Semester 1 Chatter Thread (2008) (1 Viewer)

[tlodg]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

Why do you find it intimidating?

 

[jayadore]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

I have no idea. Everyone's got that whole confidence aura and purposeful stride and I'm just like, hm. I'm getting better though!

I think it's just cos I haven't been down to the reserve section. Once I've experienced it, I'll be fine.

 

[Rafy]

Re: If this thread gets to 300000 posts I will bake BOS a nice cake.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23605007-2,00.html

Congratulations Labor voters.

 

[neafoo]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

Footnoting in ancient history is so unbearably shithouse.

And i've never had to put stuff like this in a Bibliography before... usually i put the original author of the source (i.e Cicero) first, but the website says put the person who translated it first. watf?

p.s im fucking knackered.

 

[Silver Persian]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

I know what a crazy lady! Who the hell includes a bibliography in the word count?
How are you finding the question so far? Seems pretty esay, but I haven't started.

The way Im going to do it is just write the 1500wd essay - and then use the 10% word count buffer zone for the bibliography...I have no idea how many words my bibs normally are, but they couldn't be too much more than 150wds I guess...

And if I do go over the wordcount, I will plead ignorance of her stupid bibliography-is-part-of-the-wordcount rule

 

[jayadore]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

So I'm ditching fisher today. Went to bed at 6AM and now it's 1PM.
I'll just find more sources online and hope I get a decent grade.

500/2000!

 

[scarybunny]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

1128/2000 because I rewrote my essay last night.

So that doesn't include an intro or conclusion, so I don't have far to go.

Woo!

Really, though, fuck english. I've done the required number of arts units a long long time ago.

 

[scarybunny]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

I just get confused by his "Remembering the death and gore and bad parts of war is fine, but on ANZAC day we MUST NOT talk about war anecdotes or jokes or courage or ANY OF THOSE THINGS, because they're not as important as the death. We must sit in the corner and cry all day, because remembering the good with the bad is disrespectful. It might make people think that war is good."

 

[stazi]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

Nebuchannezar is a coward.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

yeah, neb is heaps uglier than war, especially with his blue hair.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

I loled. You haven't seen me with my blue hair though.

TIME FOR MOAR!

Ok, this is how things work. If the majority of people believe that someone is pwned, then obviously, they are pwned. The majority of people posting on this thread are (again) laughing at you. I wonder who's pwned?

An appeal to majority?

So there's a rule that says you have to dedicate 24 hours exactly to grief. Then do as you please, guyz.

Exactly! In the same way that there's a rule that says you grieve Christ's death for one day of the year, and then celebrate his ressurection on the next!

A day can serve two purposes.

Certainly, although I'd like to think that the negatives of war outweigh the positives (agreed?) and therefore that it's more important to pay attention to those negatives on the one or two days in the year that people really think about this type of stuff.

You know, my overall point here is to try to avoid war in the future at all costs.

Bhutan? One of the happiest nations in the world, and also one of the poorest. Do you think that under communism the poorest countries will stop being poor?

I don't think I've ever said that every country in the world should be communist. So let's get that out of the way. I think that Australia has the wealth to redistribute, and I think that if it puts everyone on a level playing field according to the amount of work done for society then that would be the fairest system. And just to be clear, I see no reason why charity and foreign aid would suddenly cease to exist under my communist society. With the levels of government control and intervention, there's nothing to say that foreign aid would be stopped.

If their markets are closed and everything is done 'in-house', nothing changes (with the exception of a lack of FDI, and thus foreign income flows).

And capitalism also increases average incomes: look at China. Communism = a lot of unhappiness, poverty and depression. Fear of the government also exists. Progressive liberalisation = higher GDP/capita = more purchasing power = more access to resources, etc.

Um. Isn't the gap between rich and poor increasing to an absurd degree in China? Aren't a lot of peasants still dying to (excuse my sounding like a member of the SA) feed into the capitalist agenda? And why is it necessary to adhere to some silly direct reading of communism? Why can't the Chinese, or any other economy still be open, but with wealth distributed equally among the population by the government according to work done? That's what I'm for. Not some crazy ass scheme that you seem to think I'm into.

