Jump to content
Guest guest33730

I know no one will care but...........

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, beketamun said:

And yet the "kids of today" are the one doing all the inventing and pushing for all the changes, while the oldest are sitting back avoiding change because they know it won't affect them?  Yes, everybody is selfish, but should there be a point of political disenfranchisement to stop the blocking of progress? 

For better or worse, Brexit was change, which alot of older people voted for. You can't really pick and choose which change you want.


Nearly there! Don't drop the ball now guys! Vaccines are weeks away. Stay safe!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/05/2022 at 23:53, beketamun said:

That's really an outdated question, did you not see the composition of the election last week?  Doesn't everybody vote on their own personal values and then try and find a candidate that represents them?  Those personal values will be a mixture of ideas that benefit the individual and the whole, but it's personal preference to decide who should get your vote.   The issue has been a lack of candidates that represent the changing ideas of people, a limited choice of "parties" neither of which are progressive, and a stagnation of democratic Government.  Australia has had the same problem as the West....make a choice between red or blue and that is your lot.

The difference this time is that there are an expanding number of parliamentarians that do not belong to a party and were still voted in by the electorate into both the House of Reps and the Senate, which means both major parties will need to reform traditional thinking to remain relevant, or be consigned to the whim of a changing electorate that is going to reject them for alternative options to produce tight Governments which FORCE parliamentarians to work together for the benefit of the country and not their own interests. 

Interestingly, Germany, the most powerful nation in Europe has had a Grand Coalition for years between Left and Right and Centrist.  The 2 major parties have seen their combined share of the vote drop to below 50% ...the people are changing.  In the UK they made a disastrous populist choice and voted in a criminal and a liar, which 68% of the total electorate now want removiing asap...but they cannot do so because they gave him too much power based on a lie that he cannot resolve without a humiliating climbdown and the acceptance that he promoted greed, and that the majory electorate would have to accept they voted for greed, isolation, and discrimination, thus a decline all round.   Australia has avoided that fallout so far because it's electorate has proven itself to be much more astute and has changed Governments, bringing in a stronger mix of democratic ideas,  rejected discrimination, but not given them an unsurpassable mandate to risk real damage being caused. Time will tell whether this will bear fruit, but they made the political change that was needed at the right time.

I think you give Australians too much credit here. It is Australias preferential voting system that allows independent candidates to be elected. For many countries independents are a lost vote because of primitive first past the post systems.


Nearly there! Don't drop the ball now guys! Vaccines are weeks away. Stay safe!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, beketamun said:

I never said that anywhere if you read back.  This was strictly a retirement issue and the point where people should stop interfering to the point of damaging their legacy.

A generation ago the car manual showed you how to adjust valves and tappets , todays tell you not to drink the contents of the battery. 

your prejudice holds no bounds and has no place in a fair and equal society 

The more you post about it the more I think you are just trolling / trying to provoke reaction , quite sad imho. You do remind me of a previous poster slips my mind who at the moment. 
Won’t be replying any further on this subject. 

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Rallyman said:

A generation ago the car manual showed you how to adjust valves and tappets , todays tell you not to drink the contents of the battery. 

your prejudice holds no bounds and has no place in a fair and equal society 

The more you post about it the more I think you are just trolling / trying to provoke reaction , quite sad imho. You do remind me of a previous poster slips my mind who at the moment. 
Won’t be replying any further on this subject. 

 

 

I'm late 30s and if I had to pick a group of people to pick my future then it would be the older generation.

If I left it to the younger generation then I would I probably be walking the streets in a unicorn costume as I know identify as a unicorn.

The young have had it to easy and no one has stood upto or been tough against there stupid ideas.

It's no wonder mental health is such a big issue in kids these days.

It's man/women and he/she.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rallyman said:

A generation ago the car manual showed you how to adjust valves and tappets , todays tell you not to drink the contents of the battery. 

your prejudice holds no bounds and has no place in a fair and equal society 

The more you post about it the more I think you are just trolling / trying to provoke reaction , quite sad imho. You do remind me of a previous poster slips my mind who at the moment. 
Won’t be replying any further on this subject. 

Is that the limit of your answer?  You like Parley, make the opposite argument to that which you think you're making...you play the man, not the ball, because you have nothing to add.  Give us some reasons for goodness sake, answer the actual points and criticise them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lavers said:

I'm late 30s and if I had to pick a group of people to pick my future then it would be the older generation.

