Thread: Austrian Politican Speaks candidly

Originally Posted by Hanna

Yeah sorry, I don't need to repeat that any more. I've already said what I have to say about it more than once.

It would be great if you could address the point with the USSR caused lots of serious ecological catastrophes without any hint to what you refer to as 'the consumerism'. Otherwise, if you prefer to ignore that fact and keep repeating and repeating the link between the consumerism and the ecology again and again, it seems just like pure PROPAGANDA.

A word about the double standards. In your earlier posts you mentioned that you despise the consumerism and you don't need that much. But, I think you ignore the fact that if all 6.7 billions or so people would live the 'moderate' lifestyle like you, the ecological toll on the planet would be unbelievably high and certainly unsustainable. So, unless you plan to include the 'let's-colour-ourselves-in-blue-and-live-in-the-forest-in-harmony-with-the-nature' thesis into your pan-European propaganda, you've clearly joined the 'double-standards' club just like everybody else.

I thought Rockzmom's comment was good though!
Particularly after I make a snidy comment about this American practice in schools (allegiance oath etc) which really isn't my business and probably has a lot to be said for it. She gave a dignified response.

And it's true that America has represented a dream and a way for people to get away from all the problems in Europe and elsewhere, and start afresh. Europe was certainly a MESS when the big immigration waves to America were in progress. Constant wars, no food in some places, religious opression and an apalling class system where most never got half a chance to improve their lives. America was their way out. I guess it still has that image in some parts of the world, although I wonder if it's really a land of opportuntity even for it's own citizens anymore.

And just think how gutsy people had to be to get up and leave for another continent with only enough money for a one-way ticket, before there were embassies, employment agencies or any welfare provision.. and when they didn't even know the language!

If psychological traits are inheritable, then many modern day American are descendants of some pretty cool people. Plus the stand on religion is good there I think. The "state church" setup that we know from Europe is very convenient and cosy in some ways. But from a religious perspective it does nothing but destroy people's faith and cause political problems.

Americans on thee other hand know that if they want religion they have to make a commitment and put in some effort themselves, since the state won't look after the church buildings and run the whole show on tax money. In Europe, I feel, the church faith is just a slightly more moralistic version of the state, and fills the purpose of carrying out rites of passage. People are quite happy to recite the whole statement of faith from memory while in church, without believing a single word of it.

@rockzmom: I don't have a strong view at issues like prayer in school. It's all the same to me whether it's done or not. Nobody gets religious just from a ritual. I understand it's a big issue in the US though.

The list of free after-school clubs is impressive (apart from the gay club, in school!!!).

Are these real functioning clubs where the children can be looked after after school?
It'd be interesting to know what they say to the kids about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the "Peace club"!

Like I said before, there is a lot to admire about America, and the internal politics is definitely not my problem (although i personally prefer more social welfare than what the US offers its' citizens, and more economic equality) But whatever Americans want within their own borders is fine by me.

Actually about the American Freedom: I think it STARTED as much more free (for white people) than Europe. But nowadays I don't think there is any difference.

Originally Posted by Hanna

The list of free after-school clubs is impressive (apart from the gay club, in school!!!).

Are these real functioning clubs where the children can be looked after after school?
It'd be interesting to know what they say to the kids about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the "Peace club"!

Yes they are real clubs and some are after school and some meet during lunch. A teacher is the sponsor for each club. I know there are even more as I have seen emails about some not listed on their Website, like a knitting club that meets during lunch. The Principal has made it clear, if you want a club, he'll find a sponsor for it.

Peace Studies Club...

About this Club: We say we uphold Einstein's name by following his academic excellence. A recent graduate, having participated in this program, commented that although this statement was true, we forget his academic excellence extends beyond the sciences. She observed it was not until last year that she learned about Einstein's history of peace activism - peace (he said) cannot be achieved through violence. It can only be attained through understanding. If you have not realized it before, the fact is, we all rely on a variety of heroes to provide us inspiration for our life's dreams. However, rarely do we take time to consider the ones who, by their humanitarian and nonviolent effort, also provide everyone, the world over, with challenging thoughts designed to make dreams come true - they are our peace heroes. Albert Einstein is one of these heroes.

You are invited to join this year's group and, for a short period each week, delve into the minds of some extraordinary people.

Originally Posted by Hanna

The list of free after-school clubs is impressive (apart from the gay club, in school!!!).

Nice sensationalism there. "Gay straight alliance" doesn't mean "gay club".

Are you also one of those people who would deny sex education to children because you think they will "become sexualised" too young?

Originally Posted by Demonic_Duck

Those people who would deny sex education to children because you think they will "become sexualised" too young?

Yes. There is plenty of time for that later in life.

Personally I was given comprehensive sex education, including all about contraceptives from 12 or so, because it's mandatory in Sweden. I'll spare you the details - and it was quite detailed.