Who is it better for? It's not better than people who are earning more than the average (which is 50% of the population).

This is the worst line of thinking ever. Even if I assume what you're saying is true, I hardly believe that these people are earning much over the average. Australia, like everywhere else has a champagne glass shaped distribution of wealth. That's shit. Granted it's not as bad here as it is when you consider the whole globe, but it still exists. So you take the money of people who a) aren't working as hard as they should be for their obscene levels of income and b) don't need it and you distribute it to people according to the work done. What's the problem?

It won't even be better for probably another 25% of the population, as their income will also decline due to higher taxes and lower industry.

?

The incentive for them is their paycheck. They are likely not educated, and don't have much work experience. This is the most logical way for them to make money.

And this would change under a model of wealth redistribution?

Why isn't it true? Did you grow up under a communist system? My grandfather and father worked with many such workers. They put in a lot of work, whilst other people didn't give a shit. If everyone is paid the average wage, why wouldn't the alcoholic get the average wage?

It isn't true because that wasn't true communism. Or at least, it's not what I'm advocating. Once again (PLEASE LEARN TO READ), I'm advocating a system where money is distributed according to the work done.

We don't have much of an Aussie Battler anymore with high incomes per capita and purchasing power parity compared to other nations.

Yes we do you fool.

I would guess that the majority of diggers like ANZAC day. Did your late Uncle Noel also get you onto the communism ideas?

Probably. I wouldn't try to go and ask people to change the um, "official" meaning of ANZAC day. It's just my opinion, lulz. And no, Uncle Noel didn't get me onto communism. I'm pretty sure he hated the commie bastards.

I think the best thing about capitalism (although it started out as an ANZAC day argument) is that it allows people to aspire to become the best. What motivation is there for me to work hard and become the best marketer in Australia if there is no formal recognition system in place, and I will get the same job as everyone else.

I think that the best thing about communism is that it allows for everyone to get an equal chance at life depending on how much work they put in.

Absolutely wrong, fucktard.

No.

Nebuchannezar is a coward.

Hmm, that's probably true.

I just get confused by his "Remembering the death and gore and bad parts of war is fine, but on ANZAC day we MUST NOT talk about war anecdotes or jokes or courage or ANY OF THOSE THINGS, because they're not as important as the death. We must sit in the corner and cry all day, because remembering the good with the bad is disrespectful. It might make people think that war is good."

Out of interest, do you disagree with the idea that the negatives of war are more important than the positives? Because that's what I'm hearing atm.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

Rekkusu: You should have jumped ships when you had the chance!

 

[stazi]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

An appeal to majority?

When a single person in this thread has opposing viewpoints which are horribly illogical and reek of a little kid's temper tantrum: "Because I say so!!!", then yes. Majority rules.

Exactly! In the same way that there's a rule that says you grieve Christ's death for one day of the year, and then celebrate his ressurection on the next!

Oh so this rule is followed? I don't see people walking around being emo on the day of Christ's death

Certainly, although I'd like to think that the negatives of war outweigh the positives (agreed?) and therefore that it's more important to pay attention to those negatives on the one or two days in the year that people really think about this type of stuff.

...the whole day isn't about war, you do realise that. Something can be spawned from an event, but through time become distanced from it. ANZAC day isn't all about war, it's about the Australian spirit as many people have said a thousand times, whilst you bang your head on the desk like an autistic child screaming "no!! but war is bad! Everyone must cry the whole day. You can't possibly celebrate war, even though no one is celebrating war but a character trait of soldiers that has become persistent within non-warring Australians, too"

I don't think I've ever said that every country in the world should be communist. So let's get that out of the way. I think that Australia has the wealth to redistribute, and I think that if it puts everyone on a level playing field according to the amount of work done for society then that would be the fairest system. And just to be clear, I see no reason why charity and foreign aid would suddenly cease to exist under my communist society. With the levels of government control and intervention, there's nothing to say that foreign aid would be stopped.