Most people in their late 30's would be mature enough to choose their own futures, surely.  Not sure what point you're making there....I've snipped the irrelevant stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, beketamun said:

Most people in their late 30's would be mature enough to choose their own futures, surely.  Not sure what point you're making there....I've snipped the irrelevant stuff.

See that's the trouble with you, when someone says something that goes against your ideas then it's irrelevant.

Other people post things which are relevant to the conversation but you just dismiss it as irrelevant.

You say that people retired shouldn't get a vote because they will be selfish and have out of date ideas.

You will vote to who has the same ideas as you and what you think will benefit you, so how is that any different?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Lavers said:

See that's the trouble with you, when someone says something that goes against your ideas then it's irrelevant.

Other people post things which are relevant to the conversation but you just dismiss it as irrelevant.

You say that people retired shouldn't get a vote because they will be selfish and have out of date ideas.

You will vote to who has the same ideas as you and what you think will benefit you, so how is that any different?

I snipped a load of complete guff about gender identification, the young having it easy, and then something about mental health...it was basically a garbled moan and you didn't explain what you were actually complaining about?  It was utterly irrelevant except to prove that it is possible for a "late 30's" to have a directionless train of thought and inability to concentrate, but we know that already from your anti-vaccination perspective. 

You do actually advance the argument somewhat, not all younger people can be trusted with doing the right thing, and you are one of them.  I concede that point.

 

Edited by beketamun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, beketamun said:

Yet they can work, pay into their super, get married, raise children, and need to invest in their future for the next 50 years of their working life?   Compare that to a retired person who has finished and is consuming what they earned, they are more concerned with protecting what they have and damn the future.........look at the age voting demographic for that Brexit fiasco, the future opportunities and the hardships the older have handed down to the next generation...and then say they should be allowed to decide?

Which group should have more influence on deciding the future, when it only affects one of them?

Do you think the average 18 year old is thinking about paying into their super, gettnig married, raising children and the next 50 years of their working life?

It seems ridiculous to me that you'd suggest a voting system that would exclude David Attenborough and welcome the vote of some 18-year-old neo-Nazi bovver boy.  There are idiots across all age groups.

Haven't you noticed that the age group with the LEAST concern for our planet's future are people currently in their 40s and 50s, in charge of major corporations who are wilfully destroying the environment because they're only thinking of their annual bonus?  Also all the people creating misinformation and publishing biased journalism -- yes, Ruport Murdoch is a vile old man, but most of the people who merrily publish what he wants are part of a younger generation (again, putting their own immediate comfort ahead of the good of society).

There are many older people like Attenborough with a huge investment in the future -- because you get to a point where you realise, after all the effort you've put into your life, that you're going to die and it will all be thrown away.  At that point, you realise that your grandchildren are your only legacy and then, it becomes crucially important that the world survives for them.

Edited by Marisawright
  • Like 1

Scot by birth, emigrated 1985 | Aussie husband granted UK spouse visa March 2015, moved to UK May 2015 | Returned to Oz June 2016

My new novel, A Dance With Danger, is due out August 2022

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Marisawright said:

Do you think the average 18 year old is thinking about paying into their super, gettnig married, raising children and the next 50 years of their working life?

It seems ridiculous to me that you'd suggest a voting system that would exclude David Attenborough and welcome the vote of some 18-year-old neo-Nazi bovver boy.  There are idiots across all age groups.

The interesting thing is that I have been accused of being ageist when i have concentrated on decisions and policy, but then you post stuff like the above?  Exactly who is being ageist here?

I think the average 18yr old is acutely more aware that their lives are being made far more difficult due to the greed of the older generation, a simple statistic is home-buying and the ability for one to purchase a home, when the older generation have backed their entire existence on ever-rising property prices without becoming more inventive, productive, or keeping pace with technological change.  Increasingly all creativity and progress is coming from markedly younger people and they are becoming frustrated.

The average age of a unicorn company founder is 32.6 yrs, with nearly a quarter being under 25 yrs old.  The average age of an owner is about 40, when they still have 20 years to go.  Should the cut off age for meaningful contributions to policy making (ie...voting for future policy that will only affect the next generation, not banking or earning profits from existing investments and pensions) be 60, 70, 80...or the point at which one decides to become a consumer rather than a producer, which is where this started?  What is a sensible policy?

Edited by beketamun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, beketamun said:

The interesting thing is that I have been accused of being ageist when i have concentrated on decisions and policy, but then you post stuff like the above?  Exactly who is being ageist here?

