Leftist Agenda in Academia explained

Post Reply New Topic

STEM students and teachers are typically political polar opposites from their humanities peers.

Holey moley...
I like you as a person but I dislike some of what you say...
Was that a balanced opening gambit or wot!
I hope I created enough brownie points to get us through this post without ripping each other a new one...

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=righ ... 8AeJ35D4CQ

But all those things can be learnt without left wing influences influencing people developing their personal philosophies...
BTW, personally speaking, I think it would have been wiser not to bring Trump into your commentary here if you wanted a more emotionally balanced discussion...
Holding up Trump as *the* representative of conservatism is manipulative...
And I personally think the only reason he got in was that people simply didn't like the alternative, Hillary...

Ironically I was going to say the same thing about moderate conservatives...
Not all conservatives are particularly rational, but there is a tendency, imo, that they are more-so than the garden variety liberals...
On the other hand, leftists have a reputation for being emotionalistic...
Consider the adage: Winston Churchill: "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain..."
I am open to reconsidering my view here, but it seems to me that left-wing thinkers tend to focus more on emotional idealism whereas the *moderate* right-wingers tend to be more rational...alt-righters are just thug bufoons in my book, as are the far left-wing Nazis...btw...

I will tackle the rest of your post some other time, probably...

Left brain hemisphere dominant as opposed to right brain hemisphere dominant...

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=righ ... 8AeJ35D4CQ

Alex Jones does not believe what he says. Someone who was actually that mentally unstable could not successfully run a business. He is indeed conspiring to dupe people into believing his lies, I don't know that's simply to make money or because someone if using him for their political gains.

The problem with the modern welfare state is not the welfare, ie. welfare benefits but that politicians (and voters as well) believe that if you apply enough stressors into the benefits, people will automatically find work, especially if they are sick, disabled or other issues.

This is why I as an extreme leftist, believe in a Basic Income, with no duty to work/activity. However, it should levelled, so those who cannot work get a higher benefit, and the rest may have to live for less. If you earn money, enough to give you the standard minimum income, you don't get the Basic Income, but it starts automtically if you earn less. I can't get into details here, as it is off-topic, but I hope you get the idea.

The idea is to make work voluntary (freedom, liberty) instead of a duty.

The problem with welfare is, generally speaking, the fact that you have no choice. You can't neccessarily choose who should be your carer at home if your a elderly, you cannot choose which hospital if you are sick etc.

Instead people should get a locked amount of money, so to speak, they can use it to get treatment, welfare benefits etc. Only if genuine needs are met can you have more money for welfare, but the idea is liberty and personal freedom.

I'm a leftist, not a communist.

So I can choose to live off other's blood, sweat and tears infused tax dollar while playing on the beaches of Noosa Heads?

I try not to be a critical person, but I find this absolutely offensive...
An attitude of entitlement is indefensible imo...

May I ask how old you are?

That is not what I was saying.

I am all for work, for embetterment of society, charity or voluntary work, at least doing what are capable of how small your skills may be.

I just find it offensive that society has a need to FORCE people to work. I don't like the use of raw force/power or what is essentially starvation as a tool to make people work.

Your logic escapes me. People struggle to create food, goods, and services, they do not appear magically. Why should one person, who sweats and bleeds to produce things, give them away to others who produce nothing?

Firstly, you are not asked if you want to pay taxes. You just do, if certain criteria are met by the law.

Secondly, with Basic Income in place, you actually have the opportunity to say "I don't want to pay taxes" and just live off Basic Income - but then you won't have much fun in life, because fun cost money and you probably cannot afford that on Basic Income.

So even in the Basic Income system, where you are granted money for not working, handed to you by the government, you probably would still choose to get a job, a job that gives you enough money so your Basic Income stops automatically. And then you start paying taxes. If you get a job that pays less, your Basic Income will be reduced by a percentage, say 30 % of what you earn + you still pay taxes.

In that sense, you are urged to get a job where you don't need Basic Income anyway. But it will be in place for those seeking a job, but without the stressors of the unemployment benefits where one is forced into all sorts of work assessments etc.

Those who cannot work/provide for themselves due to disability, illness etc., will get more Basic Income.

Where does this basic income come from if no one has to work? Whre do taxes come from if no one hase to work? Where does food come from if no one is growing it?

Without us paying taxes there would not be the energy grid, transportation, public health care (here is Australia...don't know what you guys have), emergency services like police, firemen, paramedics, etc, etc, etc...
If you use these services, morally you are obliged to help pay for them...


But this is still a parasitic *attitude* because even basic income comes out of our tax dollar...
I am not sure why you have difficulty with this concept...
BTW, where do you think the money the government has comes from?

I don't have a problem with helping others less fortunate...
I have a problem with people who have a parasitic attitude of entitlement...
I have a problem with those who think we who contribute are there to serve their selfish requirements...



Most want to work...despite not wanting to work...
But there are those who can work but choose not to because of their attitude of entitlement...

Here in Australia, we have an expression called: "dole bludger"...
Often these social parasites will travel to an area where job prospects are virtually zero so they can collect the dole with very little prospect of finding work...
Many of these social parasites will board with other like thinking people, thus making the rental burden minimal...

There are whole communities over here who live around sunny beaches surfing or whatever virtually all day and partying virtually all night...

I know of people who supplement their income through criminal activities, gaining tax-free dollars while being supported by working individuals...
It is these sorts of people which make it necessary for some of the harsher measures involved to qualify for government handouts...
Blame them for the suffering of *genuine* people <sic>



Most people don't enjoy work...
Most workers don't enjoy their work...
People usually work to live, not live to work...

I'm retired now...early retirement...
I hated my job to the point I retired early...
But I persisted until I could be financially independent...

A parasitical mindset doesn't validate a parasitical lifestyle...
People with an attitude of entitlment who are capable of working but expect others to provide for them simply because "they don't want to" <pout> need to grow up...

We all have to do things we don't want to in this life system...
But other people aren't one's personal "runner boy", "gofer", "man servant", "squire", "butler"...

I thank you...
<bow>
<exit stage right>

But we are more or less forced to use them. I don't feel obligated to help pay for something I can't opt out of.

Do you use a toilet?
You are ignoring my point...

Yes. Against my will. I prefer to void outdoors. You have no idea what's going on in my mind so I'll thank you to not assume that I'm ignoring anything. Forget it, I'm done with this thread.

It is obvious that if nobody would work and 100 % stayed at home at basic income, society will collapse. However, I don't believe this will ever come so far.

People still have incentive to work even with Basic Income in place.
And with work you get wages, with wages come taxes.

Why does everybody assume that nobody would work if they could get a free meal?
If housing, food, medical aid and other basic neccessities are met, people automatically assume people would stop working.

I find it hard to understand that "logic". If anything, if you get a free meal and society put trust in you and have faith that you will do your best, you would do your best including work, if you can.

People always assume those on welfare are the worst criminals ever, and that disabled people should be treated like criminals, who should be forced to work.

I find that kind of reasoning difficult to understand.

In addition, I generally find it hard to understand the following "logic":

"If everybody acted like you this and this would happen".

- but nobody are like you or me or anybody else! Nobody are like everybody else. We are all different.

I think a better solution would be everyone work less. Maybe the government could stop taxing income and tax how many hours someone works after a certain point.