Communism isn't about redistributing wealth based on the amount of work done for society. It's nearly impossible for the state to monitor the output of every worker in every industry. Communism is about whacking on a fixed wage, giving everyone exactly the same housing, etc. Will you also advocate tearing down large houses that people worked for and erecting standardised housing instead?

Communism is very expensive to run. Building a communist state would take decades and it's unlikely that foreign aid would be affordable for governments running it when there will be heaps of problems at home, such as the need for more equal medical, housing, public gyms, parks, transport...

Um. Isn't the gap between rich and poor increasing to an absurd degree in China? Aren't a lot of peasants still dying to (excuse my sounding like a member of the SA) feed into the capitalist agenda? And why is it necessary to adhere to some silly direct reading of communism? Why can't the Chinese, or any other economy still be open, but with wealth distributed equally among the population by the government according to work done? That's what I'm for. Not some crazy ass scheme that you seem to think I'm into.

No, the peasants who were dying before are still dying. Whilst there is a larger gap between rich and poor, the average wage has still gone up. Some people benefit most from capitalism, but overall, most Chinese have also benefited from it. The income that the top 10% are earning is redistributed to workers as they open more factory and centres for the provision of services. As more money is in the economy, they pay higher wages. This improves the quality of life of the average Chinese person. Again, those people who you quote as 'dying' are those in rural areas which have not yet experienced the economic and social reform that has occurred within the larger cities. In that regard, nothing has changed for them.

It is very difficult to keep economies open if you are a communist state.

This is the worst line of thinking ever. Even if I assume what you're saying is true, I hardly believe that these people are earning much over the average. Australia, like everywhere else has a champagne glass shaped distribution of wealth. That's shit. Granted it's not as bad here as it is when you consider the whole globe, but it still exists. So you take the money of people who a) aren't working as hard as they should be for their obscene levels of income and b) don't need it and you distribute it to people according to the work done. What's the problem?

There isn't that much of a difference between mean and median incomes in Australia. Ok, take the median income then: then 50% of people earning above the median will be disadvantaged. Furthermore, Australia's equality is ranked quite highly amongst developed nations.

Under communism you can't selectively pick people who are and aren't working as hard and redistribute their income. You will still be taking the money of people working 60-80 hour weeks earning obscene amounts of wealth. Wealth that they use to build more industry in Australia and worldwide. Wealth that improves the quality of life of people employed for them.

How do you propose to redistribute wealth by amount of work done? Will you distribute it simply by working hours? How do you measure the amount of work done by every worker in your country?

And this would change under a model of wealth redistribution?

Not for the plumber, but yes for the millions of professionals in our industry, including teachers, who would be taking a pay cut. If anything it incentivises people to quit their stressful 8am-7pm jobs to go for more mundane jobs where you would be working much shorter hours.



[quoteIt isn't true because that wasn't true communism. Or at least, it's not what I'm advocating. Once again (PLEASE LEARN TO READ), I'm advocating a system where money is distributed according to the work done.[/quote]
Ok...so again, what is this 'amount of work done' measure? Is it simply whacking on a set hourly wage?

Yes we do you fool.

So the majority of Australians are 'Aussie Battlers': blue collar workers who struggle to pay their bills, housing and have little to no disposable income?

Probably. I wouldn't try to go and ask people to change the um, "official" meaning of ANZAC day. It's just my opinion, lulz. And no, Uncle Noel didn't get me onto communism. I'm pretty sure he hated the commie bastards.

You already are asking people to change how ANZAC day is conducted based on your own ideals.

I think that the best thing about communism is that it allows for everyone to get an equal chance at life depending on how much work they put in.

And also gives everyone a disincentive to enter many industries. It also gives them a ceiling on their income and reduces the things that they could potentially spend the money on. It shrinks industries such as tourism and eliminates competition from the local marketplace building inefficiency.

