The Politics Thread 2013

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » December 15, 2013, 1:59 pm

Green eyed Mick wrote:Maybe they see dead people?
My friend Lavo who passed away last week used to see dead people sometimes when he smoked weed. True story, it was funny as ****.

But back to perception is reality, the example I always use to explain it to people is sport or music. Two people can watch the exact same game of football, yet at the end of it one guy is ecstatic, yet the other one is distraught. Yet they watched the same game?? It's only their perception that is different.

Same goes for music. Two people can hear the exact same song, the exact same sounds, yet one person loves it, the other one hates it. Perception is reality.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
gangrenous
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9581
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by gangrenous » December 15, 2013, 4:04 pm

The Nickman wrote: But back to perception is reality, the example I always use to explain it to people is sport or music. Two people can watch the exact same game of football, yet at the end of it one guy is ecstatic, yet the other one is distraught. Yet they watched the same game?? It's only their perception that is different.

Same goes for music. Two people can hear the exact same song, the exact same sounds, yet one person loves it, the other one hates it. Perception is reality.
To me, two people having different perceptions of the same thing isn't an explanation of how perception is reality.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » December 15, 2013, 4:08 pm

That's because you're perceiving my explanation wrong.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

Shadow Boxer
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9176
Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Shadow Boxer » December 15, 2013, 4:17 pm

I think that might be gg's point, you can perceive something your way and still be totally wrong. In which case it's not really reality. Just your reality.
Image

User avatar
gangrenous
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9581
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by gangrenous » December 15, 2013, 4:36 pm

Shadow Boxer wrote:I think that might be gg's point, you can perceive something your way and still be totally wrong. In which case it's not really reality. Just your reality.
Indeed. I'd even go further and argue it's not even your reality. It's still just your perception of reality, nothing more.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 16, 2013, 3:01 pm


User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16308
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Schifty » December 16, 2013, 3:33 pm

$50 says Bernardi is in the closet.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 16, 2013, 4:52 pm

Schifty wrote:$50 says Bernardi is in the closet.
:roflmao

User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16308
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Schifty » December 16, 2013, 4:59 pm

He seriously reminds me of that republican nutbag that screamed his anti-gay hate all the time then was later caught in an airport bathroom with a male escort .

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 16, 2013, 5:34 pm

Schifty wrote:He seriously reminds me of that republican nutbag that screamed his anti-gay hate all the time then was later caught in an airport bathroom with a male escort .
There are studies that show links between sexual confusion and homophobia.

User avatar
BJ
David Furner
Posts: 3662
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by BJ » December 16, 2013, 7:59 pm

I always love those American tv evangelists. The more they go on about sin, the more they are likely to be caught with prostitutes, sniffing cocaine and filming it for their own pleasure.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 16, 2013, 8:25 pm


User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » December 17, 2013, 7:00 am

How highbrow
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 18, 2013, 6:32 am

"You have a human right of freedom of association, you have a right of speech; I am not sure I am convinced there is a human right against discrimination, as abhorrent as it is."

Tim Wilson, Australia's new $325K a year Human Rights Commissioner :doubt:

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » December 18, 2013, 7:03 am

Wasn't that comment made in regards his concerns over section 18C of the Anti Discrimination Act and its conflict with issues of free speech? I took it that he was commenting on the nature of two inherently conflicting 'human rights' rather than in anyway supporting any form of discrimination.

But I guess if one is trying to maintain a permanent sense of rage, one needs fuel.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » December 18, 2013, 7:21 am

Senator WRIGHT: But you would agree, and this is part of the discussion we have been having today, that human rights sometimes butt up against each other and it is a matter ultimately of balancing those, one against the other.

Mr Wilson : No, you have a human right of freedom of association, you have right of speech; I am not sure I am convinced there is a human right against discrimination, as abhorrent as it is.

Senator WRIGHT: I was not at all intending to suggest personally you had a different view. This is an issue where we have to look at the legislation and look at behaviours that we are legislating for, irrespective of what people say their moral views are.

Mr Wilson : I understand, Senator. This comes back to the point that we are here to make around free speech. The principle around free speech is that people have a right to free speech. They do not have a right not to be offended or insulted, as the provisions of the bill currently lay out. This is a fundamental problem with the bill, because there are some things people are inferring or manufacturing into being some sort of human right so you can have one knock out the other. That is not how human rights work. Human rights are indivisible and are given to you basically because of your birth. In this case I am not convinced that there is actually a conflict of human rights, as you outlined.

Senator WRIGHT: Yes, but we have definitely had a discourse that goes further than just talking about free speech in terms of the role of anti-discrimination legislation. Essentially, I have heard that there is a position or a view being put that it is perhaps not legitimate to even be looking at broader aspects of anti-discrimination legislation, leaving aside the free-speech issue.

Mr Wilson : No, you have not actually heard that, Senator. What we have made crystal clear is we believe that anti-discrimination laws should operate on government. That is different from what operates within the private sector and within a free society, in the same way that we do not believe that Greenpeace should be forced to hire a particular person who is a big advocate of the coal industry, or that Joy 94.9, a gay and lesbian radio station in Melbourne, should be forced to employ a homophobe, or any other similar situation you can come up with. Discrimination occurs within society. Sometimes it exists for the right reasons, because there are organisational goals that people, when they freely come together and associate, believe in. People should be allowed to reasonably exercise those and they do themselves a disservice if they shoot themselves in the foot and they subtract people from employment because of something that is not relative to the objective of the organisation. I think it is a very fair and reasonable principle.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea ... %2F0006%22

Yeah, this guy is a dangerous extremist :roll:
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22571
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Northern Raider » December 18, 2013, 8:14 am

T_R you should know that balanced, considered posts have no place in the Politics thread. No please go back and edit that so it completely misinterprets the message. :x
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 18, 2013, 8:26 am

T_R wrote: Senator WRIGHT: But you would agree, and this is part of the discussion we have been having today, that human rights sometimes butt up against each other and it is a matter ultimately of balancing those, one against the other.

Mr Wilson : No, you have a human right of freedom of association, you have right of speech; I am not sure I am convinced there is a human right against discrimination, as abhorrent as it is.

Senator WRIGHT: I was not at all intending to suggest personally you had a different view. This is an issue where we have to look at the legislation and look at behaviours that we are legislating for, irrespective of what people say their moral views are.

Mr Wilson : I understand, Senator. This comes back to the point that we are here to make around free speech. The principle around free speech is that people have a right to free speech. They do not have a right not to be offended or insulted, as the provisions of the bill currently lay out. This is a fundamental problem with the bill, because there are some things people are inferring or manufacturing into being some sort of human right so you can have one knock out the other. That is not how human rights work. Human rights are indivisible and are given to you basically because of your birth. In this case I am not convinced that there is actually a conflict of human rights, as you outlined.

Senator WRIGHT: Yes, but we have definitely had a discourse that goes further than just talking about free speech in terms of the role of anti-discrimination legislation. Essentially, I have heard that there is a position or a view being put that it is perhaps not legitimate to even be looking at broader aspects of anti-discrimination legislation, leaving aside the free-speech issue.

Mr Wilson : No, you have not actually heard that, Senator. What we have made crystal clear is we believe that anti-discrimination laws should operate on government. That is different from what operates within the private sector and within a free society, in the same way that we do not believe that Greenpeace should be forced to hire a particular person who is a big advocate of the coal industry, or that Joy 94.9, a gay and lesbian radio station in Melbourne, should be forced to employ a homophobe, or any other similar situation you can come up with. Discrimination occurs within society. Sometimes it exists for the right reasons, because there are organisational goals that people, when they freely come together and associate, believe in. People should be allowed to reasonably exercise those and they do themselves a disservice if they shoot themselves in the foot and they subtract people from employment because of something that is not relative to the objective of the organisation. I think it is a very fair and reasonable principle.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea ... %2F0006%22

Yeah, this guy is a dangerous extremist :roll:
Who says he is dangerous? He is a a far right political appointment to a position which is supposed to promote balance not absolute views on one side or the other. That makes him extreme IMO and not appropriate for a position such as this.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » December 18, 2013, 8:41 am

Green eyed Mick wrote:
Who says he is dangerous? He is a a far right political appointment to a position which is supposed to promote balance not absolute views on one side or the other. That makes him extreme IMO and not appropriate for a position such as this.
He is only 'far' right in comparison to the very, very left wing views of those currently dominating. As with the Fair Work Commission, which is absolutely and utterly under the control of 'former' union officials, the HRC has been stacked with Labor appointees who toe a predictable line.

If anything, Wilson's centre right views simply address a horrendous imbalance that has for a long time marginalised the HRC from mainstream views. Of course, anyone to the right of **** Mao is 'extreme' in your view.... but I'm sure it's the rest of us that are out of step, not you.

Get used to it - we've had two terms of ridiculous jobs for the boys appointments from one side of politics, and now you're going to see it from the other.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » December 18, 2013, 8:44 am

Green eyed Mick wrote:"You have a human right of freedom of association, you have a right of speech; I am not sure I am convinced there is a human right against discrimination, as abhorrent as it is."

Tim Wilson, Australia's new $325K a year Human Rights Commissioner :doubt:
Geez, I'd like to know the context that was in.

EDIT: Just saw T_R's post. Nice one, GeM. You keep on carrying the good fight and being outraged at nothing.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 18, 2013, 9:06 am

T_R wrote:
Green eyed Mick wrote:
Who says he is dangerous? He is a a far right political appointment to a position which is supposed to promote balance not absolute views on one side or the other. That makes him extreme IMO and not appropriate for a position such as this.
He is only 'far' right in comparison to the very, very left wing views of those currently dominating. As with the Fair Work Commission, which is absolutely and utterly under the control of 'former' union officials, the HRC has been stacked with Labor appointees who toe a predictable line.

If anything, Wilson's centre right views simply address a horrendous imbalance that has for a long time marginalised the HRC from mainstream views. Of course, anyone to the right of **** Mao is 'extreme' in your view.... but I'm sure it's the rest of us that are out of step, not you.

Get used to it - we've had two terms of ridiculous jobs for the boys appointments from one side of politics, and now you're going to see it from the other.
This country hasn't been left or even centre left since the 80's. Keating was centre left, Howard right, Rudd/Gillard centre right and now we are back to right again.

And if Tim Wilson is centre right I am centre left :roflmao

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » December 18, 2013, 9:12 am

GEM, with respect, I'm not sure you're really the guy I would turn to for a view on where people sit in the political spectrum.

And do you seriously disagree that the HRC and FWA are stacked with those whose views, shall we say, are a little left of the mainstream? Why would the LIbs not come in and provide some balance to that?
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24597
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Manbush » December 18, 2013, 9:16 am

GEM can I ask what it is you actually disagree with Wilson on?
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » December 18, 2013, 9:30 am

It's just an outrage Manbush, that's all it is! A bloody outrage!!
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 18, 2013, 9:51 am

T_R wrote:GEM, with respect, I'm not sure you're really the guy I would turn to for a view on where people sit in the political spectrum.

And do you seriously disagree that the HRC and FWA are stacked with those whose views, shall we say, are a little left of the mainstream? Why would the LIbs not come in and provide some balance to that?
Well, I would argue Human Rights is in itself a lefty thing. Your classic right wing libertarian would argue against the need for such a commission. In fact the IPA this year called for it to be abolished, a pretty extreme positon IMO.

When I look at the list of commissioners (http://www.humanrights.gov.au/about/pre ... missioners) I see experts in their field. I see people who hold multiple degrees with a lot of experience in the field they are appointed to oversee. I don't see any trade unionists, or environmental activists because it isn't their field of expertise.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » December 18, 2013, 10:01 am

So government funded organisations should be stacked with ideologues because, by their nature, they should carry a left wing bias.

I assume then that, say, the courts, should be stacked with right wing activists, due to the conservative nature of the law?

That is just sensational. This is why people don't take your side of politics seriously - you can never quite remove yourself from being the chanting clown in Garema Place.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 18, 2013, 10:07 am

Manbush wrote:GEM can I ask what it is you actually disagree with Wilson on?
I disagree that the appropriate response to race baiting and villification is public mocking or tit for tat abuse. On ABC this morning he argued that people who deliver hate speech and villify others in the manner Andrew Bolt did should not be subject to sanction rather the public or individual should just mock him right back.

When has responding in kind to racial abuse or taunts ever ended with an amicable solution? Yet this is what Tim Wilson argues should be the response to race baiting and intentionally offensive and inciteful behaviour. He believes the right to free speech supercedes the rights of the victim of free speech to seek recourse.

Of course he is IMO a bit of a hypocrite because he also suggested on TV this morning that Edward Snowden is not entitled to free speech protections.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » December 18, 2013, 10:11 am

Green eyed Mick wrote:
When has responding in kind to racial abuse or taunts ever ended with an amicable solution? Yet this is what Tim Wilson argues should be the response to race baiting and intentionally offensive and inciteful behaviour. He believes the right to free speech supercedes the rights of the victim of free speech to seek recourse.
He argues that human rights are absolute and indivisible, and not to be watered down because the mood of the day suggests that another 'right' is more important.

I don't necessarily agree, but I think it's fair that you don't deliberately misinterpret his argument.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 18, 2013, 10:30 am

T_R wrote:So government funded organisations should be stacked with ideologues because, by their nature, they should carry a left wing bias.

I assume then that, say, the courts, should be stacked with right wing activists, due to the conservative nature of the law?

That is just sensational. This is why people don't take your side of politics seriously - you can never quite remove yourself from being the chanting clown in Garema Place.
I don't believe the HRC is stacked with ideologues. Point out which of the commissioners is IYO a left wing ideologue as opposed to a qualified professional in the field they are appointed to oversee.

Our courts are largely apolitical and so they should be. The fairwork commission and the HRC should also be apolitical.

The problem you have, as a rusted on, blinkered liberal party supporter is you believe replacing someone apolitical with someone from the right brings balance. Trigg was appointed under Labor, so was Branson but I challenge you to look at both of them and tell me what about their experience, qualifications and past suggests they were political appointments as opposed to qualified apolitical professionals?

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » December 18, 2013, 10:40 am

T_R wrote:
Green eyed Mick wrote:
When has responding in kind to racial abuse or taunts ever ended with an amicable solution? Yet this is what Tim Wilson argues should be the response to race baiting and intentionally offensive and inciteful behaviour. He believes the right to free speech supercedes the rights of the victim of free speech to seek recourse.
He argues that human rights are absolute and indivisible, and not to be watered down because the mood of the day suggests that another 'right' is more important.

I don't necessarily agree, but I think it's fair that you don't deliberately misinterpret his argument.
I absolutely love how GeM just came in and dropped that time-bomb as if to say "Look at this guy, he doesn't believe in human rights" and then bolted for the door.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » December 18, 2013, 10:46 am

Green eyed Mick wrote: I don't believe the HRC is stacked with ideologues. Point out which of the commissioners is IYO a left wing ideologue as opposed to a qualified professional in the field they are appointed to oversee.
I'd imagine that the former Labor minister would be a fair place to start, wouldn't you? Susan Ryan, remember? Removed from her senior portfolio for both incompetence and a spectacularly radical leftist agenda? Doesn't ring a bell? Dumped as education minister and then resigned in a huff from parliament because HECS was introduced, and apparently disadvantaged women? No?

I'd also argue that Wilson is just as well qualified for the position as anyone else on the HRC. You just don't like his politics.
Green eyed Mick wrote:the problem you have, as a rusted on, blinkered liberal party supporter is you believe
And the suggestion that I'm a 'rusted on, blinkered liberal party supporter' is embarrassing. I'm a former member of the Labor party. I've voted Liberal once in my life, and most likely will never again. Frankly, 'rusted on, blinkered liberal party supporter' is at very least 3 lies in one. I've made it clear many times that the reason I voted as I did in the last election was as a result of my utter disgust at the incompetence of the Greens/Labor fiasco. On most issues, I am far closer to the Labor side of things than the Lib. Try to at least vaguely deal in facts.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 18, 2013, 11:04 am

T_R wrote:
Green eyed Mick wrote: I don't believe the HRC is stacked with ideologues. Point out which of the commissioners is IYO a left wing ideologue as opposed to a qualified professional in the field they are appointed to oversee.
I'd imagine that the former Labor minister would be a fair place to start, wouldn't you? Susan Ryan, remember? Removed from her senior portfolio for both incompetence and a spectacularly radical leftist agenda? Doesn't ring a bell? Dumped as education minister and then resigned in a huff from parliament because HECS was introduced, and apparently disadvantaged women? No?

I'd also argue that Wilson is just as well qualified for the position as anyone else on the HRC. You just don't like his politics.
Green eyed Mick wrote:the problem you have, as a rusted on, blinkered liberal party supporter is you believe
And the suggestion that I'm a 'rusted on, blinkered liberal party supporter' is embarrassing. I'm a former member of the Labor party. I've voted Liberal once in my life, and most likely will never again. Frankly, 'rusted on, blinkered liberal party supporter' is at very least 3 lies in one. I've made it clear many times that the reason I voted as I did in the last election was as a result of my utter disgust at the incompetence of the Greens/Labor fiasco. On most issues, I am far closer to the Labor side of things than the Lib. Try to at least vaguely deal in facts.

I will give you Ryan but again how does replacing someone from the Left with someone from the right achieve balance?

As for your political position. Don't **** in my pocket. You might have only voted Liberal once in your life but your support and defense of that side of the political spectrum, combined with the utter contempt you appear to have for anyone and anything on the left is clear as crystal.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » December 18, 2013, 11:26 am

Green eyed Mick wrote: I will give you Ryan but again how does replacing someone from the Left with someone from the right achieve balance?
:shock: You yourself have already told us that human rights is a 'lefty' thing. Please don't pretend that the HRC Board is not drawn from the left side of politics - surely not even you could be that delusional?
Green eyed Mick wrote:As for your political position. Don't **** in my pocket. You might have only voted Liberal once in your life but your support and defense of that side of the political spectrum, combined with the utter contempt you appear to have for anyone and anything on the left is clear as crystal.
No no, the contempt is for you, not 'anyone and anything on the left'. Perhaps your egocentricism makes it difficult for you to differentiate? I'd imagine that's the same reason you seem to think that you, personally, are in precisely the appropriate point in the political spectrum and the rest of the army is out of step. Fact is, I have voted to the left of politics my entire adult life, with one exception, and even there it was far more an issue of loathing of the incompetent than support of the alternative. It takes an amazing leap (to put it generously) to then claim I'm a rusted on Liberal supporter. Perhaps what you mean is that I'm just not left enough , ie fail to exactly subscribe to your own beliefs? As I said, pure egocentricism.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » December 18, 2013, 11:31 am

I think it's fairly obvious to me that T_R votes Liberal now because he's rich.

Us wealthy-elite hate those Leftie scum with a passion. They should all be living in caverns under the cities when they're not serving us oysters and steak.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » December 18, 2013, 11:34 am

The Nickman wrote:I think it's fairly obvious to me that T_R votes Liberal now because he's rich.
:lol: :lol: Everyone's a lefty until they have to pay for it
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Post Reply