Politicians - What do we expect? (1 Viewer)

[King of Helview]

Sarah, sweetheart let me give you a couple of quotes to provide you with these examples you have somehow missed:

"No troubles are as serious as the troubles women cause" Sirach 25:13

"Women make sensible men do foolish things" Sirach 19:2

"A wife who doesnt talk to much is a gift from the Lord" Sirach 26:14

The first highlights the morally debauch nature of women

The last indicates the intellectual capacity

And the second, well that conflicts with Johns view. Women are sometimes great manipulators and this is often the way in which women came to power in history. (Aside from hereditary claims)

 

[King of Helview]

Rama_V you say what you said in a bad way but you never had anything to say about my views before this. Jumping on the bandwagon?

 

[rama_v]

Rama_V you say what you said in a bad way but you never had anything to say about my views before this. Jumping on the bandwagon?

hardly, i have been reading your views on the history forum. I was merely providing a link for the sake of everyone reading this thread in case they wanted some background.

 

[AJohnston1121]

I read alot from here but never post but I just have to! As Damage Inc. stated you can't use a 2000 year old book, which I respect and all, to describe what women should or should not do. Our laws are ALOT different now.

This thread has gone a tad off topic though. Interesting read though.

 

[Sarah]

Sarah, sweetheart let me give you a couple of quotes to provide you with these examples you have somehow missed:

"No troubles are as serious as the troubles women cause" Sirach 25:13

"Women make sensible men do foolish things" Sirach 19:2

"A wife who doesnt talk to much is a gift from the Lord" Sirach 26:14

The first highlights the morally debauch nature of women

The last indicates the intellectual capacity

And the second, well that conflicts with Johns view. Women are sometimes great manipulators and this is often the way in which women came to power in history. (Aside from hereditary claims)

King of Helview, from my understanding Sirach is from the old testament. Thanks for pointing them out however, i should've been more clearer and stated that i havne't seen anything in the new testament which is critical of women. All things said, similar comments in the new testament may reinforce this view.

I do think that context is important when reading scriptures. If you disregard it, a few of John the Great opinions on rational thinking, capacity to rule can also be applied to males in the Bible (i refer to the bible as you've made reference to it and John has referred to Christian scholars)

 

[nwatts]

"And for christs sake, why aren't there more women in politics in Australia?" very simply it is a truth universally acknowledged that women are incapable of rational thought and any type of rule. Read Aristotle's works for this philosophy, or St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, the entire Christian doctrine, and many many more. The major traditional religions are patriarchal, and they greatly influence politics, as is the case in Australia. Women are incapable of rule, are easily influenced and tricked, and generally tend to be more debauch in their behaviour. They cant achieve the same intellectual levels of males, and can not thus rule a nation, particularly not a successful nation. All Christians here should realise such Church Doctrine and not ignore it, as is often the case.

Firstly, the new testament is all you need to worry about with regards to Christian doctrine. And it dictates the ideal church leader, of which is male. Considering church != state, i'd say you're full of it.

Also, when arguing you cannot possibly appeal to authority in order to establish an objective truth. "Oh my neighbour hates onions. Therefore they're the devil." A statement that has the same validity as yours.

King of Helview: Quoting Sirach is as valid as quoting Dan fucking Brown. Pull your head out of your arse.

 

[King of Helview]

I hate to be rude to you Nwatts because you were awfully polite to me but I must pull you up here

You said that the New Testament is all you need to worry about in terms of Christian writings and doctrine! I am sorry but there is a little more to "worry about" than just the New Testament. The basis of Judaism and Christianity in terms of morality lies in the Old Testament! The Ten Commandments. Also, how about the countless saints and theologians who have wrote on Christianity? Do we just not consider these people as valid because you say so? This is wholly unfair and I am sure that you need to recant this statement.

