, I don't know enough about politics to participate in any discussion comfortably. Hell, I'm not even eligible to vote, so my opinion counts for nothing.

That said, the one thing I hate about the election campaigns from the Liberal side is the fact that, at the last election, they made it about the economy and won. It's sad but it's true - the bottom line is always about money, and at the end of the day that's what will sway a voter who hasn't decided who they'll give the 1 to on the ballot. It saddens me that people will think about how much they'll have fork out on their mortgage repayments each month rather than, say, the environment or refugees or education or worker's rights.

Climate change has been an issue for years, but nobody sat up and took notice until talk turned to how much of an impact it would have on the economy.

I don't have a mortgage, so interest rates don't really phase me. I don't have any kids, so I couldn't really care less about vacancies at childcare centres. I don't drive a car, so petrol prices matter little to me. Sure, interest rates and petrol prices might make a difference on other things I spend my money on, but not so much that I'd notice.

If I was a voter (and I'm not, and won't be until I become an Australian citizen) I would vote Labor out of the two major parties because they're the most decent bunch of people, and that's what matters most to me - who I would trust to bring out the best in society, not who I would trust to save me a few bucks.

Flame away, I won't be defending myself.

 

[Dän]

which site has "search", and which site has no search, but includes "sign up" ?

Good, maybe it will encourage more people to sign up.

 

[Dän]

Did you mean psuedo-competant or are you suggesting Rudd is talented at solving sudoku?

In order to cover up my imcompetance as a linguist, the latter :Smug:

 

[Dän]

I've been quiet in this thread since I started it (the main reason it even exists is because I thought the cartoon in the first post was funny and wanted to share it) because, to be honest, I don't know enough about politics to participate in any discussion comfortably. Hell, I'm not even eligible to vote, so my opinion counts for nothing.

That said, the one thing I hate about the election campaigns from the Liberal side is the fact that, at the last election, they made it about the economy and won. It's sad but it's true - the bottom line is always about money, and at the end of the day that's what will sway a voter who hasn't decided who they'll give the 1 to on the ballot. It saddens me that people will think about how much they'll have fork out on their mortgage repayments each month rather than, say, the environment or refugees or education or worker's rights.

Climate change has been an issue for years, but nobody sat up and took notice until talk turned to how much of an impact it would have on the economy.

I don't have a mortgage, so interest rates don't really phase me. I don't have any kids, so I couldn't really care less about vacancies at childcare centres. I don't drive a car, so petrol prices matter little to me. Sure, interest rates and petrol prices might make a difference on other things I spend my money on, but not so much that I'd notice.

If I was a voter (and I'm not, and won't be until I become an Australian citizen) I would vote Labor out of the two major parties because they're the most decent bunch of people, and that's what matters most to me - who I would trust to bring out the best in society, not who I would trust to save me a few bucks.

Flame away.

Your point, albiet lacking any real substance besides Labor seems to be full of nice guys, is as valid as mine in some respects. Its clear you would argue, and I dont mean to put words in your mouth, that we are a society not an economy, I argue the other way. However, I think, in the current climate of our society, the fact that we live in a free world dictated to by the free market I believe it to be foolish to argue the former. I dont say this because I think it is the best option, I really dont, but it is the one in which we live, one that is dominated by money and materials. It sucks in many respects, but I believe it to be the best option around.

At the end of the day most people only give a fuck about themselves, as you said, its sad but true. Most, while still do care about climate change and water, really care about their back pockets, and Howard can and has provided a degree of financial certainty for many families. You can argue all you want about mortages etc, and sure they are a prob, but they would exist regardless of which party is in power; thats by no means an attempt to trivialise the plight of housing costs currently mind you; but you must agree that things are stable in the economy. Most people know that tomorrow will either be the same or better than today; and that is the card Howard will continue to play until it no longer works

Libs have sound economic polices, why not play to your strengths?

A healthy economy = Healthy society; thats why I argue economy not society. An unstable economy means high Enemployment, High Interest rates and the rest of it, which leads to an unstable society. Surely you can all see that? Its really not a politcial issue imo.

 

[Dän]

Also, lets put these homosexual posts in context. If you've read my mosts you know my argument, I wont write it again. But I do not believe, and nor do I think ferret does either, that gay people are any less of a person for being gay. I dont agree with their lifestyle choice and I dont support the advancement of gay rights, but I will treat them, on a personal level, as my equal, and I certainly do not approve of people bashing up others on the basis of their sexuality, and I certainly would never do that. Im not homophobic at all, I just dont support the advancemnt of gay rights, and there is absolutaly nothing wrong with holding socially conservative views points.

 

[FerretallicA]

Back on the election topic...

Dän for PM