Free Republic

Merry Christmas!

Not to mention Winston Churchill. He coined the term “my black dog” for his depression, in fact. Heck, though - I’m sure it was just something he needed to “snap out of”, rather than a recurring thing he dealt with throughout his entire life.

Some people, eh?

That’s the biggest difference - if something goes wrong ion my life, I accept that it’s probably my fault, or the fault of blind chance, and don’t desperately look around for someone to blame. I get on with it.

Liberals, on the other hand, aren’t too concerned with finding a solution, so long as they can dole out the ever-precious blame in precise, exactly-measured portions.

I know a lot of people who don’t own televisions, and I’m one myself. I don’t recall EVER having whined about it, thank you very much. But it DOES give a decent analogy to work from. I find proletyzing people irritating, regardless as to whether they own televisions or not. Someone constantly boasting about their 52-inch plasma-screen television is just as irritating as someone boasting about not owning one at all.

I’ve said I don’t support the governmental charity - if I want my money to go to support causes in Africa, I’ll give out of my own pocket. And I tihnk the latter part of your post is a prime example of why many people aren’t just “stupid”. If the problem is the men, what about the women, hm? Especially in regards to Islamic parts of Africa, they don’t have much in the way of a choice.

With the HUGE amount of money that’s been spent on the public school system, I find it hard to believe it’s not excellent, don’t you? Since that’s the reasoning you’re using, I’d like an answer to my question first. Just because you’re pouring money into something doesn’t mean it’s automatically going to succeed.

People give money to African charities because they believe their money can do some good there. While a lot of people have the oppurtunity to be educated about and avoid sexually transmitted diseases, the horrific state of much of Africa leaves much to be desired. You’re assuming most Africans in AIDS-plagued countries have the same level of knowledge about the disease as we do in the West, which simply isn’t so.

While I don’t support government-funded charity, it doesn’t mean people suffering from AIDS are all idiots who take no precautions. It means they’ve never known what precautions to take, and have never really had an oppurtunity to find out.

The thing here is “opt out”, and “opt in”. If it’s an opt-in system, I have no problem with it. And the fact remains there’s an abundance of programs designed to protect kids on the internet.

And it’s not so much about porn, either. It’s the fact the government is SAYING WHAT WE CAN AND CAN’T WATCH. Now, here’s the clincher. Do you really trust nice ol’ Mr. Gubermint with your freedom of information?

As a user of the school-based internet here in Australia, (and if anyone here takes any TAFE courses, they’ll understand what I’m talking about), the measures enacted to “protect” children at school go FAR beyond useful. They’re draconian. Under the school guidelines, this site should be blocked (for some reason, it’s not, possibly because it doesn’t use a standard forum layout).

Under the school guidelines, half the HISTORICAL information I want to access is blocked.

This isn’t a question of morality - it’s not exactly hard to get porn, and there’s no way they can block every single site out there. It’s a question of how much you want the nanny-state to regulate your life.

I look at it this way.

They can call a dog a porcupine all they want. I’m sure as hell not going to pat it, though.

To be honest, I expected little more than a denunciation. What I got was a well thought-out response, with little I can or will argue with. Thank you.

Firstly, I see most children’s fiction as something that should not be aiming to deliver a particular point of view, and, while I honestly don’t see the series as something that gives a resoundingly atheist worldview to children (rather, the story is delivered, like most good children’s fiction, on two levels - a more basic plotline for the younger readers, and a more advanced philosophical view-in for older readers).

And whilst I dislike the whole idea of indoctrinating a child with ANY belief, my support for the book tends to stem more from the C.S Lewis “factor”, as many people decry his ‘indoctrination’, whilst calmly ignoring other examples of the same thing.

Many facets of Burkian conservatism appeal to me - primarily that we should not simply throw away the accumulated knowledge of the past in favor of future speculation. That sort of thing, I feel, is what allows liberalism to ignore the failure of previous policies, such as those of appeasement.

However, I don’t feel he’s trying to sweep away an old order with his children’s fiction. A good comparison to draw here, I find, is with the steroetypical militant atheist’s book, the God Delusion. Whilst His Dark Materials are in some way aimed at changing the viewpoints of those who read them, it is less of an overt movement, and more of those expressed by the author as his morality and personality would dictate.