Sarah, maybe you are not persuaded by the Old Testament so I shall give you an example from Jesus Christ himself. This is from the Gnostic Gospels, books that are not in the bible but are writings on Jesus Christs life, from those that knew him. This is from the book of Thomas and is an example of Womens subservience in Christianity:

****Simon Peter said to the Lord and his disciples, "Let Mary leave us, because women are unfit for the Life Everlasting"

Jesus replied "Wait, I'll guide her soul to make her as a real man, in that place which transcends the difference between the sexes so she'll become a living spirit. For each woman who makes herself male in this way and overcomes all differences will enter the Kingdom of Heaven****

 

[King of Helview]

Could you please state why, or do you plan to leave us hanging

 

[John The Great]

Using a religious source to create, or support, an argument is completely bullshit.

Any reasoning behind that? Theology disagrees with you there anyway.
By the way, I'm impressed that your so willing to quote me consitently, but may i inquire as to its purpose, and when exactly it will stop?

 

[King of Helview]

Does your resoning apply if it is a religious debate. Oh, I think I found a small flaw in that arguement

I agree with John. Get those silly quotes out of your sig. John may quote Nietzchse a lot but you sure as hell quote John the Great a lot as well!

 

[John The Great]

Firstly, the new testament is all you need to worry about with regards to Christian doctrine. And it dictates the ideal church leader, of which is male. Considering church != state, i'd say you're full of it.

Also, when arguing you cannot possibly appeal to authority in order to establish an objective truth. "Oh my neighbour hates onions. Therefore they're the devil." A statement that has the same validity as yours.

King of Helview: Quoting Sirach is as valid as quoting Dan fucking Brown. Pull your head out of your arse.

Unless your of a particular protestant christianity such as Calvinism, or Zwinglinism, than you would not say that the Bible,not just the new testament, is the only source of Church doctrine. As it is, no form of christianity denies the authority of the old testament in relation to church Doctrine. Yet, Roman Catholicism acknowledges the Bible as well as the theology of great men of the Church, such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas etc.
I never said Church= state, so what exactly are you talking about? I said religion as an entirity greatly influences politics.
when arguing you can cite the works of highly distinguished and acknowledged men such as Jesus etc. and establish an 'objective' truth. Of course the nature of objectivity and even truth and whether it can ever be attained is debatable. Perhaps if 'your neighbour' was Jesus etc. then you could help validate a claim.
By the way, perhaps the fact that Dan Brown holds no significant authority within the Christian religion, seperates his works from those of the Old Testament.

 

[John The Great]

No-one here is going to take you seriously with ridiculous unfounded views like that.

I note that you have found your way to the News, Current Affairs & Politics section. While I am not directly responsible for what you have been doing in the history section, I warn you now of the Forum Rules.

If no one is going to take ME seriously with ridiculously unfounded views like that, when they are indeed not my views, but the views of these distinguished men and of the Church there appears to be a great flaw in your argument. As you may or may not know, people take Aristotle seriously, they have been doing so for over two thousand years. People take St. Paul seriously, St. Augustine and so on very seriously. In fact the Christian religion is the largest in the world, and is taken VERY seriously. Islam has similar views in realtion to the subordination of women as does Jewdaism. Hence these views are taken VERY SERIOUSLY. Not to mention, if you bother to read any of their works, you will discover they are anything but unfounded.
By the way, i have in no way breached the rules. I have not sworn or involved myself in name calling with you people and these responses have been in relation to a question that was asked. They are not malicious or in away offensive, unless you are offended by Religious doctrine or philosophy, in which case it is your problem.

 

[John The Great]

...no he didn't. He said he wanted people to DISCONFIRM not DISCONFORM. You're whole argument from there is useless and should be disregarded.

OMFG, shut up you retard.

I am unaware which of Nietzsche's thoughts I have questioned. Enlighten me.

Well, you've got me there. I haven't read any of Nietzsche or Marx's work, due to the fact I have a life.