I think the average 18yr old is acutely more aware that their lives are being made far more difficult due to the greed of the older generation, a simple statistic is home-buying and the ability for one to purchase a home, when the older generation have backed their entire existence on ever-rising property prices without becoming more inventive, productive, or keeping pace with technological change.  Increasingly all creativity and progress is coming from markedly younger people and they are becoming frustrated.

The average age of a unicorn company founder is 32.6 yrs, with nearly a quarter being under 25 yrs old.  The average age of an owner is about 40, when they still have 20 years to go.  Should the cut off age for meaningful contributions to policy making (ie...voting for future policy that will only affect the next generation, not banking or earning profits from existing investments and pensions) be 60, 70, 80...or the point at which one decides to become a consumer rather than a producer, which is where this started?  What is a sensible policy?

A sensible policy is not to try to rationalise discrimination as you are doing.

All adult Australian citizens should be allowed to vote. I'm sure you would love to have the job of deciding who is not worthy of the privilege of voting. But the job will never exist so move on.

  • Like 2

Buy a man eat fish. The Day, Teach Man, to lifetime.      - Joe Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, beketamun said:

The interesting thing is that I have been accused of being ageist when i have concentrated on decisions and policy, but then you post stuff like the above?  Exactly who is being ageist here?

I think the average 18yr old is acutely more aware that their lives are being made far more difficult due to the greed of the older generation, a simple statistic is home-buying and the ability for one to purchase a home, when the older generation have backed their entire existence on ever-rising property prices without becoming more inventive, productive, or keeping pace with technological change.  Increasingly all creativity and progress is coming from markedly younger people and they are becoming frustrated.

The average age of a unicorn company founder is 32.6 yrs, with nearly a quarter being under 25 yrs old.  The average age of an owner is about 40, when they still have 20 years to go.  Should the cut off age for meaningful contributions to policy making (ie...voting for future policy that will only affect the next generation, not banking or earning profits from existing investments and pensions) be 60, 70, 80...or the point at which one decides to become a consumer rather than a producer, which is where this started?  What is a sensible policy?

You complain that you're accused of being ageist, then you follow up with two paragraphs which say that young people are better, more productive and more creative than old people.  How is that not ageist?

I repeat, in case you missed it, that many of the people running companies today are running them for their own short-term benefit, just as much as older people are running their retirement for their own, short-term benefit. Too many people are selfish by nature at any age, unfortunately. 

Edited by Marisawright

Scot by birth, emigrated 1985 | Aussie husband granted UK spouse visa March 2015, moved to UK May 2015 | Returned to Oz June 2016

My new novel, A Dance With Danger, is due out August 2022

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, beketamun said:

That makes no sense.  You want equal influence but then go on to emphasise something from a generation ago as being relevant today?  That is not the question here, nobody is knocking past achievements, but there is a time to hang up your boots.   It seems to me that you're all taking this too personally.....I don't know how old people are on here. 

Who has trashed any legacy, who has mentioned anything about one generation being better than another, who has mentioned anything about being any generation being "way cooler" on women's rights? Catherine Spence was doing that in Australia 200 years ago and has there ever been anybody cooler than that? 

 

Just why you seek to ignite a generational war, is I suppose for you to know. What I have outlined to you is far from being apolitical/right wing those of a certain age cannot be placed in the same box as the same. I suspect this generation of green horns are in general less political, but more inclined to sprout a few fashionable issues but no broad beyond the surface knowledge. Obviously there are exceptions as there is to most things. 

Who mentioned any legacy? Didn't you read, I did? My reading is that you are concluding/advocating that  the young should have greater rights  than oldsters by means of a very dubious argument at best. 

I mentioned way cooler as well. Something way beyond any argument , but must grate on the millennials for being born in such staid times. I suspect if you are fortunate enough to still have a living grand parent you'll be looking at them in a new light, perhaps even slightly in awe. 

 

Edited by Blue Flu
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, beketamun said:

I snipped a load of complete guff about gender identification, the young having it easy, and then something about mental health...it was basically a garbled moan and you didn't explain what you were actually complaining about?  It was utterly irrelevant except to prove that it is possible for a "late 30's" to have a directionless train of thought and inability to concentrate, but we know that already from your anti-vaccination perspective. 

You do actually advance the argument somewhat, not all younger people can be trusted with doing the right thing, and you are one of them.  I concede that point.

 

Hahaha my point being is that you say people retired shouldn't have a VOICE  due to there thoughts being selfish and irrelevant.

Yet the young should have more of a say yet these are the ones who are messed up.