When you are talking about the slow change of society, those sorts of books are those least likely to attempt to bring about rapid change, as opposed to manifestos such as the God Delusion.

I find most children’s fiction reprehensible for the sole reason that the moniker “children’s fiction” is so often used to push a particular lifestyle viewpoint. While I believe a certain general moral belief can be expressed (in many children’s books where you tend to have the child protagonist do something wrong, such as hit a sibling, and receive consequences accordingly), espousing a particular worldview to the exclusion of all others for a child is, in my view, morally repugnant.

However, in the same vein, I believe that children’s fiction cannot be wholly blamed, or scarcely blamed at all, for any changes in belief. It is the duty of the parents (and, if you go to a public school, perhaps the state in some measure, though I do not advocate this), to ensure children have an upbringing that allows them to make their own choices.

That is what prevents any real condemnation of such fiction, in my eyes. Such viewpoints can be communicated by the parents regardless of whether or not such books exist.

I’m curious. Have you actually READ these books, or are you riding on the wave of media hype?

I tend to think Philip Pullman’s blamed more than he really deserves. His books are just speculation, and don’t, if you’d read them, actually decry the idea of an ultimate being. Rather, he’s a writer taking an idea he finds interesting and going along with that. The books aren’t preachy, and they tell a solid story. A lot’s been made out of his books, but they’re not comparable to, say, Richard Dawkins.

The film, on the other hand, was one of the worst things I’ve ever seen.

Even as an atheist, I can sympathize with what Buchanan is saying. Although I don’t think young children should be taught what’s in the Testaments, as a society based on Judeo-Christian morality, (in my case, Australia), we do need to learn what the basis for our society has been, in the same way I’d expect schools to teach us about the Magna Carta and the way British Common Law has evolved, in Australia’s case.

Absolutely top bloke, Hunter. With Australia a bit down at the moment, I’d like to see America get some politicians in office who aren’t just greedy thugs (read: Democrats). From over here, it looks like you have some good options for the Presidency.

You have to understand that Rudd’s policies on.. well, almost everything, are IMMENSELY similiar to Howard’s. Rather than actually submitting policies and the like to the treasury to be reviewed, and attempting to outdo Howard on substance, he decided to go for style.

And after eleven years, many swing voters are convinced by style alone.

I’m more worried about what’s going to happen when Labor realize there’s no Coalition government for them to copy off any more.

I meant our combat troops, not the support troops. Twas a little grammatically incorrect, but I still thought my post was decipherable.

There’s no doubt it’s a damn shame. I hope he holds on to Bennelong, in any case.

Long story short, Rudd’s also declared that he doesn’t want to sign Kyoto unless more restrictions are placed on developing nations.

Just like Howard.

He’s also pandered to the anti-Iraq crowd by withdrawing combat troops, but our support contingent will remain there, and it’s likely they’ll just be redeployed to Afghanistan. A minor gain for the left, not a crushing victory, by any means.

I like to think that he wont. After all, the man’s against gay marriage, is fiscally conservative, and, despite his stated stance of being against the War in Iraq, is really only withdrawing our combat contingent from there, with the proviso that he’ll redeploy them in Afghanistan.

From my point of view, this election has been more about Howard’s promise to hand over to Costello, and, of course, the all-important voter fatigue, as opposed to actual ISSUES.

I believe if Rudd makes a massive jump to the left, just as many voters will make a massive jump off his ship. He’s promised centre-right policie as opposed to right-wing ones - hardly a major defeat for us conservatives.

Then again, it really depends on whether or not the Liberals can pull out another Menzies, or another Howard. Despite the fact that I agree with Costello’s VIEWS, if he’s left steering the ship, things don’t look all that bright for the Liberal Party.

Labor’s hardly a leftist party, either, to be honest. Howard’s probably lost, and I’m sorry to see him go, but it’s not the same kind of disaster America would face with a Democrat President. Unless Rudd does a complete about-turn on most of his policies (which, given his track record, doesn’t seem all that unlikely), we’ll still have a fairly conservative government in power.