Whoa, another fucking stupid comment. Because I haven't read Nietzsche or Marx means I can't comment on politics. Fuck man, what are you talking about.

disconfirm is to disprove theories. If politicians disprove their theories, the parties collapse. There is no stability, there is no conformity, as to question the theories is to not to conform, thus it falls in to line with the rest of my argument. However you were right, i did originally misread the comment, however as you have seen they were very similar and result in the same conclusion. However to say that lack of rule doesnt result in anarchy and the destruction of mankind reflects poorly on you.

Arent there rules here in regards to calling people names? Not to mention, i wasnt speaking, so shutting up wouldnt make a difference.

You havent read any of Nietzsche or marx, as you have a life? If by life, you mean you are alive which is really all you could mean then so am i. So are many people, and so were Marx etc. when they originally formulated their doctrines. Thus how does you having a life excuse you from ignorance? Not a particularly sophisticated argument.

Another stupid comment? you havent read anything credible on political science so how can you comment on it? How can you comment on evoultion if you dont know what it is etc.? Not having read poltical science doesnt mean you cant comment on politicians etc. however it does mean your incapable of discussing political theories, such as the death of the Proletariat without the Bourgeoisie and Aristocrat.

 

[John The Great]

Care me to introduce you to the views of the newbies:

http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=76039&page=5&pp=15

And here is background on Nietzsche
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche

This is a worrying age when people quote Nietzsche from Wikipedia. What happened to actually reading their works?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

By the way, i have in no way breached the rules. I have not sworn or involved myself in name calling with you people and these responses have been in relation to a question that was asked. They are not malicious or in away offensive, unless you are offended by Religious doctrine or philosophy, in which case it is your problem.

John, I never said you had breached the rules. I draw your attention to the rules because you would have breached them by now had they been in existence in the history forum.

On a side note, I would mention that it is not a defence to breaching the rules that you did so because of religious beliefs. To take an extreme example, if a religion said that it was okay to be excessively racist to black people, that would not excuse you from breaching the racism rules on this forum.

As for the rest of what you said:

If no one is going to take ME seriously with ridiculously unfounded views like that, when they are indeed not my views, but the views of these distinguished men and of the Church there appears to be a great flaw in your argument.

Fallacy: appeal to authority.

As you may or may not know, people take Aristotle seriously, they have been doing so for over two thousand years.

Of course people take Aristotle seriously. But they do not take claims that women are inferior in their mental faculties to men seriously, no matter where they come from.

People take St. Paul seriously, St. Augustine and so on very seriously. In fact the Christian religion is the largest in the world, and is taken VERY seriously. Islam has similar views in realtion to the subordination of women as does Jewdaism. Hence these views are taken VERY SERIOUSLY.

1. Fallacy: appeal to majority.

2. People may take Christianity or Islam seriously but whether they adhere to the view that women are inferior to men intelligence wise is another matter entirely.

Not to mention, if you bother to read any of their works, you will discover they are anything but unfounded.

That is a vague statement. Are you trying to say there is a basis for believing in those religions? Or are you trying to say there is a basis to believing that women are inferior mentally? The latter is obviously wrong, but even the former I would answer in the negative, though that is an unrelated matter.

 

[nwatts]

Fallacy: appeal to authority.

Hah thankyou. There's even a wikipedia entry for it.

 

[nwatts]

This is from the book of Thomas and is an example of Womens subservience in Christianity:

Oh my you're stupider than you realise. Thomas is an apocryphal text for a reason. Quoting it to state a biblical truth is simply stupid.

You obviously don't know enough about Christianity if you howl on about Old Testament doctrine. Are we to give exactly 10% of what we own? Are we to have as many wives as we want? Do we sacrifice animals for the Lord? No, no and no. There are hordes of other Old Tesament practices that we no longer take part in, because the New Testament has issued a new covenant for Christians to live by. There are even two new commandments.

Pfft. I thought I was the one who ran into arguments before thinking. It seems you're more naive than your bloated ego thinks you are.

