On this topic I'm only interested in flinging mud in equal proportions at all those who want to limit the sexual freedoms of consenting adults. The fact that I identified both religious and left-wing zealots in my first post is proof enough of that, you are the only one who is playing party politics with this.
You clearly think you are being balanced, but your third paragraph undermines the bolded bit.
Quote:
On the IPA article, irrespective of who wrote it or what other ulterior motives the author might have, it identifies a bunch of people who deserve their share of the mud. If you are worried that the left/right balance in the article seems to be unfair then feel free to post an equivalent article by a left-wing writer identifying more right-wingers, and I will happily fling mud at them too.
It was a POS. Further, it had very little to say about sexual freedom - no doubt because the undoubted wrongdoings of the likes of Hamilton are dwarfed by the history of those on the right. I take you at your word that your intentions were honorable, but if this sort of stuff is really informing you then you aren't getting the whole picture.
Quote:
Not that it matters, I know that God botherers are probably proportionately the biggest culprits on this matter. However, there has been a very significant movement amongst left wingers, chiefly led by feminists like Andrea Dworkin, to restrict our freedoms and they need to be identified so that their ideas can be refuted. Apportioning "fair" quantities of blame is a pretty pointless exercise in my view.
Last time I checked Dworkin was still an American & the power of the feminist left in the ALP was dramatically lower now than 20 or 30 years ago. In fact, it was during the period when that power was at its height that State ALP governments set about modernizing prostitution laws in Victoria & QLD. Pornography took a bit longer, but as someone who lived in a state where it was technically illegal I can tell you that it was sold openly - the laws were for show. Also remember that during that period pornography remained legal in Territories, where Federal law notionally rules. The rad/fems in the ALP were doing a pretty p1ss poor job.
By all means dispense with 'fairness' in order to tell whatever story you want, but don't expect it to go unchallenged.
Quote:
On Hamilton, the link below has his argument from the horses mouth. Basically says that the Government should restrict access to online pornography to everyone to prevent kids from viewing it. On the face of it he MIGHT just be over-reacting in his attempt to prevent children seeing inappropriate material, but it is a pretty bloody huge over-reaction and I am as suspicious of his motives as you are of the IPA author's.
OK, Hamilton is a tool. I note that the Greens didn't initially support the internet filter - does he even have the support of his own party?
As for the filter, I actually don't object to limited filters knocking out child porn & some of the other illegal stuff (beastiality, extreme sexual violence & some terrorist stuff), but the govt has to be transparent about what sort of sites are being blocked & why. I also don't have a problem with parents having a broader 'opt in' option, perhaps as a service provided by their ISP.
Bloody hard to miss a big building wiht a red light called the 'Candy Store' when you catch the tram there every day. And this coming from the expert on EFTPOS in brothels. No wonder you try to keep 'her' indoors.
One morning (when I assumed it would be closed) I saw this little old bloke with snow white hair walking through the front gate. For a moment I was mightily impressed at his determination - you'd have to pay me to get out of bed on a cold Melbourne morning for a bit of strange. Then, to my great dissapointment, he emerged with a broom & started sweeping the yard. Looks like he was just a cleaner. Wonder how they pay him?
"I take you at your word that your intentions were honorable, but if this sort of stuff is really informing you then you aren't getting the whole picture."
Think what you want, I don't feel the need to justify my intentions to you.
"I take you at your word that your intentions were honorable, but if this sort of stuff is really informing you then you aren't getting the whole picture."
Think what you want, I don't feel the need to justify my intentions to you.
Take a deep breath AG, I'm not expecting you to. I'm simply pointing out that I don't think you are running an agenda. If we are going to have a set to I'd rather it wasn't because we have misunderstood each other (wouldn't be the first time).
Take a deep breath AG, I'm not expecting you to. I'm simply pointing out that I don't think you are running an agenda. If we are going to have a set to I'd rather it wasn't because we have misunderstood each other (wouldn't be the first time).
