![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/western_bulldogs.png)
- Dec 27, 2016
- 29,346
- 61,787
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #31
Here is US Politics - Pt 1
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: GWS Giants v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 65% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Semi Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
On a side note, George Soros, the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs, Blackrock, Mark Zuckerberg, Ron Cohen, Jeffry Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, etc are all evil people/corporations.
You are so far from John Stuart Mill it's not funny. The modern left that you so vehemently support goes against everything John Stuart Mill espoused.No dickhead, I'm a liberal. I believe in private ownership of property, a free private market (both regulated by the State via the Courts, like all human conduct is) a strong Separation of the Powers, adherence of to the Rule of Law, and a Liberal democratic State.
Or in other words the works of John Stuart Mills 'On Liberty' and Adam Smith and 'the Wealth of Nations'. Instead of 'doing your own research' online in conspiracy forums littered with Qanon crazies, Conspiracists, Neo Nazis and Russian bots, and getting cooked by the algorithm, I suggest reading (or at least researching) those two works.
I wholly oppose Communism in all its forms. It's third on my 'steaming pile of shit-isms' list after Fascism and Fundamentalism.
See how I address your points even while you refuse to address mine?
Epstein and Weinstein are (or in the formers case, were). The others are not.
If you didnt have access to a computer, you likely wouldn't know who most of the people on that list are, and you'd be a lot saner and happier.
It's sad to see what happens to you blokes.
You are so far from John Stuart Mill it's not funny.
The white genocide, white extinction, or white replacement conspiracy theory is a white nationalist conspiracy theory that claims there is a deliberate plot (often blamed on Jews]) to cause the extinction of white people through forced assimilation, mass immigration, and/or violent genocide...
The theory was popularized by white separatist neo-Nazi David Lane around 1995, and has been leveraged as propaganda in Europe, North America, South Africa, and Australia. Similar conspiracy theories were prevalent in Nazi Germany.
The modern left that you so vehemently support goes against everything John Stuart Mill espoused.
Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.
Hahaha, it's so funny to see your world view crumble before your eyes: I have in fact read On Liberty, cover to cover, in the course of my study of it, for my degree in political science, which I likely obtained from the same university you attended, and likely - with better gradesSays the Neo Nazi who's literally never read anything he wrote, let alone studied it, and who believes in this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory
That's who you are. That's what you believe. And you claim to believe in 'liberalism'?
Explain to me what Mill was saying here (with respect to Social liberty, or oppression of minorities at the hands of the majority):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
I look forward to your answer with regards to LGBTI+ people, women, minorities, immigrants and so forth.
I have in fact read On Liberty, cover to cover, in the course of my study of it, for my degree in political science
If you are actually serious about wanting to discuss this in detail, then let me re-read it and revert to you. But if you just want to engage in gotchas then I'd rather not.Great. My favorite topic. I look forward to discussing this with an academic peer. We can move on to Dworkins, Hobbes, Locke and Smith next, but lets start with Mill.
As you are no doubt aware, Mills major contribution to liberal thought was his writings on the 'Tyranny of the Majority' found in 'On Liberty'.
Mill describes (and warns) in some detail the potential for social oppression of minorities (by the majority) in democratic liberal societies.
Lets start with LGBTIQ+ people.
Explain to me at least one way how LGBTIQ+ people have been (and still are) subject to the 'Tyranny of the Majority' in an Australian context?
I look forward to your considered answer.
Melting Mal.
I think he just wants reassurance the NAZIS! aren’t coming for him.
If you are actually serious about wanting to discuss this in detail, then let me re-read it and revert to you. But if you just want to engage in gotchas then I'd rather not.
In an ideal world with a State which has access to accurate information and power to implement and enforce laws accurately and comprehensively, I would argue both. In both circumstances the State should protect the minority from tyranny, whether direct or indirect.If you have a degree in Political Science (and have read and studied all of On Liberty) you should be able to explain to me what the 'Tyranny of the Majority' without needing to re-read On Liberty. Along with the 'Harm principle' and 'Utilitarianism' of his earlier works its pretty central to Mills contribution to liberal thought.
Like Adam Smith and 'the Invisible hand' or Hobbes and Locke and the 'Social contract'.
Ill explain it for you to save us some time.
The 'Tyranny of the Majority' is the social pressures placed on minorities in society (LGBTIQ+, ethnic and religious minorities etc) by the majority. Ether indirectly (ridicule, scorn and ganging up on, exclusionary practices) or directly (via using their voting power as a majority to enforce actual legal discrimination by the State against that minority).
An example of indirect tyranny of the majority would be a mostly white society refusing to employ a Black or an Asian person, or refusing to marry a Gay person. An example of direct tyranny of the majority would be pre Civil rights race laws in the USA, or the detention of Japanese Americans in interment camps during WW2, and Criminalizing homosexuality.
