Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Regarding the refugees, I guess we have different ideas on how the international community should manage them. I've given my reasons why I feel allowing nation-skipping is a sound humanitarian policy.
Secondly, quoting Rushton is akin to quoting Michael Moore. A lot of his academic peers don't view him seriously, and it seems most of his supporters are grantees of the Pioneer Fund, over which he presides. His findings, like Michael Moores, are highly disputed, and subject to ridicule, such as this by his evol. psych. peer Barash:
|
Even Michael Moore has told the truth once in awhile!
I do not not deny that his findings are debated. I concede that point. That is why I think it would have been better for Fraser's views to be debated by society rather then for him to be brought before a HREOC tribunal.
It also would not surprise me if some of Rushtoms supports are Pioneer Fund receipients since this was one of the few if not the only non-profit organisation that funded the kind of psychology research performed by these scholars.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
And that's the tip of the iceberg.
|
That was quite a rational rebuttal from that skeptic! I am surprised that he did not challenge Rushton to a Vince McMahon promoted steel cage match!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Has he been sanctioned yet? He refused to apologise to the local Sudanese as the HRC suggested, yet has kept his job (despite fucking up), got to broadcast his personal views nationally through a number of media channels, and is yet to face any charges or overt punishment whatsoever.I'm starting to think he probably never will.
|
In my personal view...YES! Bringing someone before a quasi-judicial tribunal for making politically incorrect comments about race is a form of sanctioning in my view; especially when the tribunal could be used in federal court as evidence.
Second, the man was threatened with court action. This strikes me as a form of intimidation and for what? Expressing unpopular views supported by numerous academics from Jensen to Lynn?
Lets debate the issue and leave the courts and tribunals out of it.
Quote:
|
You or Duffy believing them, or me failing to disprove them beyond all doubt, doesn't move them beyond the speculative. Fraser got himself in a pickle, whilst handing the uni VC a get-out-of-jail-free pass, by fucking up. I put a lot of light on the situation either you had ignored or glossed over, and it showed Duffy up for what he is, a tabloid salesman in a cheap suit.
|
'I don't know if what Fraser says is true, yet its truth surely affects whether it is racist. But none of his critics seem to care. Macquarie University made no effort to argue the facts with him, nor did Deakin University. A statement by Fraser's union speaks of racism, not the facts. In its letter to Fraser, the human rights commission doesn't raise the issue of truth: what matters is that someone was offended'. - Mike Duffy
It appears that what Duffy said was true. 1) The university did not debate the issue with Fraser and yes I know they are not obligated to do so. However, it is still a fact that they did not do so. 2) The unions statements on the issue spoke of racism, not Frasers arguments. 3) The HREOC does not accept truth as a defence.
What Duffy said appears to be 100% gospel truth to me?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
It is a fact that the Anzacs fought prior to Australia becoming multicultural, but not necessarily in the belief it would remain so, or that it should. I could use the same flawed logic to claim the Anzacs fought for an Australia free of pop music, bubble-gum and topless beaches.
|
I never made any claims as to what ideal they were PERSONALLY fighting for but what sort of a Dominion they were fighting for and what sort of a nation they were killing and dying for...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Whatever, it was completely irrelevent to the debate. I don't dismiss your opinions on the grounds you lack citizenship.
|
In my defence we were exchanging opinions and some moral jockeying. The debate was pretty well non-existant at that point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Calling the Rev a nutcase is an understatement, I personally would have used a much harsher expression. There are times when even ad hominems have a worthy purpose.
|
I agree.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
150 years? I'd liken it more to astrology
|
I know some global warming pricks who can tell us the impact this phenoma will have on us 300 years from now? Or astronomers who can predict that an asteroid could plunge into the earth in 500 years based on trajectory, perceived and forecasting.
It does have a place but it is not etched in stone obviously.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
I would suggest an adjustment, not an overhaul. Complete politeness is for choir-boys whereas taking-the-piss can be fun, gives the forum some much needed colour, especialy when dealing with nutcases like Paddy. I just hope you come to debate the issues a little more liberally, and without resorting to the fallacy claims so often. If so I'll PM Daisym and tell her you're missing the love.
|
'LIBERALLY!' AHHHHHHHHHHH! Had to do that!
No prob! Will do!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Hence the apology, I hope you accept it.
|
I do accept it but out of all the insults that one actually hurt!