Out of interest, do you disagree with the idea that the negatives of war are more important than the positives? Because that's what I'm hearing atm.

That's because you have selective hearing. Ffs, if she submitted those posts to a Play School forum the little kids would understand our arguments better than you do. She's saying that yes, war is primarily about negatives, but occasionally some positives can be created from war. Reshaping what an event is about is you trying to erase its significance to suit your own political agenda of preventing all wars. Do you think grieving for an additional six hours would achieve your goals, or do you think it may be more important for a company to keep developing its identity and instilling positive attitudes towards Australian culture? Optimism can also prevent war.

In conclusion, even under communism Neb wouldn't have an equal chance to everyone else of losing his virginity.

 

[Silver Persian]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

The way Im going to do it is just write the 1500wd essay - and then use the 10% word count buffer zone for the bibliography...I have no idea how many words my bibs normally are, but they couldn't be too much more than 150wds I guess...

And if I do go over the wordcount, I will plead ignorance of her stupid bibliography-is-part-of-the-wordcount rule

Hmmm...I'm 750/1500 words for my movements and policy essay, and my bibliography is already up to 150 words.

I really get the impression that Annette hasn't lectured for a decade, and that she has no idea about how things work now

 

[stazi]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

hahahaha yeah, it is quite ridiculous. she really doesn't come across as an academic

 

[Iheartpaulfrank]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

In conclusion, even under communism Neb wouldn't have an equal chance to everyone else of losing his virginity.

:rofl:

<3 you Stas. Totally.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

When a single person in this thread has opposing viewpoints which are horribly illogical and reek of a little kid's temper tantrum: "Because I say so!!!", then yes. Majority rules.

lulz. You've been doing the same thing pal.

Oh so this rule is followed? I don't see people walking around being emo on the day of Christ's death

I imagine that if you entered religious circles then you'd probably see a lot of people being emo.

...the whole day isn't about war, you do realise that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZAC_Day

"Anzac Day is commemorated by Australia and New Zealand on 25 April every year to honour members of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZACs) who fought at Gallipoli in Turkey during World War I. Anzac Day is also celebrated in the Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa and Tonga."

ANZAC day isn't all about war, it's about the Australian spirit as many people have said a thousand times, whilst you bang your head on the desk

Once again, sadly, you haven't mastered the skill of actually reading things before you make a post. :rofl:

I've recognised many times what it is, and that's what I have a problem with.

Communism isn't about redistributing wealth based on the amount of work done for society.

Pretty sure it is. It's probably not exactly the main school of communism but it's there somewhere. And in any case, even if it wasn't, that's what I stand for.

It's nearly impossible for the state to monitor the output of every worker in every industry.

No it's not.

Communism is about whacking on a fixed wage, giving everyone exactly the same housing, etc. Will you also advocate tearing down large houses that people worked for and erecting standardised housing instead?

Nope. Just let multiple people live in them! Or if someone works a lot more than everyone else, then they're certainly entitled to that big house.

Communism is very expensive to run. Building a communist state would take decades and it's unlikely that foreign aid would be affordable for governments running it when there will be heaps of problems at home, such as the need for more equal medical, housing, public gyms, parks, transport...

Haha. OH NOES! HEAVEN FORBID SOMETHING BE EXPENSIVE! Once again, you display your horrible belief that money seems to rule over everything else. "Everyone's happy? So what as long as we're spending more money that's bad Bad BAD!"

And yeah the second part of that post is just illogical. I mean, yeah, we'd totally be bankrupt if we took in more money and distributed it equally between services. Like, has it occured to you that the amount of money rolling into the government would be a lot larger than it is now? I fail to see why our government would suddenly be bankrupt.

No, the peasants who were dying before are still dying. Whilst there is a larger gap between rich and poor, the average wage has still gone up.

As a result of the rich getting richer, or because everyone's earning more hmm?