Like I say I would rather listen to the older generation than the younger one.

Going of posts I think that you are the one with MAJOR issues and as I have said before covid has really brought out the worse in some and you prove my point with this.

Are you feeling OK, as I have noticed your posts becoming more more disturbing over the last couple of months.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blue Flu said:

Just why you seek to ignite a generational war, is I suppose for you to know. What I have outlined to you is far from being apolitical those of a certain age cannot be placed in the same box as the same. I suspect this generation of green horns are in general less political, but more inclined to sprout a few fashionable issues but no broad beyond the surface knowledge. Obviously there are exceptions as there is to most things. 

Who mentioned any legacy? Didn't you read, I did? My reading is that you are concluding/advocating that  the young should have greater rights  than oldsters by means of a very dubious argument at best. 

I mentioned way cooler as well. Something way beyond any argument , but must grate on the millennials for being born in such staid times.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Parley said:

A sensible policy is not to try to rationalise discrimination as you are doing.

All adult Australian citizens should be allowed to vote. I'm sure you would love to have the job of deciding who is not worthy of the privilege of voting. But the job will never exist so move on.

Beketamun would like to beable to decide who can vote and who should live and die.

There posts are becoming concerning to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

You complain that you're accused of being ageist, then you follow up with two paragraphs which say that young people are better, more productive and more creative than old people.  How is that not ageist?

I repeat, in case you missed it, that many of the people running companies today are running them for their own short-term benefit, just as much as older people are running their retirement for their own, short-term benefit. Too many people are selfish by nature at any age, unfortunately. 

Deluded is there word for beketamun.

Everyone is selfish at the end of the day, just some more than others.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lavers said:

Hahaha my point being is that you say people retired shouldn't have a VOICE  due to there thoughts being selfish and irrelevant.

Yet the young should have more of a say yet these are the ones who are messed up.

Like I say I would rather listen to the older generation than the younger one.

Going of posts I think that you are the one with MAJOR issues and as I have said before covid has really brought out the worse in some and you prove my point with this.

Are you feeling OK, as I have noticed your posts becoming more more disturbing over the last couple of months.

Quite. I doubt handing over power to the kids would be necessarily the best way forward. Perhaps the old saying from the sixties, "Don't trust anyone over thirty" would be deemed appropriate by some , disenfranchising those past it by being over that age, unable to adapt, stale, set in ways and best placed out to pasture.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, newjez said:

There's a difference between an excuse and a reason.

Oh alright then.  There was no real reason for the Ukrainian invasion.  War-mongers will always find a reason though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lavers said:

Beketamun would like to beable to decide who can vote and who should live and die.

steady on old bean, you're running away with your imagination there.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Blue Flu said:

Quite. I doubt handing over power to the kids would be necessarily the best way forward. Perhaps the old saying from the sixties, "Don't trust anyone over thirty" would be deemed appropriate by some , disenfranchising those past it by being over that age, unable to adapt, stale, set in ways and best placed out to pasture.  

the 60's were 60 years ago.........you provide the exact reason for change, you rely on something irrelevant and the memory of a good sex life.  Or something?

And you are all deliberately missing the point here. If anybody not retired is deemed "a kid", then i never said that....this is a dead cat argument to justify avoidance of the actual question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Blue Flu said:

I mentioned way cooler as well. Something way beyond any argument , but must grate on the millennials for being born in such staid times.

Yes, it was much simpler in the olden days, I agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parley said:

A sensible policy is not to try to rationalise discrimination as you are doing.

Really.  Have you ever had a job interview, or been picked for a sporting team, or maybe been passed over by a woman for another man?   The whole world is built on the rationalistion of discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, beketamun said:

And yet the "kids of today" are the one doing all the inventing and pushing for all the changes, while the oldest are sitting back avoiding change because they know it won't affect them?  Yes, everybody is selfish, but should there be a point of political disenfranchisement to stop the blocking of progress? 

It's always, at least over modern times, when the young have played an important role, if not pivotal in protest and disobedience. Only unionists and in certain areas women and gays have played a part in change . I'd have thought quite obvious as to the reasons . More often, it is those in a position to actually implement the change that bring it about, are not young but of middling age. The young are merely the foot soldiers I don't think progressives come with a number called age attached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

You complain that you're accused of being ageist, then you follow up with two paragraphs which say that young people are better, more productive and more creative than old people. 

They are more productive if they are working and contributing, rather than sitting back and consuming...that is inescapable fact.  I also did not say that anyone was "better". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×