I don't need to take a deep breath, I was calmly making an observation. In any case for your information I only posted the IPA article because it was the first one that came up when I entered "left-wing wowser" into my google bar, it served my purpose and I didn't really care about any percieved "unfairness" at the number of mentions of left wingers. Before you tell me that I should also have entered "right-wing wowser" just to be fair, I'll let you know that I didn't bother because everybody knows that a lot of wowsers are right-wing. It was only the left-wing ones who I felt the need to prove the existence of for the purpose of this discussion.
Whats more, I'm mildly bemused at you going off on a defend the ALP rant when I haven't mentioned that or any other political party, apart from the Australian Sex Party, during this discussion. I know that it was ALP Governments (centrist ones in Queensland, I don't know about anywhere else) who legalised the sex industry in most places and good for them. It frankly never occurred to me to discuss this in party political terms and it would be nice if you could participate in a discussion of Australian politics without doing so now and then, it is far more interesting.
I don't need to take a deep breath, I was calmly making an observation. In any case for your information I only posted the IPA article because it was the first one that came up when I entered "left-wing wowser" into my google bar, it served my purpose and I didn't really care about any percieved "unfairness" at the number of mentions of left wingers. Before you tell me that I should also have entered "right-wing wowser" just to be fair, I'll let you know that I didn't bother because everybody knows that a lot of wowsers are right-wing. It was only the left-wing ones who I felt the need to prove the existence of for the purpose of this discussion.
Interesting, my browser brought up this one first:
As for what 'everyone knows', most people here don't keep up with the day to day of Oz politics, so discussing an issue like censorship without explaining context risks misunderstanding. Posting stuff from the IPA virtually guarantees it. Trying to discuss the state of things now without some idea of how we got here is at best unhelpful, at worst misleading.
Quote:
Whats more, I'm mildly bemused at you going off on a defend the ALP rant when I haven't mentioned that or any other political party, apart from the Australian Sex Party, during this discussion. I know that it was ALP Governments (centrist ones in Queensland, I don't know about anywhere else) who legalised the sex industry in most places and good for them. It frankly never occurred to me to discuss this in party political terms and it would be nice if you could participate in a discussion of Australian politics without doing so now and then, it is far more interesting.
This is a debate that is all about public policy bit hard to avoid the party dimension. The moment you start talking about 'left' & 'right' parties start wandering in, like it or not. 'Moralizing left wingers' are more likely to attach to one major party & 'fundamentalist Christians' to another. You can try talking vaguely about 'left' and 'right' all you want, but at some point it is going to get down to who has done or is doing what, and that is all about parties. Having spent years reading & discussing your views I could make a pointed response to your last little observation, but I'm trying to keep it nice.
As for the state of censorship in Australia right now, I repeat my total disenchantment with the current government (uhm, don't know how to 'de-party' that). There is nothing new about censorious attitudes in the ALP (oops, sorry 'the left'), but I sort of hoped the shift away from the Catholic Church in the 60s & the injection of younger progressives in the 70s had brought it to an end. 'The left' even managed to limit the worst excesses of the sisterhood. Unfortunately over a decade of the Libs (oops, sorry 'the right') courting & actively encouraging the most politically active wing of fundamentalism has helped to create a monster. 'The left' has not only become craven, it has started to let the loons into the temple. Thus we have petty moralizers running both parties (oops, prominent on both sides of politics) & moral panics the order of the day. Tip: the next two will be aimed at the young - alcohol consumption/late night venues & driving cars. Still, at least it might get them to lay off porn.
Gee, I see what you mean about how much better the discussion is wthiout those nasty old parties. makes much more sense.
but with EFTPOS you can walk out of a brothel with more cash in your pocket than when you walked in.
Swipe that slot too often and you may end up with a bit more than just extra cash, something that just keeps on paying out,,,call it measels if you like!
I did see that article and didn't think it was relevant. Hamilton is acknowledeged as a leading left wing thinker in Australia, just because some other left winger who disagrees with him wants to say that he is not a real lefty, doesn't make it true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigfella
As for what 'everyone knows', most people here don't keep up with the day to day of Oz politics, so discussing an issue like censorship without explaining context risks misunderstanding. Posting stuff from the IPA virtually guarantees it. Trying to discuss the state of things now without some idea of how we got here is at best unhelpful, at worst misleading.