Is this type of sex education what you support? As I remember it was just weird and offputting.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Yes. There is plenty of time for that later in life.

Personally I was given comprehensive sex education, including all about contraceptives from 12 or so, because it's mandatory in Sweden. Girls who haven't even had their period yet have learn all about condoms etc, how they are put on etc. Plus all about sexually transmitted diseases and a visit by somebody who had HIV, to "warn" students. Later, all the girls had to watch an actual birth - very dramatic - in full detail... (I am sure that nowadays the boys have to watch the film too, so it's "equal".) The teacher also showed a porn magazine and explained "this view of women is degrading and incorrect". I can't remember that homosexuality came up, but no doubt this is fully included nowadays.

Is this type of sex education what you support? As I remember it was just weird and offputting.

Agreed. Kids should be taught that sex is as natural and necessary thing as eating, drinking, sleeping, etc. for being another physical need of the human. And all they have to worry about is those diseases which aren't going to affect them if they practice safe sex. That's the kind of sex education one has ever needed.

And one more thing, parents who think their kid is too young for telling him/her about sex, and avoid talking about it, are most likely gonna get him/her taught by his/her more experienced friends, and sometimes the "teaching" also includes practical exercises...

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Agreed. Kids should be taught that sex is as natural and necessary thing as eating, drinking, sleeping, etc. for being another physical need of the human. And all they have to worry about is those diseases which aren't going to affect them if they practice safe sex. That's the kind of sex education one has ever needed.

And one more thing, parents who think their kid is too young for telling him/her about sex, and avoid talking about it, are most likely gonna get him/her taught by his/her more experienced friends, and sometimes the "teaching" also includes practical exercises...

In our county, parents are offered to come in to the school (usually in a group setting with teachers and other parents) and review the "Family/Life" unit prior to it being taught. If the parents have any objections to their children being taught the materials, they can op out for independent study in the library/media center for part or all of the lessons. Parents were also asked to be on the advisory committee to help with the curriculum.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Is this type of sex education what you support? As I remember it was just weird and offputting.

Talk about weird...The materials need to be more than this video as this will have absolutely no impact on teens... except make them laugh:

Originally Posted by Hanna

The list of free after-school clubs is impressive (apart from the gay club, in school!!!).

Gay-Straight Alliance
About this Club: To provide a safe and supportive meeting place and discussion forum for sexual minority and questioning (GLBTQ) students as well as their friend and allies to discuss topics of interest. The GSA works to encourage more inclusive and accepting attitudes among fellow students and staff. The GSA has also hosted guest speakers, participated in social events, attended free performances, and organized "day of silence" activities at school to promote awareness of HIV/AIDS. The GSA will be what you make it! If you have ideas, come and share them!

When I spoke about time I was speaking of centuries, not years ))) They'll sort it out between themselves... eventually. Now they want to fight -- well, see the paragraph about 'interesting life', but I'm sure there are others too.

Originally Posted by Ramil

When I spoke about time I was speaking of centuries, not years ))) They'll sort it out between themselves... eventually.

Ha-ha!! You should meet and talk to a famous prisoner of conscience named Nelson Mandela and explain to him what you just said. I'm pretty sure he'll be very happy to hear that. In addition to your self-named list of the chauvinist, nationalist, etc. please also add 'a full supporter of the Apartheid'!! "Live them alone for centuries and they will sort it out among themselves eventually!"

Originally Posted by Crocodile

"Live them alone for centuries and they will sort it out among themselves eventually!"

Why not? You can't civilize people against their will.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Why not? You can't civilize people against their will.

Because, my dear, you surely want to become a Knight of the Order of the Elephant (and receive another 200 or so awards), do you not?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Why not? You can't civilize people against their will.

Ok, a more serious reason: because we have a common planet and we can't go away from each other. So, we have to somehow find a way to co-exist. What we see with South African example is a good lesson to everyone as it could relatively soon be the reality of the entire world. Also, as a side note, I would like to mention your earlier post with "isn't it a shame". So, what do you think of that?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Ok, a more serious reason: because we have a common planet and we can't go away from each other. So, we have to somehow find a way to co-exist. What we see with South African example is a good lesson to everyone as it could relatively soon be the reality of the entire world. Also, as a side note, I would like to mention your earlier post with "isn't it a shame". So, what do you think of that?

