All it takes is that little seed that The ABC planted and a little manure from the likes of Swift and Brighouse to make it grow.

So, based on that logic,  would you also  agree that people reading that Jonathon Swift essay (to which I posted a link), would have been led to the conclusion that eating Irish babies was a sensible way to tackle the poverty problem in that country.

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

Because it starts the process of idealistic (as against realistic) ppl thinking hey yes that's a great idea, the solution to world peace is take the kids off their parents and let the state raise them! That way everyone has an equal chance!

 

All it takes is that little seed that The ABC planted and a little manure from the likes of Swift and Brighouse to make it grow.

 

A couple of generations later you have a totally thought-controlled and state-dependant population.

 

It's not a new idea either, as you probably well know.

 

 

---

This is laughable.

 

Did you honestly see all of that in that article icy??

 

Swift and partner were actually saying the complete opposite of what you are accusing them of. The absolute OPPOSITE.

 

I'm staggered that what you are reading into this can be so far off the mark. And then to go pointing further fingers of blame at the ABC is just bonkers.

---

Actually that's EXACTLY what they were saying in an opaque kind of roundabout way, and the ABC supported it and furthered it.

---

They basically laughed at how ludicrous an idea it is and the ABC is a platform for all sorts of programs, the Philosopher's Zone being one of them.  It's in the ABC charter to present a wide variety in programming. It's unique to them and it's treasured by a huge cross section of the community, especially the regional and rural communities where people are often separated by long distances.  

I don't know about that, She-el, but Irish babies were certainly not treated kindly if one recalls t the recent finding of some 800 remains found in a disused well at a catholic home for unwed mothers.

But how about the child migrants from Liverpool as an example:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/24/child-migrant-programme-slavery

Many of those children seperated from their families due to poverty and social stigma were not even orphans. Used as slave labour and to populate Australia with white people of a certain mindset instilled by religious institutions.

Take the removal of half-caste aboriginal children, the infamous stolen generations, from their families so that they could be educated to the white (british) way.

To seperate the children from their families is to deprive them of their history and their heritage, thus creating a clean slate, an "equality", a "level playing field" as presented "for philosophical discussion" by the ABC per Brighouse and Swift.

Oh boy.

* goes to bed shaking head and chuckling to self * 

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Oh boy.

 

* goes to bed shaking head and chuckling to self * 

---

Why?

---

@icyfroth wrote:

To seperate the children from their families is to deprive them of their history and their heritage, thus creating a clean slate, an "equality", a "level playing field" as presented "for philosophical discussion" by the ABC per Brighouse and Swift.

 

---

It really is quite funny how you get your knickers in the twist about things you do not comprehend.  Ever heard of hypothetical discussion?   Or debating competitions where people have to defend something indefensible?

Brighouse and Swift do not advocate it should be done; they discussed various scenarios.  It's tongue in the cheek, as was already explained to you.

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

To seperate the children from their families is to deprive them of their history and their heritage, thus creating a clean slate, an "equality", a "level playing field" as presented "for philosophical discussion" by the ABC per Brighouse and Swift.

 

---

It really is quite funny how you get your knickers in the twist about things you do not comprehend.  Ever heard of hypothetical discussion?   Or debating competitions where people have to defend something indefensible?

Brighouse and Swift do not advocate it should be done; they discussed various scenarios.  It's tongue in the cheek, as was already explained to you.

 

 

 

---

You have no idea

well i havent read the whole article or even the majority of the posts on this thread, but heres an example i have about "levelling kids playing fields"

Two years ago my son was getting bored in school. He was finishing his work, getting everything right and then getting bored. I asked the teacher if he could go up a level in Maths and reading and was told no, because that would make the other kids feel bad

---

@bright.ton42 wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Oh boy.

 

* goes to bed shaking head and chuckling to self * 

---

Why?

---

See SupaNovas post after your question.