 

[stamos]

what about that quote from the bible

"remove the plank from your own eye before you troll moonlight's politics forum"

 

[neo o]

Gender expectations are huge in Australian politics- people either want the women to be ballbreakers, and it seems to some extent that women have to abandon much of their femininity in order to succeed in any way. The way the media and the political sphere percieve and judge female politicians is also very unfair. There was an article in the Herald a few weeks ago about Gillards makeover since the last election. You would NEVER see an article about a male politician trying a new hairstyle.

1. There were articles about John Kerry's hairstyle and tan when he was running in the U.S. There have been articles about the Bomber trying to lose weight, frequent carictatures of Howard's looks, articles about how Latham's youth appealed to female voters etc. Oh, and just as a retort to your comments about women having to lose their femininity, Gillard has makeovers! MAKEOVERS! How female is that? Unless of course you're saying that feminity equates to the opposite of being a ball breaker which is being piss weak.

It's extremely condescending- also how the criticized Gillard for not having milk in the fridge in that photo in her kitchen. It's just bullshit. The patriarchy still very much exists in Australian politics- the only way women can get in to the boys club is to take on a more "masculine" persona to be taken seriously.

Please explain? What is this masculine persona? Are you trying to say that women have to adopt a passion for cricket, monster trucks and beer to be taken seriously within Australian political circles? You seem to be saying that men within political circles need to have "balls". So are you saying that women within politics should be piss weak? Are you saying that being piss weak is a female trait? I'm confused .

I think that we do to a certain degree expect our politicians to lack humanity to a certain extent- but only in certain areas. People want to see happy shots of Iemma with his kids in the park the day after he won the premiership, but if Iemma ever said "I'm going to cancel a press conference today because my kid is sick" people would probably react very differently.

I believe that it was George Lucas who once said that "With great power, comes great responsibility". It's nice for the electorate to see that the premier has a strong family life. However, in such a powerful position, like in any major business or profession, the premier just can't take a day off. Or are you going to rail against doctors, lawyers etc now? Since Iemma is payed with public money, instead of being accountable to a boss, he's accountable to us, and he should be working every damn day that parliament sits.

It's like we almost expect our politicans to be robots to the party line and to their job- they aren't allowed to show who they really are beyond some stereotypical images e.g. talking to kids in schools, making a remark about that they hope their local footy team win on the weekend etc. And when they do err, the nation jumps on them so they won't make the same mistake twice. Brogden is a perfect example- his attempted suicide should be waking up people to the fact that politicians are PEOPLE. They have feelings, stresses, problems etc. And do you know what? That to me is what we need. We need more PEOPLE and PERSONALITIES in Australian politics instead of drones that simply tow the party line.

1. Brogden was just silly. He over-reacted. If he just brushed the comments off Tony Abbot style, nothing would have happened.

a) Vote for boring baby boomer drones all the time- we need charismatic politicians. And anyone who says Johnny is TRULY charismatic needs a bit of a head check- compared to Keating, Whitlam and others he is very boring.

Yes, we need politainment, watching question time should be fun!

b) Condemn anyone who has a view that differs somewhat from their party line. We need that to foster healthy democracy, I really hate the way we expect politicians simply to tow the party line and get mad when someone doesn't. We should vote in people that actually have their own ideas rather than "Liberal party policy 101" or "How to make Labor look mildly unified 101"

People vote for their parties. When one party member crosses the floor, you have one member, of one seat, dictating for the majority. That isn't democracy.

In my opinion Australian politics is looking tired and old at the moment- we have had the same government in power for too long, and tragically I really doubt Labor can get their act together for the next election. And for christs sake, why aren't there more women in politics in Australia? NZ has had a female prime minister, we don't even see many women with important portfolios.

Justice, Immigration, Communication, Education and Health are all piss weak portfolios then? Perhaps deputy leader of the Labor party is also a piss weak job?Actually, I guess it is

 

[Generator]

Sartor apologises for racial slur

Brogden, Abbott and now Sartor (in recent weeks and not under parliamentary privilege, that is)... The difference that party-room support makes.