Дабы не прослыть неполиткорректным, перейду на русский.
Вот есть такая теория, что после формирования разумного вида живых организмов на планете, остальные виды уже не смогут занять эту нишу, т.е. в одной, скажем, экосистеме, возможно существование лишь одного разумного вида жизни. То же с цивилизациями. На планете присутствует несколько существующих параллельно "цивилизаций", каждая из которых находится на разных ступенях развития. Европейская, ближневосточная, дальневосточная, африканская. Моральные нормы и ценности у всех разные, и принять мораль соседней цивилизации ни один представитель не сможет, более того, некоторые аспекты этих моральных норм у разных цивилизаций диаметрально противоположны. В принципе, здесь тоже будет наблюдаться некое эволюционная конкуренция и выживет лишь сильнейший. Выхода из этого тупика, мне лично видится два -- глобальный конфликт или холодная война (ну или "мирное сосуществование двух систем"). Оба варианта -- плохие, но повторяю, единые морально-этические нормы в глобальном плане могут установиться лишь тогда, когда все, кроме одной цивилизации докажут свою несостоятельность.
Поэтому, пытаться привить "западные" ценности африканцам -- затея бессмысленная. Исстреблять их -- негуманно (с нашей точки зрения, опять же, ведь для многих представителей ближневосточной цивилизации, к примеру, это не так очевидно). Вот исходя из таких рассуждений я и считаю, что лучшим курсом будет политика невмешательства. Пусть строят свою цивилизацию так, как хотят. В конце-концов, европейская цивилизация тоже не сразу пришла к гуманизму и толерантности.

I think most of the USSR environmental destruction was caused by military activities and trying to meet industrial "plans". Not from private consumption.

You are forgetting one thing that held the USSR people back from being as consumerist as Americans; There were no ads, so manipulation to constantly spur people into wanting things that they didn't need. And of course, I am aware that there were shortages but that's a different problem.

There were severe restrictions on that when I grew up in Sweden and no ads on TV and radio + the ads in papers had to be quite discreet. MUCH, MUCH nicer than now! You could actually enjoy the content without constant distraction. You could turn on the TV or radio or take a trip on public transport without being bombarded with ads.

And you didn't have to feel quite as pressured into having the latest of everything and constantly consuming. Not sure about the USSR, but our media was perfectly adequate without ads - plus there was content from across Europe, not just the English speaking world and local.

After 1-2 years with commercially sponsored TV and radio the novelty was gone and at least to me, it was clear that very little content had been added that wasn't already available before, and that new content had come at the price of constant bombardment with these ridiculous junk messages. Plus the content was dumbed down a lot.

If a product or service can't stand up on it's own merit, without untruthful marketing, then it probably isn't needed!

Originally Posted by Hanna

I think most of the USSR environmental destruction was caused by military activities and trying to meet industrial "plans". Not from private consumption.

Ok, so do you agree the mental link I mentioned is artificial or you do not agree?

Originally Posted by Hanna

You are forgetting one thing that held the USSR people back from being as consumerist as some others; There were no ads, so manipulation to constantly spur people into wanting things that they absolute didn't need.

Ok, you're right, I forgot that thing. Thanks for reminding me. There were other minor issues as well like famine sometimes, very bad quality of anything but weapons and some other insignificant stuff, but you're absolutely right. The ads were very limited. Off the top of my head I could probably remember one or two like: "Fly only with Aeroflot." So, the content of the media was free of ads. That's true there were huge placards on the buildings like: "The Communism is the Soviet Power plus the electrification of the entire country" or "The Glory to the Communist Party!" or alike and the media was full of the phrases lacking any meaning, but the commercials weren't there. You could enjoy the entire one-hour talk on either of the three available TV channels about how great it is to live in the Soviet Union without any interruptions to the commercials. And the issue of the consumerism wasn't there as the distribution was planned: if you belong to the power class (the party, the unions, etc) you'd get a sausage every day, if you're an engineer, you'll get it once a quarter. You couldn't just walk into a store and buy a sausage. So, what would be a point of the commercials? Buy more sausage which isn't there? So, the bottom line there was no Western-style consumerism. But the ecological disasters did happen on a scheduled basis. Period.

Fair enough. Perhaps I have somewhat misunderstood your actual position on the subject. I guess we will have to "agree to disagree".

Now... what was this thread about originally? I seem to have forgotten

Back on "topic": My little country has now had it's very own terrorist attack. Some muslim guy blew himself up in the middle of Stockholm on Saturday. This is just so insane, because Sweden has never started any wars in that region, never been imperialist and exploited these countries, and has accepted hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Mid East, supporting them in full, for years.

I guess the deluded politically correct clowns have fulfilled their long time agenda now, that they had since the 1980s, about making Sweden a "multicultural" country. All they would have needed to do is look at the world and say "we don't have most of these problems, so let's NOT import them! That's what Finland did, for example, and it worked jolly well for them... Unfortunately my country was not so smart. = The asylum policy is a mockery since it is used by economic migrants and is not doing anything to solve any problems + it is insanely expensive. I think there should be a limited labour immigration of skilled and unskilled workers; in proportion to population, requirements and available public services.

Originally Posted by Hanna

This is just so insane, because Sweden has never started any wars in that region, never been imperialist and exploited these countries

So, now you might start realizing those alleged 'reasons' are not the real reasons for the terror.

Huh? What are the main reasons in your opinion then?