Some people benefit most from capitalism, but overall, most Chinese have also benefited from it. The income that the top 10% are earning is redistributed to workers as they open more factory and centres for the provision of services. As more money is in the economy, they pay higher wages. This improves the quality of life of the average Chinese person. Again, those people who you quote as 'dying' are those in rural areas which have not yet experienced the economic and social reform that has occurred within the larger cities. In that regard, nothing has changed for them.

And what exactly is the argument against the government redistributing these benefits rather than the unreliable individual?

It is very difficult to keep economies open if you are a communist state.

Impossible though?

There isn't that much of a difference between mean and median incomes in Australia. Ok, take the median income then: then 50% of people earning above the median will be disadvantaged. Furthermore, Australia's equality is ranked quite highly amongst developed nations.

Heh. The median level of wealth isn't exactly a great indicator of wealth distribution nor a great indicator of fairness. Anyone who does statistics knows this. This is an unfair example.

And a score of 3% when everyone else is getting 1.5% is still a poor score.

Under communism you can't selectively pick people who are and aren't working as hard and redistribute their income.

Yes I can.

You will still be taking the money of people working 60-80 hour weeks earning obscene amounts of wealth.

No I won't.

Wealth that they use to build more industry in Australia and worldwide. Wealth that improves the quality of life of people employed for them.

Wealth that could be used more constructively than it is currently.

How do you propose to redistribute wealth by amount of work done? Will you distribute it simply by working hours? How do you measure the amount of work done by every worker in your country?

Ah the crucial point. I don't deny that it would probably be horrendously inaccurate, as most government systems are, but nevertheless it would still be fairer for the majority than capitalism and a totally free market is. How would I do it? A large government beureau (omg more jobs!) would calculate it, based on information gathered about a job, how many hours you put in, what it is one does etc. It would be complex but hardly impossible. And in any case, it would be more fair than what we have now.

Not for the plumber, but yes for the millions of professionals in our industry, including teachers, who would be taking a pay cut. If anything it incentivises people to quit their stressful 8am-7pm jobs to go for more mundane jobs where you would be working much shorter hours.

And as I have said countless times (and I once again urge you to read so you don't continue to make an ass out of yourself) those working longer hours would be rewarded for working harder! Sheesh!

So the majority of Australians are 'Aussie Battlers': blue collar workers who struggle to pay their bills, housing and have little to no disposable income?

The Aussie battler hardly refers to only blue collared workers anymore. I'd hate to quote wiki but this article has a definition that's sourced. It simply refers to the working class who struggle to make ends meet. And yeah, there's a lot of them. Although I don't expect you, who I doubt has ever spent a lot of time in the West (note: West doesn't mean West of the harbour bridge) to know this. Funny how you're such a strong advocate of capitalism eh? :rofl:

You already are asking people to change how ANZAC day is conducted based on your own ideals.

I am asking people to consider the deeper meaning of ANZAC day and where it came from and what it should be used for in the future when they go off and celebrate. I'm hardly in a position to force anyone to do anything. Though, say I were a politician I would probably encourage people to take a more thoughtful and sombre approach to ANZAC day.

And also gives everyone a disincentive to enter many industries. It also gives them a ceiling on their income and reduces the things that they could potentially spend the money on. It shrinks industries such as tourism and eliminates competition from the local marketplace building inefficiency.

Now now Stazi, we both know that both communism and capitalism have their fair share of good and bad points. You're doing noone a service by being so one sided in your analysis.

That's because you have selective hearing. Ffs, if she submitted those posts to a Play School forum the little kids would understand our arguments better than you do. She's saying that yes, war is primarily about negatives, but occasionally some positives can be created from war. Reshaping what an event is about is you trying to erase its significance to suit your own political agenda of preventing all wars.

:rofl: Yes. It's a "political" agenda. Douche.

In conclusion, even under communism Neb wouldn't have an equal chance to everyone else of losing his virginity.

:rofl:

Although you probably should learn to debate with less jabs to the person who you're arguing with.