Question: In which of those two scenarios (direct or indirect, or both, or neither) should a Liberal State act to protect the liberty of the minority in question from the effects of the 'Tyranny of the Majority'?
Specifically, should the Liberal democratic State sit back and let racists and homophobes oppress LGBTI people and ethnic minorities, or is there an obligation to act to protect the liberty of those minorities? (allow indirect tyranny to occur).
And should the Liberal democratic State pass racist or discriminatory laws against the minorities at the behest of the majority? (allow direct tyranny to occur).
FlowersByIrene admitted (by omission) to believing in a White nationalist antisemitic Nazi conspiracy (white genocide).
Even you don't go that far. You're mostly here to troll. He genuinely thinks there is a Jewish plot to wipe out the White race.
In an ideal world with a State which has access to accurate information and power to implement and enforce laws accurately and comprehensively, I would argue both. In both circumstances the State should protect the minority from tyranny, whether direct or indirect.
So, while in an ideal world I would agree the State should legislate to protect the minority. I do not trust it do so, and instead would rather the State reduce itself to its smallest possible manner and allow individuals greater freedom, in line with the harm principle, to maintain themselves.
Yes they should be protected from harm, I don't consider Transwomen to be harmed by not using the bathroom of their biological sex however and do consider doing so would cause more harm to the young biological women who should have the peace to use said bathrooms in safety, hence we revert to my point - if the State was logical and not corrupted by intersectional theories of social science and other post-reason academic concepts. I also think that other minorities should be protected, such as the wealthy from inequitable taxation, such as the health conscious from dangerous vaccines, such as children from State sanctioned groomers etc etc. I note you don't agree with these protections however.So you agree that a Liberal State has an obligation to act to protect minorities (LGBTIQ+, ethnic and religious minorities etc) from oppression (both direct oppression via legal oppression, and indirectly via social exclusion).
So by your logic, Transwomen (a LGBTIQ+ minority) should be allowed to use female toilets (notwithstanding the majority indirect and in some cases direct opposition to it), and the State should legislate to make sure this happens to protect the liberty of this minority from oppression by the majority, and should not legislate to prohibit them either (direct oppression).
Those transwomen should have the freedom (liberty) to use the bathroom of their gender identity as long as no-one else is being harmed.
Firstly, you're misrepresenting the Harm principle.
Secondly, if you acknowledge the Tyranny of the Majority exists (and you do) and that the majority will always seek to harm the minorities via this tyranny (oppress them), how can your 'smallest possible Liberal State' protect anyone from 'Harm' by inaction?
To give an extreme example, assume we gutted our Criminal Code to be only a handful of laws. Murder, theft and rape are still prohibited. Age of consent laws are removed. The Department of Child protection is also disbanded (small government and all that). Regulatory agencies are disbanded. The Children's Court is abolished.
Are children protected from harm in this 'smaller government' example, or are they exposed to more harm?
She should be disqualified because the creation of a fake image is ELECTION INTERFERENCE. Anyone who does that will cheat at ANYTHING!
Yes they should be protected from harm, I don't consider Transwomen to be harmed by not using the bathroom of their biological sex however and do consider doing so would cause more harm to the young biological women who should have the peace to use said bathrooms in safety, hence we revert to my point
I also think that other minorities should be protected, such as the wealthy from inequitable taxation,
The modern State is creating more harm than it is causing,
as such from a utilitarian perspective the reduction in the State would be better than the State's current failure to protect its citizens from the harms of: a corrupt welfare state, the evaporation of national wealth through foreign aid and domestic inflation; islamic and other religious extremism; the destruction of social values and the social contract through the importation of non-citizens with no genuine possibility of assimilation at other such failures of the modern State.
Has anyone seen 'good will hunting'? I'm getting strong 'arseh*le at the bar' vibes from Mals latest string of rants.
The guy with the ponytail is who i am thinking of.
Has anyone seen 'good will hunting'? I'm getting strong 'arseh*le at the bar' vibes from Mals latest string of rants.
The report reveals that Trump on his federal tax returns declared negative income in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2020, and that he paid a total of $1,500 in income taxes for the years 2016 and 2017.
On their 2020 income tax returns, Trump and his wife Melania paid no federal income taxes and claimed a refund of $5.47 million, according to the report by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
One of my all-time favourite movies.
"It's not your fault, Mal".
Hang on.
Should transwomen have the freedom (LIBERTY) to use the bathroom of their gender identity, free from State control?
Yes, or No?
Yes or no!
Oh lawd. Just when you thought he peaked, he ups the ante and starts ranting about gender neutral toilets.