Its not enough to be called anti american and insulted for being a 'liberal' when you come on forums like this - now Australian academics are learning that they will have to mind their Ps and Qs if the truth doesn't conform to what certain sectors of society want it to be.

Are we in danger of losing academic integrity?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...7/s1700428.htm

Even though Daisym refuses to talk to me! I will respond anyway! Tee Hee!

I believe that Andrew Fraser wondered the same thing when he failed to watch his Ps and Qs when his arguments did not conform to what certain sectors of society wanted them to be.

As I work for a uni, I can say that this kind of thing is not uncommon. Increasingly academia is being stifled, largely by the way funding is now mandated. The Federal Education Minister now has the automatic right to veto any ARC (Australian Research Council) grant that she (or he) wants to. So, after a rigorous examination by a committee of eminent experts in a field, a mediocre-educated bureaucrat from Canberra can override the Council simply because they may not like the subject matter of the proposed research. Also, as the ARC has become more politicised in recent years - again due to the new funding schema's for universities - a lot of non-conventional, or potentially contentious research is now longer funded, or funded well. Universities are supposed to be the bastion of education and societal development, but Australia has successfully turned this around where universities are now cash cows, milking every last dollar we can, at the expense of education. I just wish the government would look past short term solutions and issues, and ask themselves where they'd like to see us in 20-30 years, and focus their educational direction that way.

Regarding Frank's comment about Fraser - whilst I do not agree with Fraser, I fully support his right to do his research and publish his findings. It is our responsibility as academics to not simply summarily dismiss him because we don't like what he has to say; but it IS our job to counter his arguments with our own research. That's called debate people - debate using research; both quantitative and qualitative. To silence people because we don't like what they say is just wrong. That's called Nazi Germany. People breathed a sigh of relief when 1984 came and went without society falling into the decay of Orwell's vision. Maybe he just dated his book a few decades to soon?

Facts, truth and stuff like that can not be debated. Producing an opposite or a different version from truth requires special behaviour.
Democratic people, since indeed they are urged to produce debate are especially strong at this kind of behaviour.

I have Frank on ignore, so wasn't privy to his comments re Fraser, although guessed that was most likely what was being discussed.

Like you I support Fraser's rights re research etc - I don't particularly want to discuss him though, as thats been done to death and the issues were really not so much academic freedom, as the way he dealt with issues.

I am far more concerned about the kind of thing in this article. You cannot really find out unless there is money for research - and lets face it - it has always been important for 'fringe' ideas to access the public purse - if it hadn't done so in the immediate post war period in the US - we would be a long way nehind where we are today.

I think if academics are gagged, this could create 'research monocultures' which don't allow us to see alternatives. This could be very dangerous for the future of our country.

I totally agree Daisy. After, most of societies great advances - whether they be scientific or sociological in nature - were not discovered specifically, but rather accidentally as a by-product of other research. What we are seeing is the educational repercussions of the intermixing of Church and state, where ideology has infiltrated politics to the extent where it has now permeated into education and tertiary research. Not good.

If I took as many intellectual beatings as she did I would probably put the superior opponent on ignore as well!

So..........why don't you have me on ignore then, given the countless times I've handed you your own ass?

Jerry

I put you on ignore temporarily because you were acting like an ignorant foul-mouthed fallacy-spewing perverted deviant troll. I took you off ignore when you started to behave yourself. I thought we went through this already Jerry?

As far as handing my ass to me? Anytime you think you can do so lets debate an issue and lets see what you can do Jerry.

By opposing the FTA these academics have clearly sided with the terrorists and pose a dangerous threat to civilized society. As Dubbya said prior to the war on terror, "you are either with us (the US) or against us", and it is clear that these academics (sic), by opening their eyes and seeking the essence of the FTA, and even wanting to promote the research, are a serious menace.

There is no such thing as a FTA with the US. It's doublespeak, we should really call them tributes.

I can't believe that Frank. If you had me on ignore then how did you know I supposedly started behaving myself?

And even when I was foul-mouthing you, it was because you wouldn't debate the issues, and surely I did it with enough humour not to warrant an ignore anyhow? I can only assume you needed to regroup.

See what comes up, unlike Daisym I'm not tired of your games yet. But I probably won't waste my time going round-and-round with you like she has, just put you in a spin, and bail.

Jerry

Daisy, how is the the Australia-US trade agreement
unbalanced in favor of the US?

Can ya tell me about it, like, 1...2...3?

I do not want to cheat you, honest.

If you make your case I might sign
a petition in your favor, I swear.

__________________
From the fury of the Northmen, Good Lord, deliver us.

One can still read the drivel of ignored posters when logged out Jerry. You did know that didn't you?

I would not debate your red herring, ad hominem, strawman and the other assorted fallacies you spewed...I usually avoid these traps. Of course my refusal to fall for these traps warranted the ole 'coward' label if I recall correctly. In fact I almost put you on ignore again when you accused me of having multiple user accounts without any cause and told me to 'grow up' as a result of this baseless accusation.

I am here to debate issues not to play games. If I wanted to play games I would much more attention to your posts.

well, this thread isn't about that - its about academics whose research revealed adverse effects of the FTA with the US being silenced.

As to the imbalance of the FTA - well primary producers have real concerns, which are not unfounded. And having had considerable contact with people in some rural communities, the FTA has contributed to anti Americanism. US Govt subsidies to primary producers in the US have been a real thorn in the side - they are seen as given US producers an unfair advantage.

Another area is pharmaceutical benefits. This has been a major concern.

I am not familiar with all the issues, but certainly there has been a lot of criticism, and according to many it is well founded.

Off topic - but since it seems Frank is talking about me, I will say this.

I put Frank on ignore, because after months and months of going around in circles with Frank it was long overdue for me to quit.

I had said somewhere along the line that we would have to agree to disagree, however it didn't seem this was likely. on a number of occasions Frank had also been rude to me when this was unwarranted.

I have since found out that Frank has been bad mouthing me on another site. That is exceptionally bad manners IMO - and even worse when Frank knows I stood up for him against Darp etc for posting trash from other sites about him here - regardless of the fact that I did not agree with his views.

Frank is still having a go at me - knowing full well I can't see him.

I can understand people having different viewpoints, and I try to respect the person, no matter what their view. However, I think Frank has made it quite clear that he cannot be trusted to behave in a decent manner towards other people.

I can see no benefit from engaging with someone so lacking in integrity.

So you were hardly ignoring me then.

Hey Frank, perhaps Dasiym is reading one of your post right now.

Or perhaps not.

Why'd you consider putting me on ignore, if you were to continue reading my posts whilst logged off?

You are half right, you have on occasion warranted the label "intellectual coward", it was not for the reasons you've given.

You're perfectly entitled to dispel or ignore fallacical arguments, which despite your incessant claims, mine rarely are. You're not however entitled to claim a monopoly on truth via a tabloid SMH article, whilst ignoring all reality or meaningful debate to the contrary by resorting to falsely labeling almost every counter-argument a red herring or a logical fallacy, even in its full Latin glory, when this has so obviously not been the case.

Consider, we have continued debating with you despite
your argumentum ad verecundiam arguments concerning dickhead Andrew Fraser's views on the Sudanese,
your argumentum ad ignorantiam points regarding SMH's resident tabloid Duffy's claims about the Uni's treatment of Fraser,
your argumentum ad antiquitatem claims that the Anzacs never fought for a multicultural Australia,
your argumentum ad hominems about my living in Japan and its relevence to public spending,
your slippery slope claims that current immigration and birth patterns will see white Aussies becoming a minority in 150 years, my personal favourite, and finally
your ad nauseum attacks of improperly claiming red herring or a logical fallacy of some sort from all who have challenged you to consider your insulated, secular world view.

All this whilst ignoring the intellectual giant fonts the in the conventions we agreed to.

Nobody can stop you from continuing to do so, you're a free man, but pardon me if I feel it more to my liking to simply have some fun at your expense than continue to enter fruitless debate where the wheels are spinning, but the car is still on the hoist. I don't seem to have these problems debating others here, or elsewhere, while you seemingly do. Sure, it is sometimes fun while it's on, and I enjoy the issues you bring up here, you promote a lot of discussion, but I, much like Daisym, can't really see the point of directly engaging with you, not very often anyhow, given the above complaints.

And lastly, sincere apologies for thinking you were trolling as the good Rev, it just seemed to weird that he is a rahowa retard, signed up the day I first bailed on you in the earth-to-kruger thread, and seems to be just here pushing buttons, contributing nothing whatsoever to the debate. Believe me when I say that despite our many differences I hold you in a much higher light.

Like that is even possible, catching your attention here is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Jerry