 

[stazi]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

lulz. You've been doing the same thing pal.

Then why is everyone criticising your faulty reasoning and not mine? My arguments are completely logical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZAC_Day

"Anzac Day is commemorated by Australia and New Zealand on 25 April every year to honour members of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZACs) who fought at Gallipoli in Turkey during World War I. Anzac Day is also celebrated in the Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa and Tonga."

But the whole day isn't organised to solely think about war. It's also about culture and character. Wikipedia is obviously the most authoritative source though.

Once again, sadly, you haven't mastered the skill of actually reading things before you make a post. :rofl:
I've recognised many times what it is, and that's what I have a problem with.

Once again, I did read your horribly argued points. I understand that you have a problem with it, but you are trying to say that it should only be about being sad about war, when the day isn't about that at all. You are also somehow linking the celebration to one of people actually being happy that war exists.

Pretty sure it is. It's probably not exactly the main school of communism but it's there somewhere. And in any case, even if it wasn't, that's what I stand for.

No it's not.

Ok, I own my own business. How are you going to monitor how much work I've done?

Nope. Just let multiple people live in them! Or if someone works a lot more than everyone else, then they're certainly entitled to that big house.

Oh my gosh. You are so kooky. Yeah...let's make everyone share housing like they did in Russia. People shouldn't be entitled to privacy: just put families together and have them share everything. Hells yeah!

And how can someone possibly work more than others to justify them getting a $5 million house as opposed to a $200k apartment?

Haha. OH NOES! HEAVEN FORBID SOMETHING BE EXPENSIVE! Once again, you display your horrible belief that money seems to rule over everything else. "Everyone's happy? So what as long as we're spending more money that's bad Bad BAD!"

And yeah the second part of that post is just illogical. I mean, yeah, we'd totally be bankrupt if we took in more money and distributed it equally between services. Like, has it occured to you that the amount of money rolling into the government would be a lot larger than it is now? I fail to see why our government would suddenly be bankrupt.

You have a short term view of things. Again, my assertion is in no way illogical. To establish a communist state, a ridiculous amount of capital investment is required for the provision of public services. Everything needs to become owned by the state. How do you do this when there are many services here provided by o/seas companies? What do you do, steal them? They will have to buy them out, and that costs a lot of money.

If the government takes in all the money, and they have such high expenditures, won't the remainder that can be distributed be decreased for workers?

I also never said bankrupt. Ever. I am saying that communism is very expensive to maintain as you actually increase inefficiency, remove a lot of industry, etc.

As a result of the rich getting richer, or because everyone's earning more hmm?

The median wage has also gone up, tool. China is developing a larger middle class. Same thing is happening in India.

And what exactly is the argument against the government redistributing these benefits rather than the unreliable individual?

Because there is no incentive for the unreliable individual to create such industry. The incentive before was that even under communism the government was corrupt and those people were given a lot, lot, lot more than the average other person (they could act as unethically as they wanted as the Chinese government wanted more money). China never operated a perfect communist model. However, why is it that before capitalism, China had so much poverty, but this poverty is very slowly decreasing, now? Why is it that other communist states have experienced exactly the same patterns?

Another argument is that communism sets a cap on how much people can earn. If you have a population of over a billion, redistributing a billion dollars from the top earners will only give each person $1/day extra.

Impossible though?

Think it through and you will find the answer. Everyone gets paid $35,000/year. A company wants to come in from overseas and provide their internet services. They can only really have one plan, as people can't afford the plans that give the company the most profit. Furthermore, if you don't allow your own workers to earn over a certain sum why would you allow the company to come in and take all of the money that your country is paying for the services, and send it back overseas? The government won't have access to this money. There are so many other strands of arguing that this could take, but yes, there's a reason that communist states don't work as free market economies, as you need to maintain everything within your own borders, and other countries coming in and acting in the spirit of free trade is perceived as them raping your citizens.