The IPA article stands on its own merits for the purposes of this discussion. It explicitly states that wowserism is a bi-partisan phenomena (or though multi-partisan would be more correct). I suspect that your major problem with it is because you see the organisation as an ideological enemy, so of course nothing that they have to say could be of merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigfella
This is a debate that is all about public policy bit hard to avoid the party dimension. The moment you start talking about 'left' & 'right' parties start wandering in, like it or not. 'Moralizing left wingers' are more likely to attach to one major party & 'fundamentalist Christians' to another.You can try talking vaguely about 'left' and 'right' all you want, but at some point it is going to get down to who has done or is doing what, and that is all about parties."
Having spent years reading & discussing your views I could make a pointed response to your last little observation, but I'm trying to keep it nice.
As for the state of censorship in Australia right now, I repeat my total disenchantment with the current government (uhm, don't know how to 'de-party' that). There is nothing new about censorious attitudes in the ALP (oops, sorry 'the left'), but I sort of hoped the shift away from the Catholic Church in the 60s & the injection of younger progressives in the 70s had brought it to an end. 'The left' even managed to limit the worst excesses of the sisterhood. Unfortunately over a decade of the Libs (oops, sorry 'the right') courting & actively encouraging the most politically active wing of fundamentalism has helped to create a monster. 'The left' has not only become craven, it has started to let the loons into the temple. Thus we have petty moralizers running both parties (oops, prominent on both sides of politics) & moral panics the order of the day. Tip: the next two will be aimed at the young - alcohol consumption/late night venues & driving cars. Still, at least it might get them to lay off porn.
Gee, I see what you mean about how much better the discussion is wthiout those nasty old parties. makes much more sense.
You only need to start talking about bipartisan party politics if you only see the major parties as being the ones worth voting for. I don't. It is an entirely valid strategy for the Australian Sex Party to identify the individual wowsers or party wide wowserism within all the other parties and to expose them. If they don't lift their game on sexual freedom then party will be punished and the ASP will gain ground. What I am talking about is essentially the same process that has happened with the Greens on environmental issues, the majors now have to be seen to be taking the environment seriously because of the threat the Greens pose. It can't happen if the culprits aren't identified though, which is what I am doing.
Last edited by Aussiegunner; 02-07-2010 at 09:24 AM..
I did see that article and didn't think it was relevant. Hamilton is acknowledeged as a leading left wing thinker in Australia, just because some other left winger who disagrees with him wants to say that he is not a real lefty, doesn't make it true.
No, but it does open up the possibility that on this issue he is out of step with others (perhaps even most others) on the left.
Quote:
The IPA article stands on its own merits for the purposes of this discussion. It explicitly states that wowserism is a bi-partisan phenomena (or though multi-partisan would be more correct). I suspect that your major problem with it is because you see the organisation as an ideological enemy, so of course nothing that they have to say could be of merit.
No, my major problem was that it presented an extremely skewed vision of 'wowserism' for a transparently political purpose. Had the article actually discussed the issue in a balanced manner I would have been fine with it.
Quote:
You only need to start talking about bipartisan party politics if you only see the major parties as being the ones worth voting for. I don't. It is an entirely valid strategy for the Australian Sex Party to identify the individual wowsers or party wide wowserism within all the other parties and to expose them. If they don't lift their game on sexual freedom then party will be punished and the ASP will gain ground. What I am talking about is essentially the same process that has happened with the Greens on environmental issues, the majors now have to be seen to be taking the environment seriously because of the threat the Greens pose. It can't happen if the culprits aren't identified though, which is what I am doing.
I have no argument with what the ASP is saying on this issue. Good luck to them. I am also keen to identify the cuplrits - ALL of them.
Swipe that slot too often and you may end up with a bit more than just extra cash, something that just keeps on paying out,,,call it measels if you like!
Cheers.
I hope thats not from personal exp!
(Have a running joke with a mate about a particular guy and the chilamy ad's on public urinals)
02-07-2010, 03:47 AM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads