Where does the Sustainability Party stand on that FD?

I'm only asking because I've googled Sustainability Party and the search engine directed me to this message board as its home page/online face.

Also I am genuinely considering becoming a member of the Sustainability Party (SP) and this issue is very impt to me.

Personally I am of the opinion that racism is an abhorrent and vile scourge which undermines and impedes free speech .. and ultimately destroys a society.

I would be very interested to know about the SP's view on Anti Semiticism also.

Many thanks in advance.

Lisa

maybe he'll tell ya in a coupleadays

Quote:

Personally I am of the opinion that racism is an abhorrent and vile scourge which undermines and impedes free speech .. and ultimately destroys a society.

How does it 'undermine and impede free speech'?

JC Denton wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 10:46am:

Quote: Quote: Personally I am of the opinion that racism is an abhorrent and vile scourge which undermines and impedes free speech .. and ultimately destroys a society. Amazing. So what are you proposing? That we impede free speech to restrict something that according to you, apparently 'impedes free speech'? Go back to your fruit shop, Con. I'll give ya a coupleadays.

The real trouble begins, when racism is spread via propaganda from the top down - as we have seen in Oz this past week...

Clearly, the anti-Muslim propaganda that has plagued the globe for the past decade is really starting to take its inevitable toll!

This Western-incited madness must be stopped before humanity reaches the point of no return!

... wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 10:50am:

Quote: Personally I am of the opinion that racism is an abhorrent and vile scourge which undermines and impedes free speech .. and ultimately destroys a society. How does it 'undermine and impede free speech'?

and the solution??! TO UNDERMINE AND IMPEDE FREE SPEECH!

bizarro world

... wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 10:50am:

Quote: Personally I am of the opinion that racism is an abhorrent and vile scourge which undermines and impedes free speech .. and ultimately destroys a society. How does it 'undermine and impede free speech'?

Hey Wesley .. you on IM?

hey equi i edited my post so i dont get banned again ok

The real trouble begins, when racism is spread via propaganda from the top down - as we have seen in Oz this past week...

- Equitist


You think so?

Have you considered what may happen when the TOP infiltrates the BOTTOM and works back up to meet the TOP-DOWN team?

Hmmm?

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 10:55am:

... wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 10:50am: Quote: Personally I am of the opinion that racism is an abhorrent and vile scourge which undermines and impedes free speech .. and ultimately destroys a society. How does it 'undermine and impede free speech'? Hey Wesley .. you on IM?

Nar...not really into IM, at least not while I'm at work.

Sheesh .. I am starting to sound like a Leftie!

<< bows her head in shame >>

That bloody husband of mine .. he's got a lot to answer for I tell ya lol :)

That's fine Wesley and I perfectly understand. Later perhaps (oh and hugs to you, your wife and your little ones .. do hope bub is coming along fine).

Lisa

MY 2 bob worth is that racism is a natural and understandable attittude, an evolutionary response to the days when competition for limited resources from 'outsiders' was the difference between life and death.

I think disproportionate attention has been placed on this trait, and it's got to the point where any (negative) observation about the shared characteristics of a race/culture is equated to a desire to rid the world of all but one race.  In the eyes of the PC maniac, there is no grey area, no degrees of racism....but I guarantee, each and every one of us is racist to some extent - the difference is whether we admit it or not.

Equitist wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 10:53am:

Clearly, the anti-Muslim propaganda that has plagued the globe for the past decade is really starting to take its inevitable toll! This Western-incited madness must be stopped before humanity reaches the point of no return!

You no doubt fervently believe that speech and action by Muslims have absolutely no bearing on their reputation.

What you are saying and thinking is that only Westerners are accontable for what they say or do and all other peoples are manipulated by said Westerners and cannot be held to account. They are total morons (in the clinical sense) and all responsibility for their conduct rests with their evil guardians, the Westerners and the puppets they impose on these morons, er, blameless, peace-loving non-Western .....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

Thank you Wesley for your honest reply.

It's great to have this opportunity to voice our personal opinions/perspectives regarding racism vs free speech (while we're waiting for FD to inform us of where he and the SP stands on all this).


Regards

Lisa

Indeed, in 2008 the EU approved its so-called "Council Framework Decision on combating Racism and Xenophobia," and the EU's 27 nations have since had to incorporate it into their national legislation. The decision orders that "racist or xenophobic behavior must constitute an offence in all Member States and be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties." It defines "racism and xenophobia" so broadly that every statement that an individual might perceive as insulting to a group to which he belongs becomes punishable by law.

The perverse result is that in Europe it is now all but impossible to have a debate about the nature of Islam, or about the effects of immigration of Islam's adherents. Take my own case, for example. My point is that Islam is not so much a religion as it is a totalitarian political ideology disguised as a religion. To avoid misunderstandings, I always emphasize that I am talking about Islam, not about Muslims. I make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam, recognizing that there are many moderate Muslims. But the political ideology of Islam is not moderate and has global ambitions; the Koran orders Muslims to establish the realm of Allah in this world, if necessary by force.

Stating my views on Islam has brought me to court on charges of "group insult" and incitement to racial hatred. I am being tried for voicing opinions that I—and my constituents—consider to be the truth. I am being tried for challenging the views that the ruling establishment wants to impose on us as the truth.

When I stand before my judges I do so in defense of free speech and human liberty. Freedom is the source of human creativity and development. People and nations wither away without the freedom to question what is presented to them as the truth. There is reason for concern if the erosion of our freedom of speech is the price we must pay to accommodate Islam. There is reason for concern if those who deny that Islam is a problem do not grant us the right to debate the issue. I want to be able to make my case without needing to fear criminal prosecution. It is already bad enough that I have been living under permanent police protection for more than six years because jihadists want to murder me.
My trial is a political trial. It is tragic that after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, political trials in Europe were not cast onto the ash heap of history. Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has previously referred to the European Union as the "EUSSR." One of his arguments is that in the EU, as in the former USSR, there is no freedom of speech.

I should be acquitted. My trial in Amsterdam is not about me, but about freedom of speech in Europe. As Dwight D. Eisenhower, Europe's liberator from Nazism, once warned, freedom "must be daily earned and refreshed—else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die." Today in Europe, freedom is being neither earned nor refreshed.

Mr. Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament. He is leader of the Party for Freedom.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146332536459942.html

where the wilders tihng are

Some very interesting and well considered posts in here today.

I think a lot of people tend to confuse racism and criticism of religion. Religion is a matter of choice and should be open to criticism. Skin colour is not.

muso wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 11:44am:

I think a lot of people tend to confuse racism and criticism of religion. Religion is a matter of choice and should be open to criticism. Skin colour is not.

But the behaviours that lead to the formation of a link in peoples minds between that skin colour and negative traits IS a matter of choice.  I doubt many people hate people BECAUSE OF the colour of their skin, but rather the other traits, such as propensity to violence/crime/laziness etc which have become associated with that colour skin, or people of that race.

muso wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 11:44am:

I think a lot of people tend to confuse racism and criticism of religion. Religion is a matter of choice and should be open to criticism. Skin colour is not.

Just so.

I would add criticism of  'cultural practice' to criticism of religion.  Both are matters of choice and so should be open to criticism (and ridicule, as they already are when it comes to westerners).

muso wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 11:44am:

I think a lot of people tend to confuse racism and criticism of religion. Religion is a matter of choice and should be open to criticism. Skin colour is not.

Muso - many thanks for coming in and giving us your constructive reply. It would be great if other Mods could follow suit and come in and share their constructive replies re racism vs free speech

Now .. let's look at anti semiticism for a brief moment (where Jews are the target group). Are we talking race or religion?

Sometimes the lines are blurred <-- that is my real point.

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 12:01pm:

muso wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 11:44am: I think a lot of people tend to confuse racism and criticism of religion. Religion is a matter of choice and should be open to criticism. Skin colour is not. Muso - many thanks for coming in and giving us your constructive reply. It would be great if other Mods could follow suit and come in and share their constructive replies re racism vs free speech Now .. let's look at anti semiticism for a brief moment (where Jews are the target group). Are we talking race or religion? Sometimes the lines are blurred <-- that is my real point.

They would say both.  

they would say whatever benefits them most in the situation theyre in at the moment

Wesley,

Racism isn't natural but group affiliation is. Who's in and out changes over time. There's nothing natural about racism. And people in the past haven't bonded over "race". The whole racist ideology is something relatively new in human history.

And if you're talking about crime, violence etc being associated with skin colour are you referring to say, bikies?

Racism isn't about freedom let alone freedom of speech, it's about restriction and suppression and the undermining of rights.

Axle wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 12:13pm:

Wesley, Racism isn't natural but group affiliation is. Who's in and out changes over time. There's nothing natural about racism. And people in the past haven't bonded over "race". The whole racist ideology is something relatively new in human history. And if you're talking about crime, violence etc being associated with skin colour are you referring to say, bikies? Racism isn't about freedom let alone freedom of speech, it's about restriction and suppression and the undermining of rights.

What skin colour is a bikie?

In any progressive society every belioef and every person must be able to be criticised and questioned thoroughly.

if that is not possible, the society is self limiting.

Freedom of speech must reign over any percieved racism, sexism or abusive claims.

those that misuse this freedom will be shown up for their ignorance.

axle is a tool

Mod: 48 hours this time. Have a nice holiday.

Code (][size=24):

AXLE RIDER[/size]

You tell me, Wesley. You're the one talking about the association of skin colour and crime. It seems to me that all skin colours are involved in it. I'm sure, I wouldn't get any Hell's Angel disagreeing.

axle riding his big gay bike with a leather jacket

the richard lewontin rough riders

... wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 12:04pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 12:01pm: muso wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 11:44am: I think a lot of people tend to confuse racism and criticism of religion. Religion is a matter of choice and should be open to criticism. Skin colour is not. Muso - many thanks for coming in and giving us your constructive reply. It would be great if other Mods could follow suit and come in and share their constructive replies re racism vs free speech Now .. let's look at anti semiticism for a brief moment (where Jews are the target group). Are we talking race or religion? Sometimes the lines are blurred <-- that is my real point. They would say both.

Oi! Stop answering for Muso lol :P

But seriously Wesley .. you've answered and I am glad you did.

I should have addressed my post to everyone (even though I'm still curious about Muso's response lol).

Now Wesley, so let me get this right .. you're conceding that the lines btwn race and religion are indeed blurred at times. Yes?

Axle wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 12:19pm:

You tell me, Wesley. You're the one talking about the association of skin colour and crime. It seems to me that all skin colours are involved in it. I'm sure, I wouldn't get any Hell's Angel disagreeing.

FFS....you're going to pretend you don't know that aborigines are massively over represented in crime statistics?  

axle getting on his bike riding around with the richard lewontin and leon kamin rough riders

vrrr vrrr vrrrrrrr vrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Quote:

....you're going to pretend you don't know that aborigines are massively over represented in crime statistics?

Why do you think that is?

FOUR BIKERS OF THE APOCALYPSE

FRANZ BOAS

RICHARD LEWONTIN

NED BLOCK

AND



AXLE

RIDIN RIDIN RIDIN

Quote:

INDIGENOUS IMPRISONMENT The following data is taken from the administrative data collection 2006 National Prisoner's Census. Data is for prisoners aged 18 years and over in every jurisdiction except Queensland, where it is for prisoners aged 17 years and over (ABS 2006). At 30 June 2006, there were 6,901 Indigenous prisoners in Australia, representing 24% of the total prisoner population (ABS 2006). Nine out of ten Indigenous prisoners (91%) were male (ABS 2006). Nationally, the Indigenous crude imprisonment rate was 2,127 per 100,000, with the highest jurisdictional rates in Western Australia (3,385 per 100,000), New South Wales (2,382 per 100,000) and Queensland (1,877 per 100,000)(ABS 2006). After adjusting for differences in age structure between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Indigenous people were 13 times more likely than non-Indigenous people to have been incarcerated in 2006 (ABS 2006). http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4722.0.55.003/

Gee....I dunno where the link between aborigines and crime came from....the Australian Bureau of statistics must be racists.

As the originator of this topic .. I am asking NICELY if we could kindly ignore and report the uncalled for personal and offtopic abusive remarks of Imperium aka Barak Obama.

Why am I asking this? Not because I wish to impede free speech .. on the contrary .. I am trying to protect it FROM offensive and abusive interference.

Anyone here now suddenly reading a subliminal message in my above response .. as it in fact does relate to the Racism vs Free Speech discussion we're having.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 12:24pm:

Quote: ....you're going to pretend you don't know that aborigines are massively over represented in crime statistics? Why do you think that is?

Is it important?

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 12:26pm:

As the originator of this topic .. I am asking NICELY if we could kindly ignore and report the uncalled for personal and offtopic abusive remarks of Imperium aka Barak. Why am I asking this? Not because I wish to impede free speech .. on the contrary .. I am trying to protect it FROM offensive and abusive interference. Anyone here now reading the above subliminal message as it relates to Racism and Free Speech at all??

piss off

AXLE RIDER NANAN NA ANN

AXLE RIDER

RIDIN AROUND ON HIS BIG GAY HARLEY

As the originator of this topic .. I am asking NICELY if we could kindly ignore the uncalled for personal and offtopic abusive remarks of Imperium aka Barak Obama.

Why am I asking this? Not because I wish to impede free speech .. on the contrary .. I am trying to protect it FROM offensive and abusive interference.

Anyone here now suddenly reading a subliminal message in my above response .. as it in fact does relate to the Racism vs Free Speech discussion we're trying to have?

PISS OFF

ban lisa and AXLE RIDER

RIDIN AROUND ON HIS BIG GAY HARLEY

RIDIN AROUND

wesley - the new zealand bureau of ststistics are similarily racist against maoris there.




... wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 12:26pm:

Quote: INDIGENOUS IMPRISONMENT The following data is taken from the administrative data collection 2006 National Prisoner's Census. Data is for prisoners aged 18 years and over in every jurisdiction except Queensland, where it is for prisoners aged 17 years and over (ABS 2006). At 30 June 2006, there were 6,901 Indigenous prisoners in Australia, representing 24% of the total prisoner population (ABS 2006). Nine out of ten Indigenous prisoners (91%) were male (ABS 2006). Nationally, the Indigenous crude imprisonment rate was 2,127 per 100,000, with the highest jurisdictional rates in Western Australia (3,385 per 100,000), New South Wales (2,382 per 100,000) and Queensland (1,877 per 100,000)(ABS 2006). After adjusting for differences in age structure between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations, Indigenous people were 13 times more likely than non-Indigenous people to have been incarcerated in 2006 (ABS 2006). http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4722.0.55.003/ Gee....I dunno where the link between aborigines and crime came from....the Australian Bureau of statistics must be racists.

NO SUCH THING AS MAORIS HOW CAN YOU TELL WHERE THE CUT OFF POINT FOR MAORI AND NON-MAORI  IS??

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AXLE RIDER

Quote:

Is it important?

You made a statement, I asked you to clarify. I gave you that courtesy when our positions were reversed in the feminism thread.

hey lisa GET OUT OF THIS THREAD

ITS MINE

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 12:42pm:

Quote: Is it important? You made a statement, I asked you to clarify. I gave you that courtesy when our positions were reversed in the feminism thread.

annie why cant lisa be like you? youre cool.

In any progressive society every belioef and every person must be able to be criticised and questioned thoroughly.

if that is not possible, the society is self limiting.

Freedom of speech must reign over any percieved racism, sexism or abusive claims.

those that misuse this freedom will be shown up for their ignorance.

- Sprintcyclist @ Reply #26 - Today at 12:16pm



Ahh Sprint .. many thanks for your honest and constructive reply.

As it so happens I totally and utterly agree with your 1st 2 sentences.

You lose me with the 3rd though ie this one:

Freedom of speech must reign over any percieved racism, sexism or abusive claims.

You do realise that you are in effect saying that racism and sexism and other forms of isms .. are ok .. don't you?

And that somehow in upholding these "isms" .. you're in effect upholding free speech.

Can you see any contradiction/s in what you've stated?

AXLE RIDA

Freedom of speech must reign over any percieved racism, sexism or abusive claims.

those that misuse this freedom will be shown up for their ignorance.

- Sprintcyclist @ Reply #26 - Today at 12:16pm

Let's take another closer look at that Sprint ..

The historical record is littered with many contemporary examples where those who have been racist and misused their freedom and were shown up for their ignorance later on .. came at a very high price to society (and I am not just referring to a total and utter freedom of speech restraint/cost either).

Oh and umm just remember this: 6 million dead Jews may disagree with what you've stated .. if they were alive today to read your comments Sprint.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 12:42pm:

Quote: Is it important? You made a statement, I asked you to clarify. I gave you that courtesy when our positions were reversed in the feminism thread.

OK, I think it is because their culture(s) are vastly different, and incompatible with, the dominant culture.

There seems to be a lot of static in the Sustainability Party's section of the board. Hopefully, the SPA can rectify the problem.

Now, Wesley, I'm sure you would find blanket statement like that bothersome. What kind of crime are aboriginies "massively" involved in as far as the statistics are concerned? Is that drugs? Protection rackets? Gambling?  Prostitution? Running guns, corporate crime.......?

And what crime they're involved in is it a function of aboriginality or is it a function of their situation? Do you think that it would be different for anyone else in the same situation?

I think reasonable people know what the deal is but unfortunately not all people are reasonable.

Quote:

OK, I think it is because their culture(s) are vastly different, and incompatible with, the dominant culture.

Thanks.

I happen to agree. Do you have a solution?

Axle wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 12:58pm:

There seems to be a lot of static in the Sustainability Party's section of the board. Hopefully, the SPA can rectify the problem. Now, Wesley, I'm sure you would find blanket statement like that bothersome. What kind of crime are aboriginies "massively" involved in as far as the statistics are concerned? Is that drugs? Protection rackets? Gambling?  Prostitution? Running guns, corporate crime.......? And what crime they're involved in is it a function of aboriginality or is it a function of their situation? Do you think that it would be different for anyone else in the same situation? I think reasonable people know what the deal is but unfortunately not all people are reasonable.

you are an incredible clown

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 1:01pm:

Quote: OK, I think it is because their culture(s) are vastly different, and incompatible with, the dominant culture. Thanks. I happen to agree. Do you have a solution?

Nar, I don't have a solution.  

lisa - it's a law of the net that the longer a chat goes on someone relates it to hitler.

it is a common fallacy, and invariably means that person has lost the discussion.

... wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 1:05pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 1:01pm: Quote: OK, I think it is because their culture(s) are vastly different, and incompatible with, the dominant culture. Thanks. I happen to agree. Do you have a solution? Nar, I don't have a solution.

bill_crany might.

Is there a global moderator in here with a can of roach spray?

AXLE RIDER

Axle wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 12:58pm:

There seems to be a lot of static in the Sustainability Party's section of the board. Hopefully, the SPA can rectify the problem. Now, Wesley, I'm sure you would find blanket statement like that bothersome. What kind of crime are aboriginies "massively" involved in as far as the statistics are concerned? Is that drugs? Protection rackets? Gambling?  Prostitution? Running guns, corporate crime.......? And what crime they're involved in is it a function of aboriginality or is it a function of their situation? Do you think that it would be different for anyone else in the same situation? I think reasonable people know what the deal is but unfortunately not all people are reasonable.

Would 'reasonable people' completely absolve criminals of all responsibility for their choices and actions, and instead blame the victims?

AXLE RIDA

RICHARD LEWONTIN AND NED BLOCK REVIN UP THEIR MOTORCYCLES AT THE ROAD HOUSE

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 1:05pm:

lisa - it's a law of the net that the longer a chat goes on someone relates it to hitler. it is a common fallacy, and invariably means that person has lost the discussion.

I agree.

Now if you don't mind .. can we get back to your constructive posts?

I'm curious to understand the thinking behind your position. I can readily see inherent contradictions .. and I've demonstrated a few already.

And given your own admissions in here thus far .. you appear to be positing an extreme stance.

Let me again remind you what you stated Sprint:

Freedom of speech must reign over any percieved racism, sexism or abusive claims.

As I said above .. you do realise that you are in effect saying that racism and sexism and other forms of isms .. are ok .. don't you?

It's all in the perception according to your statement Sprint ie your stance totally and utterly absolves/condones/excuses and removes the responsibility of those being racist/sexist and transers all responsibility onto the target group ie the person/s on the receiving end of it all.

In effect Sprint .. you are victim blaming. That's the reality of your position Sprint.

The fact that you cannot see ANY contradiction OR issue with your position .. quite frankly scares me!

I mean for starters how do you personally reconcile your stance on racism and sexism with your belief in the Bible? That's got me buggered big time here!

Please explain <-- in the words of a notorious female politician who I am beginning to think you quite admire.

Regards

Lisa

Axle wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 1:20pm:

Is there a global moderator in here with a can of roach spray?

I don't know or care .. I'm too busy posting to even notice the silliness of any online extreme right winged pests attempting to thwart free speech in here atm.

Oh the irony ..

I know I am addressing the heartland consciousness of what WE honestly believe and stand for ..

I never EVER thought racism and sexism of all things could ever be excused/trivialized/condoned/explained away in ANY way, shape or form by the very people I once admired and respected.

It's been a learning curve experience for me quite frankly.

oh! you never thought! by people YOU admired and respected?!! heaven be! :o

Since when is understanding the frequency of crime absolving anyone who commits it?

The only people guilty of crime are the criminals themselves. It's hardly  a reasonable position to blame everyone in a group because of some who do the wrong thing. Let's face it, when you're talking crime you're talking a small fraction of the population, even a small fraction of the groups that you wish to hang because of the actions of a few.

Look at the statistics that you say demonstrate MASSIVE involvement in crime. You are looking at best a few hundred per 100,000. Do the arithmetic on that. Convert it into a percentage.

pompous, pretentious clown

Nothing funnier than a heckling cockroach.

no, I don't see any contradiction there by me.

please explain.


in this world, not everyone is coffee coloured and going to hold hands in one big circle singing in tune.

if you want to totally cease any comment someone may percieve as being sexist/racist/whateverist  whatever will anyone talk about ?

the speed of grass growing?

If you want everyone to be doubly sure and critique their every thought for any percieved offense before speaking, we'll all be mute.


if you want to quote me, quote the lot.
I also said, the any comment happen, and the speaker will be known by the value of his comment. be it racist or not.

I am not responsile for your feelings. They are yours.
if they hurt you, that's up to you to resolve.


did jesus only ever say "nice warm fuzzy touchey feeley" things ?
Or did he also say "Don't be a nancy-boy ! Man-up."





Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 1:28pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 1:05pm: lisa - it's a law of the net that the longer a chat goes on someone relates it to hitler. it is a common fallacy, and invariably means that person has lost the discussion. I agree. Now if you don't mind .. can we get back to your constructive posts? I'm curious to understand the thinking behind your position. I can readily see inherent contradictions .. and I've demonstrated a few already. And given your own admissions in here thus far .. you appear to be positing an extreme stance. Let me again remind you what you stated Sprint: Freedom of speech must reign over any percieved racism, sexism or abusive claims. As I said above .. you do realise that you are in effect saying that racism and sexism and other forms of isms .. are ok .. don't you? It's all in the perception according to your statement Sprint ie your stance totally and utterly absolves/condones/excuses and removes the responsibility of those being racist/sexist and transers all responsibility onto the target group ie the person/s on the receiving end of it all. In effect Sprint .. you are victim blaming. That's the reality of your position Sprint. The fact that you cannot see ANY contradiction OR issue with your position .. quite frankly scares me! I mean for starters how do you personally reconcile your stance on racism and sexism with your belief in the Bible? That's got me buggered big time here! Please explain <-- in the words of a notorious female politician who I am beginning to think you quite admire. Regards Lisa

Axle wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 1:52pm:

Since when is understanding the frequency of crime absolving anyone who commits it? The only people guilty of crime are the criminals themselves. It's hardly  a reasonable position to blame everyone in a group because of some who do the wrong thing. Let's face it, when you're talking crime you're talking a small fraction of the population, even a small fraction of the groups that you wish to hang because of the actions of a few.

Do you mean like when KRudd gave an apology from 'all australians' to aborigines?


Quote:

Look at the statistics that you say demonstrate MASSIVE involvement in crime. You are looking at best a few hundred per 100,000. Do the arithmetic on that. Convert it into a percentage.

I said they were massively over-represented in crime statistics.  Are you disputing that?  
Would you also deny that for everyone that is imprisoned, there are 100 let off with a fine/warning, never caught, or the crime is never even reported.  Since aborigines are more into petty crime, like robbing people for smokes for example, the bulk of their crimes do not result in imprisonment.

LMAO @ the heckling cockroach comment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well .. I must say .. it's about time we had a little laugh in here. It was getting a tad too serious there for a moment.

But the topic remains serious .. and hits at the very core of who and what we are and stand for as members of society and .. ultimately .. as voters.

JC Denton wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 12:10pm:

they would say whatever benefits them most in the situation theyre in at the moment

I have never heard of any case where chriticism of Judaism (the religion) was persecuted.

Have you?

Nobody has been hauled before a magistrate for saying that Abraham was a silly ass.

how to make soren magically appearii







mention the jews

he must have the word on RSS feed or something

are you jewish m8?

its ok - just admit it. nobody is going to gas you anymore but its ok to say.

it's ok if you're a non-gentile m8 just say. nobody expcet maybe bill_crany and jan believe the conspiracy theories m8 so you're safe here.

Soren wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 2:16pm:

JC Denton wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 12:10pm: they would say whatever benefits them most in the situation theyre in at the moment I have never heard of any case where chriticism of Judaism (the religion) was persecuted. Have you? Nobody has been hauled before a magistrate for saying that Abraham was a silly ass.

I have!  


Quote:

A 39-year-old Perth man has been sentenced to three years' jail for posting an anti-semitic video on the internet. Brendon Lee O'Connell is the first person in Western Australia to be convicted under the state's racial vilification laws. A jury found him guilty last week of six offences. O'Connell posted a video on YouTube showing him insulting a young Jewish man in 2009. The video also showed O'Connell standing in front of the Perth Bell Tower telling Jews their days were numbered. Members of Western Australia's Jewish community were in court for the sentence and welcomed the jail term. Steve Lieblich, who represents the Jewish community and is on the Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, says racial vilification must be stopped. "This time it was the Jewish people that were the target, next time it could be Muslims, Asians or any other group," he said. "So we should be pleased that we've had this result and this signal has been sent to Mr O'Connell and his supporters."

Quote:

I have never heard of any case where chriticism of Judaism (the religion) was persecuted.

who is talking about the religion m8? i thought we were talking about the followers of the religion. it would seem like a pretty practical thing to do for a very practical people to claim to be a primarily religious group if it benefited them more than claiming to be primarily an ethnic group.

maybe there are some actual examples of this somewhere m8. i actually had one in the corner of my head when i made that post but now i cant remember what it was. im just guessing here otherwise.

"telling Jews their days were numbered."

How is that criticism of religion?

banjo kazooie :)

Soren wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 2:37pm:

"telling Jews their days were numbered." How is that criticism of religion?

Dunno...you'd hafta see the video to get the context.  Pretty lame stuff....but you know what even lamer?  The 'victim'....


Quote:

The Jewish victim of a verbal racial attack says a three-year prison term given to the man who called him a "racist, homicidal maniac" outside a Perth supermarket is not enough. http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/8748806/three-years-not-enough-for-racism-victim/

lets not fool ourselves here. the guy who was put in jail for this was also pretty lame.

but yeah if youre that much of a sook you probably deserve to be ragged on in the first place.

JC Denton wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 2:19pm:

its ok - just admit it. nobody is going to gas you anymore but its ok to say. it's ok if you're a non-gentile m8 just say. nobody expcet maybe bill_crany and jan believe the conspiracy theories m8 so you're safe here.

Not a jew in the ... er... biblical sense. Just like them/sympathise with them. Also, I have an enormous respect for their intellectual contribution over the centuries. So when they are knocked unfairly, I stand with them.

The religion of Judaism, on the other hand, is a different thing: all adherents of Judaism are jews but not all jews are adherents of judaism. "telling Jews their days were numbered" is not a criticism of Judaism the religion. It is not saying that Abraham was a silly ass. So Wesley is wrong when he say he's heard of a case where someone was hauled before a magistrate for criticising Judaism and produces O'Connell's case. O'Connell was certainly not changed or convicetd for criticising Judaism.


:-*

JC Denton wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 2:45pm:

lets not fool ourselves here. the guy who was put in jail for this was also pretty lame. but yeah if youre that much of a sook you probably deserve to be ragged on in the first place.

I am not in favour of jailing people for what they say.

Soren wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 2:48pm:

JC Denton wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 2:19pm: its ok - just admit it. nobody is going to gas you anymore but its ok to say. it's ok if you're a non-gentile m8 just say. nobody expcet maybe bill_crany and jan believe the conspiracy theories m8 so you're safe here. Not a jew in the ... er... biblical sense. Just like them/sympathise with them. Also, I have an enormous respect for their intellectual contribution over the centuries. So when they are knocked unfairly, I stand with them. The religion of Judaism, on the other hand, is a different thing: all adherents of Judaism are jews but not all jews are adherents of judaism. "telling Jews their days were numbered" is not a criticism of Judaism the religion. It is not saying that Abraham was a silly ass. So Wesley is wrong when he say he's heard of a case where someone was hauled before a magistrate for criticising Judaism and produces O'Connell's case. O'Connell was certainly not changed or convicetd for criticising Judaism. :-*

Errr....so what was he convicted for then?  



Quote:

A PERTH man who posted a video online showing him arguing with a Jewish man and calling him a "racist, homicidal maniac'' has been found guilty of racial hatred. Brendan Lee O'Connell, 38, represented himself before a jury in the Perth District Court after firing the lawyer who had been defending him against an accusation that he posted an anti-semitic video online. O'Connell faced seven charges related to the posting of a verbal altercation he had with Stanley Keyser and Timothy Peach, who are Jewish, and was found guilty on six. An argument broke out between the three men at an IGA supermarket in South Perth on May 2, 2009, where a Friends of Palestine group was holding a protest against Israeli oranges. Mr Peach, 19, told the court during the trial that he was a member of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students at the time and had attended the rally to "observe" and hand out flyers to educate the protesters about Israel. He said he was "angry", "confused" and "offended" by O'Connell when he started to film the two Jewish men and argue with them about their religion. During the trial, O'Connell refused to acknowledge Judge Henry Wisbey when he entered the court and, instead, rose to bow to the jury. About a dozen supporters in the court cheered when O'Connell labelled the proceedings "a kangaroo court" and gave a long, repetitive rant about the King James Bible and the Constitution. The video that O'Connell posted online was shown on the first day of the trial. "You have a religion of racism, hate, homicide and ethnic cleansing," O'Connell says to the men on the video. "You are a racist, homicidal maniac." When the jury found O'Connell guilty on Friday, he shouted: "Free Palestine! Free Iraq!" before being taken away. Outside court, Mr Keyser's mother Shelley said it was "a big relief" for the "terrible" ordeal to be over. O'Connell was remanded in custody and is due to reappear in court on Monday.

You really think he was jailed for 3 years for saying 'the jews days are numbered' in somemunknown context?  Not even the prosecution would make such a silly claim.

i like jews too

a jewish professor, robert weissberg, gave me a copy of his book for free with an autograph about two weeks and a few days week ago - theodore dalrymple recently reviewed it in the spectator :) ;)

Soren wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 2:51pm:

JC Denton wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 2:45pm: lets not fool ourselves here. the guy who was put in jail for this was also pretty lame. but yeah if youre that much of a sook you probably deserve to be ragged on in the first place. I am not in favour of jailing people for what they say.

im not saying that you are. im calling the guy who started the whole incident a tool as well. (brandon or whatever)

no, I don't see any contradiction there by me.

please explain.

in this world, not everyone is coffee coloured and going to hold hands in one big circle singing in tune.

if you want to totally cease any comment someone may percieve as being sexist/racist/whateverist  whatever will anyone talk about ?

the speed of grass growing?

If you want everyone to be doubly sure and critique their every thought for any percieved offense before speaking, we'll all be mute.


if you want to quote me, quote the lot.
I also said, the any comment happen, and the speaker will be known by the value of his comment. be it racist or not.

I am not responsile for your feelings. They are yours.
if they hurt you, that's up to you to resolve.


did jesus only ever say "nice warm fuzzy touchey feeley" things ?
Or did he also say "Don't be a nancy-boy ! Man-up."

Sprint - Reply #69 - Today at 2:00pm


Sprint ... I think it's good for us to go through your last post slowly  .. because right now I cannot see how most if it even remotely connects with anything I've put to you here today.

And I am beginning to think you're not even bothering to read what I am putting to you.

I realize I may be challenging you in many ways. I hope it's not hurting you THAT much lol :)

JC Denton wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 2:57pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 2:51pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 2:45pm: lets not fool ourselves here. the guy who was put in jail for this was also pretty lame. but yeah if youre that much of a sook you probably deserve to be ragged on in the first place. I am not in favour of jailing people for what they say. im not saying that you are. im calling the guy who started the whole incident a tool as well. (brandon or whatever)

yeah, he's a dick...but the fact remains, he was jailed for criticising judaism.

Your Banjo here had a throw- away comment saying that the jews would use either race or religion, whatever suited them, to persecute someone. To which I said that there has been no case to my knowledge where theological/religous comments on Judaism have landed anyone before a court.
This case isn't about religion either. What I am saying is that he was not convicted for making critical or even derogatory comment about the theology of Judaism (ie religious comments).

Sprint .. you stated:

in this world, not everyone is coffee coloured and going to hold hands in one big circle singing in tune.

Ok .. for starters .. what on earth does ^^^ have to do with anything I have stated in here today? We all know that we're individuals and as such we are different, we look different, we think different .. and we see/construe/interpret the world differently.  

Sprint, you then stated:

if you want to totally cease any comment someone may percieve as being sexist/racist/whateverist  whatever will anyone talk about ?

the speed of grass growing?

You do realize that you are now introducing and positing yet another extreme position (which no one here has subscribed to) .. within this freedom of speech vs racism debate ...  and you somehow think that it's gonna be ok to use it to validate YOUR opinion  .. namely that racism and sexism is essentially fine as long as free speech is protected.

So let's forget all about protecting the target groups on the receiving end of racism and sexism .. we must protect those who are responsible for racism and sexism and who use free speech as the EXCUSE AND VEHICLE in order able to do this.

i havent watched the vid wesley

are you dsure it was judaism as in the religion perse or jews as a religious group specifically or more just 'jews' regardless of their religion but more pertaining to their ethnic group

er, newcriterion, not the spectator

JC Denton wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 3:01pm:

i havent watched the vid wesley are you dsure it was judaism as in the religion perse or jews as a religious group specifically as more just 'jews' regardless of their religion but more pertaining to their ethnic group

Dunno, the video was taken down before I learnt of the case, but apparrently a heavily edited version can still be found on some pro-jewish sites.

Sprint, you then stated:

if you want to quote me, quote the lot.
I also said, the any comment happen, and the speaker will be known by the value of his comment. be it racist or not.

I am not responsible for your feelings. They are yours.
if they hurt you, that's up to you to resolve.

Sprint .. if you care to read back .. I've already addressed this in a previous post. Here it is once more:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom of speech must reign over any percieved racism, sexism or abusive claims. - Sprint

As I said above .. you do realise that you are in effect saying that racism and sexism and other forms of isms .. are ok .. don't you?

It's all in the perception according to your statement Sprint ie your stance totally and utterly absolves/condones/excuses and removes the responsibility of those being racist/sexist and transfers all responsibility onto the target group ie the person/s on the receiving end of it all.

In effect Sprint .. you are victim blaming. That's the reality of your position Sprint.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which now brings me to this classic :

Sprint you stated:

did jesus only ever say "nice warm fuzzy touchey feeley" things ?
Or did he also say "Don't be a nancy-boy ! Man-up."


My response to this (well apart from initially LMAO)??

Sprint .. come again?? What did Jesus actually say? No .. even better .. tell me again .. what does the Bible say about racism and sexism, Sprint?

Remember .. I know the Bible back to front. Twas fun reading it 13 times cover to cover whilst at Bible College along with all my friends who currently serve as Church Ministers and Deacons.

Regards

Lisa

lol

is he really going to be sent to jail for three years

what really got my goat was when 'crazy noongah' was invesitgated by the police

they probably wanted to lock him up too

You know the first person CHARGED under the laws that O Connell was the first person CONVICTED under, was an aboriginal girl, who racially abused and assaulted a white woman.

Apparrently that wasn't the kind of thing they had in mind when the laws were conceived, so they quietly dropped the case, until a suitable (white) target could be found.

big surprise there

if the govt was hauling all the aboriginals who have called white people racial slurs off to jail dubbos jail would need a new wing rpetty quickly lol

I'm looking forward to your responses Sprint .. re my last 3 posts which directly address your posts.

I am particularly interested in how you're going to use the Holy Bible to support your pro stance on racism and sexism.

Have a lovely day :)

Freedom of speech is absolute - it doesn't suddenly stop applying if you don't like the message.

Gotta take the good with the bad.

... wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 3:23pm:

Freedom of speech is absolute - it doesn't suddenly stop applying if you don't like the message. Gotta take the good with the bad.

Well that seems to be Sprint's position.

Have a read back .. it's all there.

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 3:26pm:

... wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 3:23pm: Freedom of speech is absolute - it doesn't suddenly stop applying if you don't like the message. Gotta take the good with the bad. Well that seems to be Sprint's position. Have a read back .. it's all there.

Seems like a logical position to me.  There's no 'right' to not be offended...so if someone says or does something you don't like, you eithe rneed to harden up, ignore it, or return fire.  Can't have the state fighting your battles for you.

I have a prostance on freedom of speech.

Did jesus only say "nice warm fuzzy" sayings ?
or, did they not teach you that part ?

There's nothing wrong with Freedom of Speech as much as there's nothing wrong in driving a car. However, when go too fast then you begin to cause problems. Limits, therefore, are imposed on speed for the safety and well being of everyone. Limits are similarly, and rightly, imposed on freedom of speech for the safety and well being of all concerned.

Nothing in this world is without limits, freedom of speech is no exception. It's an unrealistic and unwarranted to demand unlimited freedom of speech.

axle is one rotten pile of dog sh!t

... wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 3:29pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 3:26pm: ... wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 3:23pm: Freedom of speech is absolute - it doesn't suddenly stop applying if you don't like the message. Gotta take the good with the bad. Well that seems to be Sprint's position. Have a read back .. it's all there. Seems like a logical position to me.  There's no 'right' to not be offended...so if someone says or does something you don't like, you eithe rneed to harden up, ignore it, or return fire.  Can't have the state fighting your battles for you.

Well Sprint would agree with you.

Read back .. it's all there .. sexism and racism are all ok .. no problem at all in fact. Forget protecting the targeted victims .. let them fend for themselves hey. If they swim they swim .. if they don't then tough luck eh. As long as FREE SPEECH IS PROTECTED.

Unfortunately for Sprint .. the laws of this country and the Holy Bible beg to differ.

There's a case in point about unfettered freedom of speech from  Limperium, an online cockroach with Tourettes syndrome. Do people really think there's value in supporting  or not limiting that kind of free speech?

Which brings me back to my Opening Posts ..

What is the stance of FD .. and the Sustainability Party on all this?

I've googled the home page of this political party .. and it brings me back to this message board as its home base and online face.

And as I stated earlier .. I am most interested to find out because I am seriously considering becoming a member of the party/voting for this party.

But I need clarification about a few things 1st ( and these are all raised in this topic ).

racism vs free speech

hmmm in my opinion the only thing that impedes free speech is a closed mind. a mind that only sees its point of view as the only correct point of view. a mind that attempts to dictate/challenge/ change by means of discrediting, personally insulting,degrading,vilifying etc the opposing view. racism is used, imo, merely a catalyst/encouragement by those who wish to push an agenda.
free speech is the ability, reguardless of nationality, race, creed, religious leanings, to express ourselves verbally. if it turns out that our opinions enrage/incite/offend etc etc etc...isnt that what debate is?

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 3:51pm:

... wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 3:29pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 3:26pm: ... wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 3:23pm: Freedom of speech is absolute - it doesn't suddenly stop applying if you don't like the message. Gotta take the good with the bad. Well that seems to be Sprint's position. Have a read back .. it's all there. Seems like a logical position to me.  There's no 'right' to not be offended...so if someone says or does something you don't like, you eithe rneed to harden up, ignore it, or return fire.  Can't have the state fighting your battles for you. Well Sprint would agree with you. Read back .. it's all there .. sexism and racism are all ok .. no problem at all in fact. Forget protecting the targeted victims .. let them fend for themselves hey. If they swim they swim .. if they don't then tough luck eh. As long as FREE SPEECH IS PROTECTED. Unfortunately for Sprint .. the laws of this country and the Holy Bible beg to differ.

Yeah, why not?  there comes a time when you have to stand on your own 2 feet, and fight your own battles.  The government or mama isn't gonna be there to hold your hand forever.

Well again .. Sprint would agree with you Wesley.

And apparently the Holy Bible supports him too lol :)

What an interesting topic hey?

I'm still trying to figure out what FD and the Sustainability Party think about all this.

Any one here know?

Axle wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 3:53pm:

There's a case in point about unfettered freedom of speech from  Limperium, an online cockroach with Tourettes syndrome. Do people really think there's value in supporting  or not limiting that kind of free speech?

What's the matter?  Can't you hack it?

I'm enjoying the sideshow that Imperium is putting up under all his new Id's- Barrack and Banjo. He kind of makes the case for the need of limited free speech.

Let me repeat:

There's nothing wrong with Freedom of Speech as much as there's nothing wrong in driving a car. However, when go too fast then you begin to cause problems. Limits, therefore, are imposed on speed for the safety and well being of everyone. Limits are similarly, and rightly, imposed on freedom of speech for the safety and well being of all concerned.

Nothing in this world is without limits, freedom of speech is no exception. It's an unrealistic and unwarranted to demand unlimited freedom of speech.

What's the Sustainability Party's view on this? And why is the Sustainability Party giving latitude to a feckless , foul mouthed heckler ( Imperium)? Does it condone the behaviour? Is it behind the behaviour?

wats wrong with someone pointing to the bible to make their point? im not religious, nor do i believe the "word", but im happy to concede to a differing pov. many people use the bible as a means to an end....so? agree to disagree or disagree but the least a person can do is back it up with rational thought? free speech being what it is and all. should i rush out and buy me some jack boots? fire up the furnises?

Axle wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 4:20pm:

I'm enjoying the sideshow that Imperium, the cockroach with Tourettes is putting up under all his new Id's- Barrack and Banjo. He kind of makes the case for the need of limited free speech. Let me repeat: There's nothing wrong with Freedom of Speech as much as there's nothing wrong in driving a car. However, when go too fast then you begin to cause problems. Limits, therefore, are imposed on speed for the safety and well being of everyone. Limits are similarly, and rightly, imposed on freedom of speech for the safety and well being of all concerned. Nothing in this world is without limits, freedom of speech is no exception. It's an unrealistic and unwarranted to demand unlimited freedom of speech. What's the Sustainability Party's view on this? And why is the Sustainability Party giving latitude to a feckless , foul mouthed heckler ( Imperium)? Does it condone the behaviour? Is it behind the behaviour?

Dint yo mama ever tell you - sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me?

I'd question your mama, Wesley. If words didn't hurt, then idiots wouldn't resort to them, would they?

Looks like Imperium is the official spokesperson for the Sustainability Party of Australia. It seems that the Party is giving him free reign to be obnoxious.

Axle wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 4:28pm:

I'd question your mama, Wesley. If words didn't hurt, then idiots wouldn't resort to them, would they?

Din't yo mama ever tell you not to talk back?

There's nothing wrong with Freedom of Speech as much as there's nothing wrong in driving a car. However, when go too fast then you begin to cause problems. Limits, therefore, are imposed on speed for the safety and well being of everyone. Limits are similarly, and rightly, imposed on freedom of speech for the safety and well being of all concerned.

Nothing in this world is without limits, freedom of speech is no exception. It's an unrealistic and unwarranted to demand unlimited freedom of speech.

- Axle

I agree. Seems some posters and Mods on here don't (if their own admissions are anything to go by).

I know I've asked this before .. but does anyone here happen to know what FD's and the Sustainability Party's position is on all this?

I've tried looking for the Sustainability Party to see who it is headed by and where it is based and what its stance is on racism and sexism .. but the search engines keep referring me back to Oz Politic as its online face and home page.

No worries here,Wesley, but why do you think anyone should take abuse or have the right to deal it out? What dark age are you in?

Axle wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 4:35pm:

No worries here Wesley but why do you think anyone should take abuse or have the right to deal it out? What dark age are you in?

It's called the real world mate, you should try it some time.

It seems that you're not in it, Wesley. Have you been listening to Parliament lately?

There's nothing wrong with Freedom of Speech as much as there's nothing wrong in driving a car. However, when go too fast then you begin to cause problems. Limits, therefore, are imposed on speed for the safety and well being of everyone. Limits are similarly, and rightly, imposed on freedom of speech for the safety and well being of all concerned.

Nothing in this world is without limits, freedom of speech is no exception. It's an unrealistic and unwarranted to demand unlimited freedom of speech.

- Axle

I agree. It seems some posters and Mods on here don't (if their own admissions are anything to go by).

I know I've asked this before .. but does anyone here happen to know what FD's and the Sustainability Party's position is on all this?

I've tried looking for the Sustainability Party to see who it is headed by and where it is based and what its stance is on racism and sexism .. but the search engines keep referring me back to Oz Politic as its online face and home page.

And after 8 pages and some 800 posts .. seems no one here knows what the stance is either.

Axle wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 4:38pm:

It seems that you're not in it, Wesley. Have you been listening to Parliament lately?

OK I'll bite....what about parliament?

I suppose without a statement to the contrary , Lisa , you'll have to make an inference on what they allow, who they appoint as moderators, and what they do on there home site.

Right now, it looks like the Sustainability Party Of Australia condones quite a few negative things, wouldn't you say?

No need to bite, Wesley. Just tune in and you'll see.

Axle wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 4:45pm:

I suppose without a statement to the contrary , Lisa , you'll have to make an inference on what they allow, who they appoint as moderators, and what they do on there home site. Right now, it looks like the Sustainability Party Of Australia condones quite a few negative things, wouldn't you say?

Well I much prefer to wait and see what FD says about racism and sexism and what the Sustainability Party's position is.

I don't know who the official party voice for the Sustainability Party is. Seems FD may be it.

But yeah .. I'm a tad concerned at the fact that a few posters and Mods on here seem to think racism and sexism is ok.

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 4:48pm:

Axle wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 4:45pm: I suppose without a statement to the contrary , Lisa , you'll have to make an inference on what they allow, who they appoint as moderators, and what they do on there home site. Right now, it looks like the Sustainability Party Of Australia condones quite a few negative things, wouldn't you say? Well I much prefer to wait and see what FD says about racism and sexism and what the Sustainability Party's position is. I don't know who the official party voice for the Sustainability Party is. Seems FD may be it. But yeah .. I'm a tad concerned at the fact that a few posters and Mods on here seem to think racism and sexism is ok.

Who said it's OK?

Farting in elevators is a bit questionable, but we don't need to make laws against it do we?

Axle wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 4:46pm:

No need to bite, Wesley. Just tune in and you'll see.

I hope you're not trying to use parliament as an example of 'the real world'.

Cos that'd just be silly.

Soren wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 2:59pm:

Your Banjo here had a throw- away comment saying that the jews would use either race or religion, whatever suited them, to persecute someone.

Make that Young Banjo...

... wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 3:23pm:

Freedom of speech is absolute - it doesn't suddenly stop applying if you don't like the message. Gotta take the good with the bad.

Just modify that a tad: freedom of conscience and the freedom of its expression are absolute.
Freedom of speech is limited and rightly so.

If you think a set of ideas - religion, politics, social, whatevr -is vile, you shoul be free to say wht you think.

If you think a group of people are vile and s they should be harmed, regardless of what each member of that group thinks or does, then you should be subjected to a thorogh judicial bollocking.

The state (the law) is there to protect the individual's freedom.

I hasten to add, that as groups, unless they are legal persons, have no rights or duties, therefore it is a legal mistake, in my opinion, to afford them legal protection.

This is why there should not be laws punishing the vilification of religion or any other set of ideas or ideology.

Soren wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 5:45pm:

... wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 3:23pm: Freedom of speech is absolute - it doesn't suddenly stop applying if you don't like the message. Gotta take the good with the bad. Just modify that  tad: freedom of conscienc and the freedom of its expression are absolute. Freedom of speech is limited and rightly so. If you think a set of ideas - religion, politics, social, whatevr -is vile, you shoul be free to say wht you think. If you think a group of people are vile and s they should be harmed, regardless of what each member of that group thinks or does, then you should be subjected to a thorogh judicial bollocking. The state (the law) is there to protect the individual's freedom. I hasten to add, that as groups, unless they are legal persons, have no rights or duties, therefore it is a legal mistake, in my opinion, to afford them legal protection. This is why there should not be laws punishing the vilification of religion or any other set of ideas or ideology.

Hmmm interesting reply Soren.

Still .. I would love to see what FD 's position is .. and as I stated above .. the official stance of the Sustainability Party which he seems to head/be the official voice for.

No one seems to know what this is .. even after some 9 pages of discussion.

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 10:31am:

Where does the Sustainability Party stand on that FD?

http://www.spearfishing.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=5098

FD IS the Sustainability Party.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/sustainability-party.html

Crikey, this thread is sooo coooky that it could probably serve as the subject of a psych thesis...

::)

Well yeah esp now that you've turned up ..

Soren wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 7:12pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 10:31am: Where does the Sustainability Party stand on that FD? http://www.spearfishing.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=5098 FD IS the Sustainability Party. http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/sustainability-party.html

Yeah .. I've already seen those web pages Soren.

And I reckon you're right.

I'm just presently reading up on libertarianism  .. seems that is the political ideology underpinning and driving the party's policies. So hopefully that may help me see something of the official stance re sexism and racism.

I'm not even sure if FD's party is even registered yet. I know I can't seem to find any evidence of that.

And I am still wondering if FD's party is linked in any way to the Ethics and Sustainability Party.

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 7:42pm:

Well yeah esp now that you've turned up ..

'Sup, don't you have a forum to moderate control somewhere, sweet cheeks!?

:-?

Equitist wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 7:52pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 7:42pm: Well yeah esp now that you've turned up .. 'Sup, don't you have a forum to moderate control somewhere, sweet cheeks!? :-?

No she doesn't thy. She is no longer a mod for some reason.

BTW when you call her sweet cheeks do you mean the flabby ones on her face or the saggy ones around her bum?

Quote:

Freedom of speech is limited and rightly so.

Agree


Quote:

If you think a set of ideas - religion, politics, social, whatevr -is vile, you shoul be free to say wht you think.

Agree but would be mindful of how it said.


Quote:

If you think a group of people are vile and s they should be harmed, regardless of what each member of that group thinks or does, then you should be subjected to a thorogh judicial bollocking.

Agree

The state (the law) is there to protect the individual's freedom.

Agree but it has to be within limits, right?


Quote:

I hasten to add, that as groups, unless they are legal persons, have no rights or duties, therefore it is a legal mistake, in my opinion, to afford them legal protection.

So  you would have to be saying that groups should be open to attack or vilification, right?


Quote:

This is why there should not be laws punishing the vilification of religion or any other set of ideas or ideology

.

I guess not but this doesn't follow from your premise . What would follow is that there shouldn't be laws against vilifying groups.

I agree that religious doctrine , ideas and any ideology should be questioned and spoken out against if need be. But vilification is a bit over-the-top, wouldn't you say? But if you're only doing it to ideas I suppose its not much of an objection.

Vilify: To make vicious and defamatory statements about.

-Free Online Dictionary

What really concerns me here though is that you said that groups should not have any legal protection if they aren't recognised as legal entities. The logic of case wasn't against ideas but groups. You just muted yourself at the end.

And vilification of groups is not on because I think we've seen enough from history, and everyday life, to know that it leads to the erosion of freedoms of the non-dominant group that's vilified.

So are you advocating the vilification of groups of people or just the ideologies only?

Hey Axle .. we discussed something similar earlier today re religion and race .. in this very topic.

One of the posters was in support of prejudice against religion but not race.

I brought up the example of a Jew (making the point that race and religious lines may be blurred at times).

Still .. seems a few Mods on here are in favour of racism and sexism.

Read back .. it's all there in ts glory.

ohnoitisnt wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 7:58pm:

Equitist wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 7:52pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 7:42pm: Well yeah esp now that you've turned up .. 'Sup, don't you have a forum to moderate control somewhere, sweet cheeks!? :-? No she doesn't thy. She is no longer a mod for some reason. BTW when you call her sweet cheeks do you mean the flabby ones on her face or the saggy ones around her bum?

What, did she and Sprint get divorced already!?

Shame, so soon after the shotgun wedding too - must be hard on the spirit...

As for your question, I suppose it's all in the name...

:-X

Let me repeat:

There's nothing wrong with Freedom of Speech as much as there's nothing wrong in driving a car. However, when go too fast then you begin to cause problems. Limits, therefore, are imposed on speed for the safety and well being of everyone. Limits are similarly, and rightly, imposed on freedom of speech for the safety and well being of all concerned.

Nothing in this world is without limits, freedom of speech is no exception. It's an unrealistic and unwarranted to demand unlimited freedom of speech.

- Axle

Yeah! That's right. Well said!

looks like a divorce thy.

Spirituality Moderator: Sprintcyclist

Wow. There is a lot of responses here. I'll start with the opening post:


Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 10:31am:

Where does the Sustainability Party stand on that FD?

I think the current laws handle it pretty well. My understanding is that you can make any claims you want about race etc, but the law steps in if you incite people to violence on any grounds, including racial, or you deny a person a job based on their race when race is irrelevant to the job and they are otherwise the best person for it (ie racial discrimination). I think it is also illegal to deny people service based on race.

We are pretty far from a 'post racial' society as the Americans call it, given that we still treat Aborigines differently in welfare etc. It is important to be able to have an open and frank debate about these issues.

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 10:20pm:

Wow. There is a lot of responses here. I'll start with the opening post: Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 10:31am: Where does the Sustainability Party stand on that FD? I think the current laws handle it pretty well. My understanding is that you can make any claims you want about race etc, but the law steps in if you incite people to violence on any grounds, including racial, or you deny a person a job based on their race when race is irrelevant to the job and they are otherwise the best person for it (ie racial discrimination). I think it is also illegal to deny people service based on race. We are pretty far from a 'post racial' society as the Americans call it, given that we still treat Aborigines differently in welfare etc. It is important to be able to have an open and frank debate about these issues.

Many thanks for replying FD.

I haven't been able to find any official SPA stance/policy on racism and sexism hence my question.

Some of the Mods and posters on this message board are of the opinion that Free Speech is an absolute  .. and should exist without any qualification. As such, it ought to be protected and if that means racism and sexism occurs well then .. so be it.

Is that what you also believe? Is this what the SPA also holds true?

Also is the SPA linked in any way to the Ethics & Sustainability Party at all ??

Quote:

Some of the Mods and posters on this message board are of the opinion that Free Speech is an absolute  .. and should exist without any qualification.

All rights and freedoms can only extend to the point where you infringe on someone else's rights and freedoms. There are always tradeoffs, never absolutes.

If someone wants to argue that black people are inherently stupid, let them. I'm not sure where the anti-vilification laws step in on this, but they must not interfere with what is essentially a scientific enquiry.

This is not really what the Sustainability Party is about. I do not expect this issue to differentiate the party from the major parties.

Ahh many thanks FD for responding.

Lastly .. what do you think of this statement?


In any progressive society every belief and every person must be able to be criticised and questioned thoroughly.

if that is not possible, the society is self limiting.

Freedom of speech must reign over any percieved racism, sexism or abusive claims.

Those that misuse this freedom will be shown up for their ignorance.


Any comments?

Oh and I did ask before ... is the SPA linked in ANY way with the Ethics & Sustainability Party at all ??

"It's an unrealistic and unwarranted to demand unlimited freedom of speech."
It shocks me to hear Australians say this. The problem is, who decides what those limits are?
Freedom of speech does not exist if limited or controlled by others. That, by definition, is censorship.
The idea that we can have free speech as long as people don't say certain things, that is not freedom of speech.
While I find O'Connell's comments distasteful, what I find even more distasteful are the comments of those who would see our freedoms eroded or limited.
Even the most disgusting, ridiculous viewpoints need to be heard openly in a democracy. Jailing those who say things that do not fall within the acceptable bounds of 'expression' is frightening.

Should we have our publicly posted internet comments run through a computer, that dishes out jail sentences if they are flagged as 'inappropriate' or if they offend someone?

"Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation, or both."
Obviously the often quoted example of calling out 'fire' in a crowded theatre can cause death. But this is different. This is newspeak. This is criminalising political and religious dialogue. It has nothing to do with public safety.

Sadly, what a lot of people in this country consider to be 'liberty' has an ever growing list of terms, conditions and caveats. Some of which are clearly designed to prevent the expression of certain political and religious points of view.
And that's pretty scary.

Welcome to Ozpol, Slapjack. Great first post.

What about speech that threatens public safety in a less obvious way than shouting 'fire' in a theatre? There are subtle ways to incite hatred that have very real consequences for the targets. What about slander?

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 12:50pm:

. sprint said... Freedom of speech must reign over any percieved racism, sexism or abusive claims. [Lisa] The historical record is littered with many contemporary examples where those who have been racist and misused their freedom and were shown up for their ignorance later on...

And yet others, have been shown to have been spot on, in their social comment.



Quote:

. "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism (Islam) lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries -Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property which exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism which deprives life of its grace and refinement, as well as, its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law, every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - Either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa , raising fearless warriors at every step! And, were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which Islam had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome ..." Sir Winston Churchill; (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50)

The speech above was written in, 1899!

112 years ago.

Was this amazing foresight from a 'visionary', OR, were these merely the words of a truth speaker ???

The world has changed.

Has ISLAM changed ???

Soren wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 2:51pm:

JC Denton wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 2:45pm: lets not fool ourselves here. the guy who was put in jail for this was also pretty lame. but yeah if youre that much of a sook you probably deserve to be ragged on in the first place. I am not in favour of jailing people for what they say.

Unless, 'what they say' is incitement to murder, may i presume ?


Personally, i would not give that 'licence' to anyone.

yadda, winstons words are still true because muslims have not changed.





Cut away the leftard insinuative rot that "racism is bad", take the facts for being what they are.




Quote:

HALF of Australians harbour anti-Muslim sentiments and a quarter are anti-Semitic, according to the biggest survey ever done on racism in this country. One in three also admit some level of racist feelings against indigenous people, reported the Herald Sun. The survey of 12,500 people, conducted by leading universities, found Victoria to be one of the most tolerant states. But comparisons between 15 regions statewide show stark differences. People in Melbourne's outer north, including the shires of Nillumbik, Whittlesea and Hume, recorded Victoria's highest rates of negative sentiments against Jews (31.4 per cent), Asians (26.8 per cent) and Britons (12.8 per cent). Anti-Muslim feelings were highest in outer western council areas of Melton, Wyndham and Brimbank, but these areas also reported the state's lowest rates of racist attitudes to Asians and Italians. The 12-year study found 84 per cent of people have seen evidence of racial prejudice. And more than 40 per cent believed "Australia is weakened by people of different ethnic origins sticking to their old ways". Study co-author Dr Yin Paradies, from the University of Melbourne, said racism against minorities was most common in areas that were more highly populated by those minorities. "There is a general finding across the world that ethnic density tends to be related to levels of racism, but not always," he said. "The inner (Melbourne) suburbs tended to have very tolerant attitudes, but there is quite a bit of ethnic diversity there." The council areas of Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Yarra boasted Victoria's highest levels of "cross-cultural relations" and fewest calls for "pro-assimilation". However, inner Melbourne residents surveyed for the Challenging Racism Project also recorded the highest rates of anti-Christian (21.3 per cent) and anti-Italian (12.6 per cent) sentiments. Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner Dr Helen Szoke praised Victorians generally, but admitted concern at some of the findings. "Multiculturalism isn't an end point. It's something we have to keep working on," she said.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/were-a-land-of-racists-survey-shows/story-e6freooo-1226010436251

Yadda wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 8:23am:

Soren wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 2:51pm: JC Denton wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 2:45pm: lets not fool ourselves here. the guy who was put in jail for this was also pretty lame. but yeah if youre that much of a sook you probably deserve to be ragged on in the first place. I am not in favour of jailing people for what they say. Unless, 'what they say' is incitement to murder, may i presume ? Personally, i would not give that 'licence' to anyone.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1298334661/131#131

Cut away the leftard insinuative rot that "racism is bad", take the facts for being what they are.

- Sprint - Racism vs Free Speech @ Reply #152 - Today at 8:33am

Oh for goodness sakes Sprint! I only just saw this.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??? THIS IS DISGRACEFUL! HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU LIVE WITH YOURSELF SPRINT? AND YOU CALL YOURSELF A CHRISTIAN? THIS IS NOT WHAT CHRISTIANITY IS ABOUT. I AM SO ASHAMED TO SEE THIS AND I AM GRIEVING RIGHT NOW.

yawn .
read the replies from real people lisa

anyone who thought of marrying lisa,  now you know more about her.
For any future Mr lisa, in discussions, no correspondance will be entered into.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 10:24am:

yawn . read the replies from real people lisa anyone who thought of marrying lisa,  now you know more about her. For any future Mr lisa, in discussions, no correspondance will be entered into.

I am reading YOUR replies .. and all I see is pro racist and pro sexist rubbish. Oh and a few needless and immature personal attacks which you've seen fit to throw in for added effect I suppose.

I'm starting to get the impression there's more to this topic than meets the eye....

Wesley - yes, you'ld think lisa was out to prove me wrong.

Shouldn't be too hard, I'm often wrong.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 10:43am:

Wesley - yes, you'ld think lisa was out to prove me wrong. Shouldn't be too hard, I'm often wrong.

Sprint .. it isn't a matter of proving you or anyone else wrong.

Don't you understand that at all?? I am just hoping you will wake up to yourself and finally see what you've become.

Perhaps you ought to take another look at my Johari Window topic in Spirituality. One of its quadrants is the Blind Spot.

Consider this topic an opportunity for you to gain some insight into a Blind Spot region, Sprint.

Regards

Lisa

i've heard of johari in the past.
think it was some sort of theoretical philosophical mumbo jumbo.

will have a look at it for you

read your johari stuff.
very grade 6 stuff.

any bible quotes to support anything you have said ?
you have asked me for some, I have posted them.

youo have read it 13 times !!!!!!! should be a pro
or maybe that was an unlucky number, should have stopped at 7.

How poor was jesus ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 11:16am:

read your johari stuff. very grade 6 stuff. any bible quotes to support anything you have said ? you have asked me for some, I have posted them. youo have read it 13 times !!!!!!! should be a pro or maybe that was an unlucky number, should have stopped at 7. How poor was jesus ?

You've not posted anything from the Bible which supports your pro racist stance. I am still waiting for some verses .. even now after continually requesting them.

And the ONE verse you pathetically attempted to misuse as some form of substantiation for your pro sexist stance (along with your needless personal attacks which have only shown me how desperate and pitiful you really are) I've already rebutted (well .. enough for now).

But believe you me Sprint .. I've got a lot of fire in me .. esp when it comes to the Bible. And I do know the Bible very well.

And as regards your last question .. "how poor was Jesus?" .. could you kindly explain for the benefit of us all, how that question even relates in any way shape or form to this topic? I am only asking coz right now .. you're starting to sound unwell.

you probably do know your bible well.

how poor was jesus financially ?

In short .. you've not bothered to read my last post .. esp its last paragraph.

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2011 at 11:00pm:

Ahh many thanks FD for responding. Lastly .. what do you think of this statement? In any progressive society every belief and every person must be able to be criticised and questioned thoroughly. if that is not possible, the society is self limiting. Freedom of speech must reign over any percieved racism, sexism or abusive claims. Those that misuse this freedom will be shown up for their ignorance. Any comments? Oh and I did ask before ... is the SPA linked in ANY way with the Ethics & Sustainability Party at all ??

I agree with the statement in principle, although it what it means in practice is a little ambiguous.

No, the two parties are not linked in any way.

What role does this Forum OzPolitic play in the Administration of the SPA?  Who are the faces behind the SPA.  Who is the Executive of the SPA?

Quote:

What role does this Forum OzPolitic play in the Administration of the SPA?

None - at least not directly.


Quote:

Who are the faces behind the SPA.

Here is one:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/members/freediver/avi.jpg


Quote:

Who is the Executive of the SPA?

There is no formal executive.

Is it registered?  Does it have a Constitution, Members?  Who owns the name "Sustainability Party of Australia?"

Aussie, if you google SPA .. the search engine will direct you to the Oz Pol message boards home page. It seems to be its online face.

Once there you may be able to click and view its policies.

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 9:28pm:

Aussie, if you google SPA .. the search engine will direct you to the Oz Pol message boards home page. It seems to be its online face. Once there you may be able to click and view its policies.

I've done that Lisa.  That is not what I am asking of freediver, who seems to be the public voice of the SPA.  As such, and as the Author, it seems, of the commentary and policies of the SPA, he ought to have the answers to my questions readily available.

Aussie wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 9:03pm:

Is it registered?  Does it have a Constitution, Members?  Who owns the name "Sustainability Party of Australia?"

no no yes no-one(legally)

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 9:58pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 9:03pm: Is it registered?  Does it have a Constitution, Members?  Who owns the name "Sustainability Party of Australia?" no no yes no-one(legally)

Do you personally know all the members? Any of them not you/related to you?

I have seen, what I would regard as some strange events, in terms of attempts to moderate & over moderate, this forum & others.

However, to put those into perspective, I have also seen some terrible outcomes, arising from a lack of moderation & a total absence of moderation, resulting from an adherence to what some call "free speech", whilst others would simply say what was being said was a license to block free speech &/or an attempt to re-write history in some cases.

That said, if reasonable rules are set, most people will usually be accommodative, within those rules.

If people go beyond those rules ocassionally, like putting a thread into what some may regard as an incorrect category, that would not be of any great concern.

However, for those who deliberately & persistently flout the established forum rules, particularly where that involves deliberate & persistent use of foul language, the slandering of others &/or other posts that deliberately set out to cause mental anguish, then I don't believe that these people should be allowed to hide behind "freedom of speech"!

In these circumstances, Moderators can & should take action, including temporary suspensions & permanent expulsions, from the relevant forum!    

In respect of Racism &/or Multiculturalism, there are many issues that naturally arise from the process of immigration and intergrating substantial numbers of people from others countries.

This has happened in the past, as substantial numbers have come to Australia from Europe, Asia & Africa and it will continue, particularly over the next 20-40 years, as a result of the declining birth rate & the passing on of the baby boomer generation.

This means that large numbers of immigrants will be required, simply to keep the total population numbers from falling too far!

This process will apply to many, in fact, most countries, so we will not be able to pick & choose a particular cultural background.

I suggest that those who are already here and those who will come, will both acclimatise to each other, as has happened before!

A very fair and honest comment Perceptions.

Soren wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2011 at 11:09pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 9:58pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 9:03pm: Is it registered?  Does it have a Constitution, Members?  Who owns the name "Sustainability Party of Australia?" no no yes no-one(legally) Do you personally know all the members? Any of them not you/related to you?

I don't know all of them. Most of them I have no idea who they are.

What does it cost to become a Member?

Aussie wrote on Feb 25^th, 2011 at 4:39pm:

What does it cost to become a Member?

Was that a naughty question, or did I fart?

It is free.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2011 at 9:37pm:

It is free.

How does it pay it's way, then?

Pay what way? Everything is based on the personal effort of members.

Racism v. free speech is a very serious issue.  Anti-racists pollute our intellectual discourse through the use of false arguments (the big lie strategy), ad hominem attacks, and shaming tactics.  This prevents honest racism from claiming its rightful place at the head of our social values, raising the question of whether we should perhaps censor anti-racists.

coral - yes, it is serious.

any atttack on freedom of speech is serious.
it's invariably done by the losers to the winners.
they are jealous and rather than improving themselves, find it more comforting to bring eveyone down to their level

in the words of George orwell, Animal farm :
"All animals are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others."

No, you have it exactly backwards.  The stifling of dissent is done by those in power, whom are conventionally winners.  It has nothing to do with jealousy.  After all, why would the powerful be jealous?  It's about maintaining and consolidating power.

Free speech is something of an illusion, because people are rationalizing rather than rational.  Instead of producing a robust public discourse in which the best ideas win, people tend to adopt ideas for emotional reasons--status competition in particular.

That said free speech is very important to me, as my opinions are those most likely to face censorship in the current political climate.

Coral Sea wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 7:44am:

Racism v. free speech is a very serious issue.  Anti-racists pollute our intellectual discourse through the use of false arguments (the big lie strategy), ad hominem attacks, and shaming tactics.  This prevents honest racism from claiming its rightful place at the head of our social values, raising the question of whether we should perhaps censor anti-racists.

Your post deserves a repeat.

If only I could frame it.

It's almost as cringeworthy as this little snippet:

Cut away the leftard insinuative rot that "racism is bad", take the facts for being what they are.

- Sprint (Racism vs Free Speech @ Reply #150 - Feb 23rd, 2011, 8:33am)

George Orwell, Animal farm :
"All animals are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others."
Was this book banned in some leftard countries for some time ?

George Orwell?  Is he a favourite author of yours, Sprint?


Quote:

Every line of serious work that I’ve written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against Totalitarianism ... For Democratic Socialism is vaporized, just like Winston Smith did it at the Ministry of Truth, and that’s very much what happened at the beginning of the McCarthy era and just continued...

George Orwell




Quote:

In July 1936 the Spanish Civil War broke out. By the end of that autumn, Orwell was readying himself to go to Spain to gather material for articles and perhaps to take part in the war. After his arrival in Barcelona, he joined the militia of the POUM (Partido Obrero de Unificacion Marxista) and served with them in action in January 1937. Transferring to the British Independent Labour party contingent serving with the POUM militia, Orwell was promoted first to corporal and then to lieutenant before being wounded in the middle of May. During his convalescence, the POUM was declared illegal, and he fled into France in June. His experiences in Spain had made him into a revolutionary socialist.

(Gale Encyclopedia of Biography)

You might prefer:


Quote:

War is Peace - Freedom is Slavery - Ignorance is Strength.

(1984)

It's a very apt quotation in this case.

Well, Coral seems to have been born too late. The world has moved on in wisdom and facts since pre- 1945. Racism was baseless then as it is now and what it resulted in and what it leads to makes it deserving of our strongest condemnation.

Axle wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 3:32pm:

Well, Coral seems to have been born too late. The world has moved on in wisdom and facts since pre- 1945. Racism was baseless then as it is now and what it resulted in and what it leads to makes it deserving of our strongest condemnation.

Has the world grown or has it decayed?  That's open to individual interpretation.

Freedom of speech is not the same thing as giving everyone's opinion equal merit or airtime. Racists deserve all the flak they get, and this is not a restriction of free speech. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from criticism.

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 7:06pm:

Freedom of speech is not the same thing as giving everyone's opinion equal merit or airtime. Racists deserve all the flak they get, and this is not a restriction of free speech. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from criticism.

Oh thank the Spaghetti Monster, FD...FINALLY someone who realises that 'freedom of speech' doesn't mean 'freedom' from dissenting opinions.....

---

Racists deserve all the flak they get, and this is not a restriction of free speech.

- Freediver

---

>> breathes a sigh of relief <<

Well said FD and much respect!

well sure, criticise their arguments, noone would suggest you shouldn't.

But the PC clowns tend to be incapable of constructing an argument based on what is actually said, and this is why their precious 'anti-vilification' laws come in handy - if you can't counter their argument, it'll at least shut them up, and sweep their inconvenient truths under the carpet.  THAT is a restriction of freedom of speech.

You still don't get it .. do you?

you still can't think critically , can you ?

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2011 at 10:58am:

You still don't get it .. do you?

Who me?

What don't I 'get'?

Yes YOU Wesley! We go back MANY years as message board friends.

I refuse to believe you can be this ignorant and vague. Is it some online act/performance you're trying to maintain here?

If so .. I'm not playing.

you still can't think critically answer questions, can you ?

muso wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 3:31pm:

George Orwell?  Is he a favourite author of yours, Sprint? Quote: Every line of serious work that I’ve written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against Totalitarianism ... For Democratic Socialism is vaporized, just like Winston Smith did it at the Ministry of Truth, and that’s very much what happened at the beginning of the McCarthy era and just continued... George Orwell [quote]In July 1936 the Spanish Civil War broke out. By the end of that autumn, Orwell was readying himself to go to Spain to gather material for articles and perhaps to take part in the war. After his arrival in Barcelona, he joined the militia of the POUM (Partido Obrero de Unificacion Marxista) and served with them in action in January 1937. Transferring to the British Independent Labour party contingent serving with the POUM militia, Orwell was promoted first to corporal and then to lieutenant before being wounded in the middle of May. During his convalescence, the POUM was declared illegal, and he fled into France in June. His experiences in Spain had made him into a revolutionary socialist.

(Gale Encyclopedia of Biography)

You might prefer:


Quote:

War is Peace - Freedom is Slavery - Ignorance is Strength.

(1984)

It's a very apt quotation in this case.
[/quote]

OUCH!

Something tells me George Orwell isn't going to be raised again in this debate lol :)

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2011 at 11:43am:

Yes YOU Wesley! We go back MANY years as message board friends. I refuse to believe you can be this ignorant and vague. Is it some online act/performance you're trying to maintain here? If so .. I'm not playing.

Say wha?  

I'm speaking my views on the topic. - if you don't agree, pick a point of contention.  I don't even know what point your trying to make, or point of mine you're trying to refute!

Take another cursory glance at this topic. My stance is well and truly articulated in every post I've submitted.

Quote:

But the PC clowns tend to be incapable of constructing an argument based on what is actually said, and this is why their precious 'anti-vilification' laws come in handy - if you can't counter their argument, it'll at least shut them up, and sweep their inconvenient truths under the carpet.  THAT is a restriction of freedom of speech.

I have never seen the anti-vilification laws used against a reasoned argument regarding racial differences. Have you?

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2011 at 7:12pm:

I have never seen the anti-vilification laws used against a reasoned argument regarding racial differences. Have you?

Thus far this has not occurred to the best of my knowledge.  White identity partisans are criminally prosecuted in most Western countries when they deny the Holocaust, and in some more Orwellian countries like Britain the police get involved when people mutter things about Pakis.

While I worry about the increasing criminalization of crimethink, I think to a certain extent these laws are a good thing for us (ie, people like me).  They remove low-class, ugly racists from the spectrum while leaving people like me free to make reasoned arguments.  This makes it increasingly less common that I get smeared as some skinhead thug covered in head to toe with tattoos, which in turn makes my politics more effective.

I also understand the historic need for the criminalization of Holocaust denial and National Socialism in some European countries, Germany and Austria in particular.  These days it has gone a bit too far, and I am not sure why countries like Australia and Canada require such legislation.

Academic inquiry into racial differences and characteristics has not (yet) been criminalized.  On the other hand, researchers of human biodiversity who take a position that the human species is polytypic with differences between types being predominantly genetic in origin suffer informal sanction including things like:

1) Being dismissed from university posts (e.g. Christopher Brand) or being denied tenure;
2) Having their classrooms or public speeches invaded by mobs (e.g. Kevin McDonald);
3) Physical assault;
4) Denunciation by the state (e.g. Tatu Vanhannen and J. Philippe Rushton);
5) Agreed upon public conferences suddenly being shut down, usually with the complicity or even direct involvement of state officials.  The last two attempted American Renaissance conferences are an excellent example.

As someone else already stated, free speech does not grant a right to be heard, only a right not to be subjected to state censorship.  That said, universities in particular are supposedly places for free academic inquiry, but in reality they are rigid halls of ideological cant.  Most universities are significantly or totally dependent on state funding, so it would not be inappropriate for the state to intervene in order to restore universities to their classical role.

While I worry about the increasing criminalization of crimethink, I think to a certain extent these laws are a good thing for us (ie, people like me).  They remove low-class, ugly racists from the spectrum while leaving people like me free to make reasoned arguments.  This makes it increasingly less common that I get smeared as some skinhead thug covered in head to toe with tattoos, which in turn makes my politics more effective.

- Coral Sea

Now that certainly deserves a repeat. If only I could frame it.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 12:37pm:

Coral Sea wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 7:44am: Racism v. free speech is a very serious issue.  Anti-racists pollute our intellectual discourse through the use of false arguments (the big lie strategy), ad hominem attacks, and shaming tactics.  This prevents honest racism from claiming its rightful place at the head of our social values, raising the question of whether we should perhaps censor anti-racists. Your post deserves a repeat. If only I could frame it.

It's almost as good as this post.

Some people would do well to study the concept of prejudice.

Prejudice cuts across race, class, gender, socio-economic status etc.

Food for thought.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 1:13pm:

George Orwell, Animal farm : "All animals are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others." Was this book banned in some leftard countries for some time ?

No, it was banned in Eastern Bloc countries though.....

Quote:

Now that certainly deserves a repeat. If only I could frame it.

You could. It would merely require you to purchase a frame, print off the post and then place the printed off post within the frame. It wouldn't be hard to do. Could you not have figured that out, or has the section of your brain tasked with containing your self important, vapid, pompous personality overpowered what small component there was in there dedicated to reasoning completely?

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2011 at 7:12pm:

Quote: But the PC clowns tend to be incapable of constructing an argument based on what is actually said, and this is why their precious 'anti-vilification' laws come in handy - if you can't counter their argument, it'll at least shut them up, and sweep their inconvenient truths under the carpet.  THAT is a restriction of freedom of speech. I have never seen the anti-vilification laws used against a reasoned argument regarding racial differences. Have you?

To the rabid PC anti-racists, there is no such thing as a reasoned argument.  Stating something undisputable and rather benign like 'aborigines are over represented in crime statistics' is automatically equated to 'you are a nazi who wants to wipe out every other race' in their tiny minds.
I mean, I'm no eddie mcguire fan, but recently he was in the firing line for calling western sydney 'land of the falafel' due to it's apparently high lebanese population.  Granted, it's not exercising the anti-vilification laws, but the threat of being put under such disproportionate scrutiny from the media, for harmless comments is enough to deter most people from speaking truthfully and honestly.  Does the sword hanging over your head regarding all things rcaial/cultural really prevent discrimination, or does it just move it onto the majority?
I mean even 'black sheep' are bluddy racist now!  I honestly think there are people who do nothing else but look for vague, convoluted ways in which simple things can be construed as 'offensive'.  Why are these people given the time of day?

Why are racists forever whinging?

Because those who vilify them cannot answer a straight question?

That cry from you, Wesley, is a little precious. There's over-the-top commentary from the right. However, we don't ever see you condemning it or stating that its excessive but you're quick to condemn anything that comes from a direction that you're averse to regardless of any merit.  In fact, you'd rather censor any opposition. However, please note, you have gone down as saying two things:

1. "You gotta take the good with the bad"

2. "It's all a matter of interpretation"

All's fair , eh? So don't whine.

Now, Coral, is hiding a lot within jargon and euphemism. He's trying to sound as if he has the "real truth" but it's suppressed. This is the stuff of conspiracy theorists. I very much doubt that you have the real truth.

In as far as we're rolling off lines, I'd say that the evidence, so far, weighs predominantly in favour of human beings being mostly the same and the variation is minor and not anywhere near enough separate people into clear and distinct "types".

Axle wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 4:45pm:

That cry from you, Wesley, is a little precious. There's over-the-top commentary from the right. However, we don't ever see you condemning it or stating that its excessive but you're quick to condemn anything that comes from a direction that you're averse to regardless of any merit.  In fact, you'd rather censor any opposition. However, please note, you have gone down as saying two things: 1. "You gotta take the good with the bad" 2. "It's all a matter of interpretation" All's fair , eh? So don't whine. Now, Coral, is hiding a lot within jargon and euphemism. He's trying to sound as if he has the "real truth" but it's suppressed. This is the stuff of conspiracy theorists. I very much doubt that you have the real truth. In as far as we're rolling off lines, I'd say that the evidence, so far, weighs predominantly in favour of human beings being mostly the same and the variation is minor and not anywhere near enough separate people into clear and distinct "types".

I thought about addressing each 'point' indivudally, but I soon realised I could address them all at once, with one simple statement:

WHAT A LOAD OF IRRELEVANT HORSESHIT.


But nothing has to make sense, or even be pertinent in any way, so long as you remember the golden rule:  'RACISM IS BAD MMMMKAY'

... wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 4:50pm:

Axle wrote on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 4:45pm: That cry from you, Wesley, is a little precious. There's over-the-top commentary from the right. However, we don't ever see you condemning it or stating that its excessive but you're quick to condemn anything that comes from a direction that you're averse to regardless of any merit.  In fact, you'd rather censor any opposition. However, please note, you have gone down as saying two things: 1. "You gotta take the good with the bad" 2. "It's all a matter of interpretation" All's fair , eh? So don't whine. Now, Coral, is hiding a lot within jargon and euphemism. He's trying to sound as if he has the "real truth" but it's suppressed. This is the stuff of conspiracy theorists. I very much doubt that you have the real truth. In as far as we're rolling off lines, I'd say that the evidence, so far, weighs predominantly in favour of human beings being mostly the same and the variation is minor and not anywhere near enough separate people into clear and distinct "types". I thought about addressing each 'point' indivudally, but I soon realised I could address them all at once, with one simple statement: WHAT A LOAD OF IRRELEVANT HORSESHIT. But nothing has to make sense, or even be pertinent in any way, so long as you remember the golden rule:  'RACISM IS BAD MMMMKAY'

Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. That's your usual line for things you don't want to hear, nothing new. I'd say by way of observation you mostly respond with irrelevant rhetorical questions. The case in point was your direct response after I said racism should be resisted.
You answered by asking whether the world has got any better and open to iinterpretation.

What's right with racism?  It stereotypes, it deprives people of rights, subjects them to abuse, and often results in vioence.

The golden rule as you call it sounds pretty good to me. Racism sucks.

And I'm free to say so and I think it's ethical to say so. If you don't like it, tough.

Why are racists forever whinging?

- Me

Because those who vilify them cannot answer a straight question?

- Wesley

So now you're crying because you think anti racists are vilifying racists?

Just when I thought I'd seen it all lmao :)

Wesley .. thanks to free speech anti racism is able to voice its condemnation of racism.

wellll if this thread is to go anywhere, first thing that needs to happen is racism needs to be defined.

I argue from the point that EXTREME racism is bad, on that we agree.
But I also believe that EVERYONE, even you, is 'racist' to some extent.

So like all things, Racism is OK, but only in moderation.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 5:02pm:

Why are racists forever whinging? - Me Because those who vilify them cannot answer a straight question? - Wesley So now you're crying because you think anti racists are vilifying racists? Just when I thought I'd seen it all lmao :)

nothings quite so 'black and white' as you'd hope for eh?

But let's face it - 'racists' as poorly defined as that is, are the new 'enemy'.  Every society has the ubiquitous enemy...rome had it's barbarians, the US had its 'commies' and now in 21st century australia, our enemy is 'racists'.  Facts are irrelevant in this all consuming desire for the playing out of the timeless 'us vs them' scenario.

I'm sure it's been pointed out many a time before that the most rabid PC types, are guilty of what they profess to hate most.  

I argue from the point that EXTREME racism is bad

- Wesley



Ahh .. a breakthrough! You're slowly getting there ...

Let me explain it another way .. being racist is kinda like being pregnant ie you are either pregnant or you're not.

nothings quite so 'black and white' as you'd hope for eh?

- Wesley


Refer to my previous post.

It is when it comes to racism.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 5:09pm:

I argue from the point that EXTREME racism is bad - Wesley You're slowly getting there ... Let me explain it another way .. being racist is kinda like being pregnant ie you are either pregnant or you're not.

Nar, I disagree.
That's like saying 'you either don't drink, or you're an alcoholic'.

there's a Biiiiig difference between seeing a bunch of abos hanging out at a train station and giving them a wide berth, and plotting a master plan to eradicate the aboriginal race from the face of the earth.  One is rational and sensible, the other goes waaaay too far....shades of grey...I'm sure I made an observation earlier that there were no 'shades of grey' where this witch hunt is concerned.

... wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 5:03pm:

wellll if this thread is to go anywhere, first thing that needs to happen is racism needs to be defined. I argue from the point that EXTREME racism is bad, on that we agree. But I also believe that EVERYONE, even you, is 'racist' to some extent. So like all things, Racism is OK, but only in moderation.

Believing that something is true of some doesn't mean it's true of everyone. I have never been racist, nor have I thought along racist lines. When I encounter anyone, I take them on their individual merit.

Interestingly, though, I did come across an article in one of the online science mags and as it so happens a study showed that about 1/3 of the population doesn't have that groupy outlook and the researchers think it's genetic. However, with that groupy outlook, as I've stated before, who's in and who's out has been shown to change with time and place.

Axle wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 5:15pm:

... wrote on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 5:03pm: wellll if this thread is to go anywhere, first thing that needs to happen is racism needs to be defined. I argue from the point that EXTREME racism is bad, on that we agree. But I also believe that EVERYONE, even you, is 'racist' to some extent. So like all things, Racism is OK, but only in moderation. Believing that something is true of some doesn't mean it's true of everyone. I have never been racist, nor have I thought along racist lines. When I encounter anyone, I take them on their individual merit. Interestingly, though, I did come across an article in one of the online science mags and as it so happens a study showed that about 1/3 of the population doesn't have that groupy outlook and they think its genetic. However, with that groupy outlook, as I've stated before, who's in and who's out has been shown to change with time and place.

Ahhh but I too give the individual the benefit of the doubt.  But when they prove themselves to fit the stereotype, how does one ignore that?  
Stereotyping is not evil, it is a useful tool for making sense of the world.   The problem arises when you allow the steroetype to be your ONLY judge.

Ahhh but I too give the individual the benefit of the doubt.  But when they prove themselves to fit the stereotype, how does one ignore that?  
Stereotyping is not evil, it is a useful tool for making sense of the world.   The problem arises when you allow the stereotype to be your ONLY judge.

- Wesley

Do you understand what the process and concept of stereotyping is all about?

I'm only asking because you've just made the admission that you use stereotype as a useful tool in order to make sense of your world.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 5:21pm:

Ahhh but I too give the individual the benefit of the doubt.  But when they prove themselves to fit the stereotype, how does one ignore that?   Stereotyping is not evil, it is a useful tool for making sense of the world.   The problem arises when you allow the steroetype to be your ONLY judge. - Wesley Do you understand what the process and concept of stereotyping is all about?

I think so.  Why do you ask?

You state that you use stereotype as a useful tool in order to make sense of your world.

If this is the case .. then your interpretative tool is in fact misinterpreting the information you're receiving.

How? Stereotyping as an interpretative tool will only allow you to receive and understand part of the message.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 5:28pm:

You state that you use stereotype as a useful tool in order to make sense of your world. If this is the case .. then your interpretative tool is in fact misinterpreting the information you're receiving from the world.

Do YOU understand stereotyping?

It's not always right, never said it was, but it does help.

Say...wild animals.  Not every wild animal will kill you, but you learn to treat all wild animals with caution.  Same theory....and I'm sure I don't need to point out how useful this was to mans development, and rise to top of the food chain.

I challenge anyone to try to prove that there hasn't been an exponential increase in the amount of divisive anti-Muslim rhetoric emanating from Western pollies and media outlets over the past decade...

The anti-Muslim propaganda was both a convenient way of justifying warmongering in the ME - and of scoring cheap political points on the part of right whinger pollies...

That approach works to quell discontent at home when the vilified 'enemy' is abroad - but the West's rabid push for 'globalisation' has changed all of that...

Nothing good could ever have come from taking such a divisive approach - and we have inevitably reached the point where we have a chicken-egg problem...

To undo the damage, there needs to be unequivocal top-down messages which promote mutual tolerance,empathy, trust and respect - and broad social cohesiveness and harmony...

These messages must come from political, business and community leaders - as well as parents!

For what should be obvious reasons, this will take a long time...

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 5:28pm:

You state that you use stereotype as a useful tool in order to make sense of your world. If this is the case .. then your interpretative tool is in fact misinterpreting the information you're receiving. How? Stereotyping as an interpretative tool will only allow you to receive and understand part of the message.

I think you might have overlooked this, from my earlier post:

Quote:

Stereotyping is not evil, it is a useful tool for making sense of the world.   The problem arises when you allow the steroetype to be your ONLY judge.

A stereotype is a standardized and simplified conception of a group/s based on some prior assumption/s.

That is your interpretative tool .. and that is how you are making sense of the world (given your above volunteered statement).

The moment you see just ONE person who fits that stereotype .. then that is all you need to FEED that stereotype .. and legitimise it.

I mentioned groups. The issue with stereotyping is that the process involves an ingroup and an outgroup.

The ingroup is seen as superior/normal whereas the outgroup is seen as inferior/abnormal.

Can you see now why stereotyping as an interpretative tool isn't helpful or useful?

Quote:

I mentioned groups. The issue with stereotyping is that the process involves an ingroup and an outgroup.

ahhh you mean like 'racists' and 'fine upstanding individuals'?  Right, gotcha.


Quote:

Can you see now why stereotype as an interpretative tool isn't helpful?

You're fooling yourself if you think you never stereotype.  You're actually doing it right now....but I won't judge you for it.

Let's move on to your next statement ...

The problem arises when you allow the stereotype to be your ONLY judge. - Wesley

The problem arises the minute you allow stereotype as your interpretative tool .. into your tool box? Why? Because by it's very nature .. it defines your paradigm .. how you think/act/react.

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 5:50pm:

Let's move on to your next statement ... The problem arises when you allow the stereotype to be your ONLY judge. - Wesley The problem arises the minute you allow stereotype as your interpretative tool .. into your tool box? Why? Because by it's very nature .. it defines your paradigm .. how you think/act/react.

It's in EVERYONES 'toolbox'

EVERYONE, without exception.

Stereotyping is not evil, it is a useful tool for making sense of the world.   The problem arises when you allow the stereotype to be your ONLY judge.

- Wesley

That is the statement you volunteered Wesley .. and that is the statement I've responded to. I responded to it in 2 parts as per the 2 sentences you constructed.

I'm not addressing everyone .. I am addressing you and what you have openly (and I believe honestly) have stated.

Quote:

The ABC News magazine program 20/20 just had an interesting piece on the psychology of stereotypes. The main point was that all people have an underlying psychological architecture of stereotypes and that human beings are biologically set up to stereotype. To me, there are several important factors to go with any discussion of stereotypes. First, how do stereotypes help us? Most of it can be viewed as the ability to quickly categorize people based on certain factors as a way to identify threats, friends, and other people that you can interact with socially. Furthermore, the mental energy it would take for each person you encounter to be processed from scratch without some of the shortcuts that stereotypes provide us would almost debilitate us and make life extremely difficult to navigate. Unfortunately, these networks can contain negative information associated with certain groups that we apply to individuals in those groups that do not actually possess those characteristics. Second, understanding the stereotypes you hold of others is key in avoiding them getting in your way and resulting in discrimination, prejudice, and unfair assumptions. For exmaple, if you hold a view that ALL men or ALL women are prone to be unfaithful in relationships, then it is important acknowledge that you hold this belief on some level, reality test it, and avoid it becomming a problem that works unconsciously. The overall message here is that we all have biases, assumptions, and stereotypes for all sorts of people: Caucasian, male, midwestern, tall, thin, pretty, uneducated, wealthy, dog owner, athletes, etc. Acknowledging that these exist, exploring their content, and working through any unfair elements can be a key part to becomming a more competent person socially and psychologically.

And heres the story they refer to:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2442521

familairise yourself.

Yes, people can stereotype on lots of grounds but that does not mean that some have to be used or are helpful. Some are just plain wrong and cause more problems than they're worth. I don't need to be thinking of a person's "race" to judge whether they're hostile and mean me harm. I can quickly determine that from the body language, what they say, how they say it, when they say it and the nature of the situation.

Axle wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 7:22pm:

Yes, people can stereotype on lots of grounds but that does not mean that some have to be used or are helpful. Some are just plain wrong and cause more problems than they're worth. I don't need to be thinking of a person's "race" to judge whether they're hostile and mean me harm. I can quickly determine that from the body language, what they say, how they say it, when they say it and the nature of the situation.

Yah, but the subconscious is not quite so easily controlled as saying 'just don't do it'.  Your subconcious does all this 'nasty' stereotyping, whether you like it or not.

Equitist wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 5:32pm:

I challenge anyone to try to prove that there hasn't been an exponential increase in the amount of divisive anti-Muslim rhetoric emanating from Western pollies and media outlets over the past decade...

I'll prove it to you:

There has been no exponential increase in the amount of divisive anti-Muslim rhetoric emanating from Western pollies and media outlets over the past decade because every politician or media commentator has been very carful to always say 'it's not Islam, it's the extremists'.


It's only in the last year or so, with the European electorates NOT buying this carefully made distinctions that that some politicins and media outlets are beginning to say that mebbe, just mebbe, you know.... gosh... how to put it?... Muslims seem to dominate the bad news section of the papers and it's news of Muslims behaving badly while shouting Allahu Akhbar. And that's just the bad news covering non-Muslim majority countries.

So all the politicians and media outlets have been very careful to make a distinctions for 10 or more years that is not borne out by the the evening news.



Here's your challenge: prove to me that the anti-western criminal activities and rhetoric of Muslims living in the west has not increased significantly in the past 10 years.

Equitist wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 5:32pm:

To undo the damage, there needs to be unequivocal top-down messages which promote mutual tolerance,empathy, trust and respect - and broad social cohesiveness and harmony...

Unequivocal top-down message - that speaks to your totalitrian, Stalinist little soul, doesn't it?  Well, here's why your scheme is incoherent: is a dirty big example of stereotyping itself. But as always you are too dizzy to grasp that.


"The attempt to rid the world of stereotyping is as totalitarian as it is in theory incoherent: for of course it relies upon the stereotyping of stereotypers, namely all of us. Show me a man without stereotypes, and I will show you a man in a coma. But mere impossibility has never stopped intellectuals from proposing their schemes."

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/83711/sec_id/83711

Over the past few weeks, in particular...Abbott, Morrison and Bernardi have been systematically inciting fear, resentment and hatred against Muslims and 'boat people'...

These men are in very powerful positions within our society, including as role models for our youth - and therefore they have a duty of care and responsibility to promote a positive community spirit...

Not only was their bigoted conduct morally repugnant to many, but it was also reckless and dangerous...

Soren wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 10:25pm:

Equitist wrote on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 5:32pm: I challenge anyone to try to prove that there hasn't been an exponential increase in the amount of divisive anti-Muslim rhetoric emanating from Western pollies and media outlets over the past decade... I'll prove it to you: There has been no exponential increase in the amount of divisive anti-Muslim rhetoric emanating from Western pollies and media outlets over the past decade because every politician or media commentator has been very carful to always say 'it's not Islam, it's the extremists'. It's only in the last year or so, with the European electorates NOT buying this carefully made distinctions that that some politicins and media outlets are beginning to say that mebbe, just mebbe, you know.... gosh... how to put it?... Muslims seem to dominate the bad news section of the papers and it's news of Muslims behaving badly while shouting Allahu Akhbar. And that's just the bad news covering non-Muslim majority countries. So all the politicians and media outlets have been very careful to make a distinctions for 10 or more years that is not borne out by the the evening news. Here's your challenge: prove to me that the anti-western criminal activities and rhetoric of Muslims living in the west has not increased significantly in the past 10 years.

Like I said: chicken, egg!

All the more reason why our political 'leaders' must grow up and refrain from self-servingly-inciting religious and racial hatred...

What nonsense - chicken and egg. You have no bloody idea beyond the cheap and shrill slogans.

You also seem to acquiesce in the increased criminal activity in western countries in the name of islam, as if it was justified or at least understandable to your mind. As if it was an understandable chicken. Or an egg.
What's the diff when you're spining' around all day long in progressive pap.

Axle wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 4:45pm:

Now, Coral, is hiding a lot within jargon and euphemism. He's trying to sound as if he has the "real truth" but it's suppressed. This is the stuff of conspiracy theorists. I very much doubt that you have the real truth.

The real truth is in fact routinely reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  The mainstream view in psychometrics, for instance, is that intelligence is largely hereditary.  Scientific journals, especially those dealing with population genetics and those dealing with medicine, also routinely report facts about race.  Often (but not always) euphemisms like "geographic ancestries", "population clusters", and "human populations" are used to avoid political attacks.

With some exceptions (e.g. osteoporosis being more common in europids and mongoloids than in negroids), these findings are largely ignored by the mainstream media, social sciences, and politicians.

There is no conspiracy at all.  Social taboos and status seeking perform all the work.  "Racism" is a social taboo and associated with low social status.  It is also increasingly criminalized in Western countries.


Axle wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 4:45pm:

In as far as we're rolling off lines, I'd say that the evidence, so far, weighs predominantly in favour of human beings being mostly the same and the variation is minor and not anywhere near enough separate people into clear and distinct "types".

No, more or less all the evidence corroborates a polytypic view.  A person's race can be identified by craniofacial morphology, hair texture, bone density, musculature, and of course by genetics.  The idea that race does not exist is based on the discredited Lewontin fallacy, along with some politically motivated hatchet jobs by self-proclaimed "dialectical biologists" like Stephen Jay Gould.

Why do you suppose police departments employ forensic anthropologists?  Even a single hair from a crime scene can be used to determine the race of the perpetrator, allowing police more effectively to search for criminals.

Types are in fact clear and distinct.  Anyone can tell a white man from a negro, even if they have the same skin color.  Everyone knows they behave different, both between societies and within societies.  A century of research from the social sciences corroborates this.

Trust your lying eyes.

Anyone who thinks stereotyping is invalid would do well to read John Derbyshire's article on the subject: http://old.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire020101.shtml


Quote:

"All Germans are efficient". "All English people have bad teeth." In fact, these researchers were not able to locate anybody who believes that a stereotype is true of all members of the stereotyped group. Stereotypes are probabilistic tools, and even the most dull-witted human beings seem to know this. People who believe that Mexicans are lazy or that the French don't wash, understand perfectly well that there are losts of industrious Mexicans and fragrant Frenchmen.

Equitist wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 5:32pm:

I challenge anyone to try to prove that there hasn't been an exponential increase in the amount of divisive anti-Muslim rhetoric emanating from Western pollies and media outlets over the past decade... The anti-Muslim propaganda was both a convenient way of justifying warmongering in the ME - and of scoring cheap political points on the part of right whinger pollies... That approach works to quell discontent at home when the vilified 'enemy' is abroad - but the West's rabid push for 'globalisation' has changed all of that... Nothing good could ever have come from taking such a divisive approach - and we have inevitably reached the point where we have a chicken-egg problem... To undo the damage, there needs to be unequivocal top-down messages which promote mutual tolerance,empathy, trust and respect - and broad social cohesiveness and harmony... These messages must come from political, business and community leaders - as well as parents! For what should be obvious reasons, this will take a long time...

Islam = a religion NOT a race.

I appreciate what you're saying though.

Axle wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 7:22pm:

Yes, people can stereotype on lots of grounds but that does not mean that some have to be used or are helpful. Some are just plain wrong and cause more problems than they're worth. I don't need to be thinking of a person's "race" to judge whether they're hostile and mean me harm. I can quickly determine that from the body language, what they say, how they say it, when they say it and the nature of the situation.

Agreed! Well said!

Equitist wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 5:32pm:

divisive anti-Muslim rhetoric emanating from Western pollies and media outlets over the past decade...

Equitist wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2011 at 10:47pm:

Over the past few weeks, in particular...

Fastest climb-down: from a decade to a coupla weeks. Illustration of the attention span you'd like to have versus the one you actually possess (on a good day).

Lisa Jones wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 9:30am:

Equitist wrote on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 5:32pm: I challenge anyone to try to prove that there hasn't been an exponential increase in the amount of divisive anti-Muslim rhetoric emanating from Western pollies and media outlets over the past decade... The anti-Muslim propaganda was both a convenient way of justifying warmongering in the ME - and of scoring cheap political points on the part of right whinger pollies... That approach works to quell discontent at home when the vilified 'enemy' is abroad - but the West's rabid push for 'globalisation' has changed all of that... Nothing good could ever have come from taking such a divisive approach - and we have inevitably reached the point where we have a chicken-egg problem... To undo the damage, there needs to be unequivocal top-down messages which promote mutual tolerance,empathy, trust and respect - and broad social cohesiveness and harmony... These messages must come from political, business and community leaders - as well as parents! For what should be obvious reasons, this will take a long time... Islam = a religion NOT a race. I appreciate what you're saying though.

LOL...true, strictly speaking Muslims are not a race but racism seems to have a broader meaning in common usage these days...

I also get the the strong feeling that there is a great deal of ignorance about what a Muslim boogeyman is - which is a probably a symptom of the insidious anti-Muslim propaganda I've been referring to...

Moreover, the connotations associated with bigotry seem to arouse even more negative responses...

Oh, and people often mean to describe a bigoted person when they use the word racist (I also suspect that the word bigot and its derivatives are missing from the vocabularies of latter group)...

As you pointed out, I have been guilty of using the terms inter-changeably - especially when it relates to the attitudes of others in relation to Muslims...

Soren wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 9:37am:

Equitist wrote on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 5:32pm: divisive anti-Muslim rhetoric emanating from Western pollies and media outlets over the past decade... Equitist wrote on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 10:47pm: Over the past few weeks, in particular... Fastest climb-down: from a decade to a coupla weeks. Illustration of the attention span you'd like to have versus the one you actually possess (on a good day).

LOL...you know full well that I've gone into detail about the timeframes I mention...

I doubt that you fail to make the long-term connection between the blatant propaganda in relation to the oxymoronic 'War on Terror' and the more recent flagrant 'boat people' rhetoric - so kindly stop being so freaking obtuse...

::)

yeah, I'll agree that anti-muslim rhetoric has been on the increase for the last decade, but it's a tad short sighted to blame the libs for this, or indeed any political party.

This is a worldwide phenomenon, driven by the media, not political parties.

Is it just a coincidence that those who 'control' the worlds media, are of the same culture'race as the sworn enemy of middle eastern muslims?

... wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 10:49am:

yeah, I'll agree that anti-muslim rhetoric has been on the increase for the last decade, but it's a tad short sighted to blame the libs for this, or indeed any political party. This is a worldwide phenomenon, driven by the media, not political parties. Is it just a coincidence that those who 'control' the worlds media, are of the same culture'race as the sworn enemy of middle eastern muslims?

Have a look at the list of terrorist attacks over the last decade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

WHat do you notice?

Soren wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 12:12pm:

... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:49am: yeah, I'll agree that anti-muslim rhetoric has been on the increase for the last decade, but it's a tad short sighted to blame the libs for this, or indeed any political party. This is a worldwide phenomenon, driven by the media, not political parties. Is it just a coincidence that those who 'control' the worlds media, are of the same culture'race as the sworn enemy of middle eastern muslims? Have a look at the list of terrorist attacks over the last decade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents WHat do you notice?

That Israeli terror doesn't rate a mention?

All depends how you differentiate 'terror' attacks from other attacks doesn't it?

... wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 12:19pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:12pm: ... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:49am: yeah, I'll agree that anti-muslim rhetoric has been on the increase for the last decade, but it's a tad short sighted to blame the libs for this, or indeed any political party. This is a worldwide phenomenon, driven by the media, not political parties. Is it just a coincidence that those who 'control' the worlds media, are of the same culture'race as the sworn enemy of middle eastern muslims? Have a look at the list of terrorist attacks over the last decade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents WHat do you notice? That Israeli terror doesn't rate a mention? All depends how you differentiate 'terror' attacks from other attacks doesn't it?

That might be because of the definition of 'terrorism'????

It needs to be NOT state sponsored, in other words, not ordered by a legitimate Government of a country.....Since Israel IS a country,with a government, then Israel's action can't be 'terrorism'....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 1:53pm:

... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:19pm: Soren wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:12pm: ... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:49am: yeah, I'll agree that anti-muslim rhetoric has been on the increase for the last decade, but it's a tad short sighted to blame the libs for this, or indeed any political party. This is a worldwide phenomenon, driven by the media, not political parties. Is it just a coincidence that those who 'control' the worlds media, are of the same culture'race as the sworn enemy of middle eastern muslims? Have a look at the list of terrorist attacks over the last decade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents WHat do you notice? That Israeli terror doesn't rate a mention? All depends how you differentiate 'terror' attacks from other attacks doesn't it? That might be because of the definition of 'terrorism'???? It needs to be NOT state sponsored, in other words, not ordered by a legitimate Government of a country.....Since Israel IS a country,with a government, then Israel's action can't be 'terrorism'....

So how can the lockerbie bombing be called terrorism, given that it was ordered and sponsored by Gaddafi?

... wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 1:53pm: It needs to be NOT state sponsored, in other words, not ordered by a legitimate Government of a country[/highlight].....Since Israel IS a country,with a government, then Israel's action can't be 'terrorism'.... So how can the lockerbie bombing be called terrorism, given that it was ordered and sponsored by Gaddafi?

His government was never legitimate.

... wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

So how can the lockerbie bombing be called terrorism, given that it was ordered and sponsored by Gaddafi?

Decades of 'everybody's the same' and 'mustn't notice the difference between people' has led to grown men struggling with calling the bombing of a passenger plane terrorism. They are struggling with telling the difference between government by military putch and government by constitution and free elections. Grown men will feign not know the difference between a military dictator and Kevin Rudd.

Quote:

The real truth is in fact routinely reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  The mainstream view in psychometrics, for instance, is that intelligence is largely hereditary.  Scientific journals, especially those dealing with population genetics and those dealing with medicine, also routinely report facts about race.  Often (but not always) euphemisms like "geographic ancestries", "population clusters", and "human populations" are used to avoid political attacks.

I'm sorry, you can peddle that somewhere else.

"The claim that a significant portion of the racial IQ gap has an ultimately genetic origin have been advanced by psychologists, including Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, and Linda Gottfredson, while others such as Richard Nisbett, James R. Flynn, Robert Sternberg and Jefferson Fish have argued in favor of wholly or mostly environmental causes. The American Psychological Association in a 1996 report stated that the US racial IQ gap was not the result of bias in the content or administration of tests, nor simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. They go on to state that cultural factors may be appropriate but have little direct empirical support, nor is there such support for a genetic interpretation, and that presently no one knows the cause of the differential.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

It's not as you present. And we do know that persons such as Rushton, Burt and Lynn have abused statistics, have used shoddy sampling, and have told outright lies. They have even misused the very notion of 'heretability' up which they have "mistakenly" used to state that intelligence is largely inherited

We also know that heritability which is based on twin studies has been found are highly flawed and have been attacked by academics and has had them scratching their heads as to why it's rolled out as fact.

"The derivation of heritability from human twin studies involves serious methodological flaws. Heritability is consistently overestimated because of biological confounds of twinning, consistent and often gross underestimation of the environmental variance, and nonadditive genetic influences that can hugely exaggerate heritability values. Despite this bad research design, behaviour geneticists continue to publish results implying that their heritability results are valid.

http://philpapers.org/rec/SEGWTS

Population genetics isn't a euphemism for race. That kind of talk comes from racists not population genetics.

Population genetics is also the most widely misused area of human genetics, sometimes bordering on "vigilante genetics," a term coined by Newton Morton. Persons have mistakenly applied population genetics to "prove" race superiority for intelligence and aptitudes, and have misused it in eugenics. As an educated and, I hope, a respected member of your community you must be alert to "vigilante genetics."

Population genetics is concerned with gene and genotype frequencies, the factors that tend to keep them constant, and the factors that tend to change them in populations. It is largely concerned with the study of polymorphisms. It directly impacts counseling, forensic medicine, and genetic screening.

http://www.uic.edu/classes/bms/bms655/lesson13.html



Quote:

With some exceptions (e.g. osteoporosis being more common in europids and mongoloids than in negroids), these findings are largely ignored by the mainstream media, social sciences, and politicians.

You are using the antiquated and disused terminology- a nasty habit of racists.


Quote:

There is no conspiracy at all.

I was referring to racists thinking who think that genetic research is using code for folkloric ideas on race. That's conspiracy thinking- it's false.


Quote:

No, more or less all the evidence corroborates a polytypic view.  A person's race can be identified by craniofacial morphology, hair texture, bone density, musculature, and of course by genetics.  The idea that race does not exist is based on the discredited Lewontin fallacy, along with some politically motivated hatchet jobs by self-proclaimed "dialectical biologists" like Stephen Jay Gould. Why do you suppose police departments employ forensic anthropologists?  Even a single hair from a crime scene can be used to determine the race of the perpetrator, allowing police more effectively to search for criminals.

They've associated few recognised characteristics with social concepts of race.  So what? That some variation is picked up on doesn't tell us that the variation is something that justifies a categorisations on "race".



Quote:

Types are in fact clear and distinct.  Anyone can tell a white man from a negro, even if they have the same skin color.  Everyone knows they behave different, both between societies and within societies.  A century of research from the social sciences corroborates this.

Again that there is some variation that allows you to roughly say where a person is from doesn't warrant the crude historical, and dropped, categories of race. All those characeristics you've cited are superficial characteristics. The fact remains that human beings share in common 99.99% of their DNA. A variation in some superficial characteristics does not imply biologically distinct races in the sense of subspecies.

Quote:

Types are in fact clear and distinct.  Anyone can tell a white man from a negro, even if they have the same skin color.  Everyone knows they behave different, both between societies and within societies.  A century of research from the social sciences corroborates this.

T

There's nothing reasonable here. Just a rant of a racist who sounds like he thinks in caricatures There is a huge distribution of bodily characteristics in Africa. And as far as the genetics goes, those who you refer to monolithically as "negro"( a pejorative term, not used in science today and hardly anyone else but racists) represent over 99% of the genetic diversity on this planet.



Quote:

Trust your lying eyes. Anyone who thinks stereotyping is invalid would do well to read John Derbyshire's article on the subject: http://old.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire020101.shtml

John Derbyshire is an American conservative writer. As if he has any authority outside conservatives that lap up his work let alone science. However, it does tell us what you like to read.

"Needless to say, Derbyshire is full of it, and he has a poor grasp of what recent genetics has actually demonstrated regarding nature, nurture, and race.

What Derbyshire misses is that those genetic differences generally do not fall along racial or population lines. There is no current evidence to support the notion that genetic differences responsible for variation in complex traits like personality or intelligence are linked to race.

This deserves more discussion, but here is what the American Society of Human Genetics said about James Watson's comments on race and intelligence:


On October 14, 2007, The Sunday Times (London) quoted speculation by geneticist James Watson regarding alleged intellectual inferiority among Africans. ASHG find the comments to be tragically misguided and without scientific foundation. Watson later apologized "unreservedly" for his comments, stating that there is no scientific basis for such beliefs."

http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/blog/john_derbyshire_misunderstands_race_and_genetics

Sorry, Coral( perhaps, Imperium- quacks and waddles about in much the same manner), I don't buy your dressed up racist assertions.

There is but one race, the Humanity race!

However, there are a large number of similarities, as there are also differences.

Some variations are heredity based, whilst others are Environmental factors!  

Finally, I doubt there are many who can not learn the knowledge that is available, but there certainly are some, who will not get access to it and thers who do not want to learn.

What a beautiful post :)

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 5^th, 2011 at 12:09pm:

There is but one race, the Humanity race! However, there are a large number of similarities, as there are also differences. Some variations are heredity based, whilst others are Environmental factors!   Finally, I doubt there are many who can not learn the knowledge that is available, but there certainly are some, who will not get access to it and thers who do not want to learn.

If you can't access schooling in this society then you have noone but yourself or your parents to blame.

Those who do not want to learn in this society should be barred from all benefits that this society confers. Now that would be beautiful.

LMAO!