Heh. The median level of wealth isn't exactly a great indicator of wealth distribution nor a great indicator of fairness. Anyone who does statistics knows this. This is an unfair example.

It's a good indicator as it's the absolute centre when you compare all the salaries earned. A much better indicator than the mean

And a score of 3% when everyone else is getting 1.5% is still a poor score.

Who's everyone else? If we're ranked rather highly compared to other developed nations, how is everyone else so much better?

Ah the crucial point. I don't deny that it would probably be horrendously inaccurate, as most government systems are, but nevertheless it would still be fairer for the majority than capitalism and a totally free market is. How would I do it? A large government beureau (omg more jobs!) would calculate it, based on information gathered about a job, how many hours you put in, what it is one does etc. It would be complex but hardly impossible. And in any case, it would be more fair than what we have now.

Oh wait, so you want to place value on which occupations should be paid more than others? So a doctor could still earn $100,000 but a plumber would still earn $50,000? How does this change anything?

A free market already does those calculations for you. The most demanded positions with the least supply typically have the highest pay.

And as I have said countless times (and I once again urge you to read so you don't continue to make an ass out of yourself) those working longer hours would be rewarded for working harder! Sheesh!

I love the irony of your posts. Others are laughing at you making an arse of yourself, yet you keep saying that I'm not reading your posts, and that I'm illogical. lol.

What about teaching? that requires less working hours than other professions. some industries have shorter hours too, but those hours are incredibly intense. i guess those people won't be rewarded?

The Aussie battler hardly refers to only blue collared workers anymore. I'd hate to quote wiki but this article has a definition that's sourced. It simply refers to the working class who struggle to make ends meet. And yeah, there's a lot of them. Although I don't expect you, who I doubt has ever spent a lot of time in the West (note: West doesn't mean West of the harbour bridge) to know this. Funny how you're such a strong advocate of capitalism eh? :rofl:

Oh my mum and stepdad are aussie battlers for sure. They have over $30,000 of debt and their rent has recently been increased. How high is the % of people who struggle to make ends meet? For instance, a market research company has the following group:
"Survivors. These consumers have the lowest incomes. They have too few resources to be included in any consumer self-orientation and are thus located below the rectangle."

I would say those are the aussie battlers compared to the other segments they identified. From memory only a very small percentage of Australians were in this category

The mean household income per week for people in the 50th percentile (i.e. the actual average earner as not affected by the top earners) is $894/week. That's quite substantial. Disposable income is the money remaining after purchasing necessities. Do you think that at $894/week in the household, those people are battlers? The 20th percentile earns $443/week after paying for necessities, which is still quite decent. I also doubt they can be classified as battlers. The 10th percentile earns $279/week extra. Now they are certainly battlers.

I am asking people to consider the deeper meaning of ANZAC day and where it came from and what it should be used for in the future when they go off and celebrate. I'm hardly in a position to force anyone to do anything. Though, say I were a politician I would probably encourage people to take a more thoughtful and sombre approach to ANZAC day.

Luckily you'll never be a politician as even 'Aussie battlers' will laugh at you

Now now Stazi, we both know that both communism and capitalism have their fair share of good and bad points. You're doing noone a service by being so one sided in your analysis.

However, the good points of capitalism far outweigh the good points of communism. The bad points of communism far outweigh the bad points of capitalism. But yes, communism does have some good points.

:rofl: Yes. It's a "political" agenda. Douche.

Ok, I should have said ideological.

Although you probably should learn to debate with less jabs to the person who you're arguing with.

You actually started the jabs in the free education argument, and I thought why not have some fun, too. I mean, you're quite easy to make personal attacks against.

 

[Silver Persian]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

No I have the biggest penis.

 

[jayadore]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

No I have the biggest penis.

But do you know how to work it? :rofl:





1295/2000 kids!
I'm slowly slowly getting there.
I love my snail pace.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter Thread

I finished 3 assignments and started a fourth today. On a roll. Well actually, more "oh shit it's due on monday quick do it now go go"...but it got done! wooo