Saturday, September 07, 2013

How Kevin could have given a less absurd concession speech



We all know that Kevin Rudd gave an embarrassingly bad speech conceding the leadership of his country to his opponents after the electoral drubbing he received on Saturday.  For 24 minutes, he gave a grinning peroration to a delirious, sycophantic crowd.  They cheered every word and screamed “Kevin! Kevin! Kevin!” as if they were hailing a conquering hero.  What hallucinogen was that mob on or were they simply moronic?  And he grinned like he had winned (sic).  The nation watched gob smacked as this train wreck annoyed us, then bored us and ultimately horrified us.  
Some smile...
Here is a suggestion of what he might have said to the Nation and his party (my party).

(Shushing and calming the crowd and wearing an earnest face devoid of the flicker of a smile)  “Please do not welcome me with enthusiasm.  I do not deserve it.  Screaming in joy is completely inappropriate for this appalling moment for our Party.
My Fellow Australians: I rise to concede victory in this election to my opponent Tony Abbott and his Coalition combatants.  Well done Tony. It was a huge victory.  I know that some pundits predicted a larger victory for the Coalition but that does not diminish the grandeur of your win.  I suppose I could claim some sort of Pyrrhic or partial victory because some pundits were a little out with their predictions. But I will not do that. There is no sense of achievement for the Government or my Party in any way from this substantial loss.  Who knows whether my late return to the Prime Ministerial office helped or hindered us, but the results are so bad, I take no comfort here.  We were trounced and I completely stuffed up.  
Not only did we lose government but we diminished the community’s trust in politicians so that they voted in protest for right wing buffoons with coal mines or a car fetish. The damage I and my party caused to the polity was widespread and deep.  I am so sorry.
Now some people when they apologise do so in a formalistic and token manner.  The Archbishop who utters apologies for hideous sex crimes by his priests but does not really mean it or the Minister or CEO who resigns after a debacle because s/he feels someone has to take formal blame, often do not really harbour remorse in their hearts.  They ape apologies because they feel they have to. I make my apologies with heartfelt contrition for I was a large part of the mess.
Let me say a few words about the vexing notion of "ambition". The political challenge is always to balance two things – loyalty to the party that promotes you and loyalty to your own ambitions. This is the ultimate political conundrum.  Where do my interests and the party’s interests begin and end?  I have been very poor at getting this call right. 
Ambition is complicated emotion. It is a precondition for high achievement and yet we deplore it when it is too naked or in conflict with the party or group who give politicians succour.  Parties and nations need the ambitious to fight to the top.  The winners of that competition are then sufficiently battle hardened to take on an outside adversary. So ambition is complex.  It leads to the uncovering of great leaders and is the cause of internecine warfare.  Lots of ambition is great unless it overwhelms the loyalty to the party or group we represent.  Thus, we never display ambition in Australia too enthusiastically. We nurture it secretly in deep within our souls.
My ambition is overweening and overwhelming.  Consequently, when the party forced me to step aside after leading it to victory in 2007, my secret longings drove me and my small band of followers to undermine my own party.  To be a leader of any group, one usually has to step over a few dead bodies.  That is expected and indeed, such ruthlessness is much treasured by groups in search of a leader. But years of leaking against the interests of my own party, even as they strove for victory in the 2010 election demonstrated that I had lost the plot.  Unlike the deposed Victorian Premier, Ted Baillieu who has left office with dignity and anonymity, I festered like a boil for years.  I have now killed off my party and deeply tarnished my own legacy.  For this, I am extremely sorry.
To the Nation, I say this: I am sorry.  Please reconsider my Party in three years time.  In normal circumstances, they are a wonderful political movement.  And please refashion your respect for the political classes and therefore the major parties; otherwise our parliament will be an unstable collection of minor parties run by buffoons and billionaires (or both).  Democracy is too precious to be purchased by the rich or undeservedly won by preferences because of the vagaries of the proportional representation system.
To my Party, I say this: I cannot trust myself not to undermine my successor or curtail my ambitions so I will leave the Parliament to write a very dull and worthy book tentatively entitled “On Ambition – Pursuing a dream can be inspiring or destructive.”
To my successor/predecessor Julia Gillard, I say this – The political world is full of political couples who do really well.  Unfortunately, these couples never deal well with the ambitions of both, particularly on the question of transition.  Hawke and Keating, Howard and Costello, Tony Blair and  Gordon Brown and many other leaders and their deputies, often did well for a while and then clawed each other to death when ambition could not be managed in an orderly manner.  Obama and Hilary seem to have got the timing right after initially butting heads.  Let's hope both their ambitions are realised.  Julia, I am sorry we didn't get our timing or our partnership right.  But we could have been amazing…”

307 comments:

  1. MalcolmS3:38 AM

    "To my successor/predecessor Julia Gillard, I say this – like Hawke and Keating, Howard and Costello and many other leaders and their deputies, who did well for a while and then clawed each other to death, we could have been amazing…”

    What planet did you say you were from Dick?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The political challenge is always to balance two things – loyalty to the party that promotes you and loyalty to your own ambitions. "

    If only there could be a political leader who gave some thought to a third thing - loyalty to the nation that they are supposed to be leading. I realise that expecting Kev to consider Australian interests in addition to his own ambitions and his loyalty to the ALP is a fantasy (and ditto for Tony and his loyalty to the Libs vs doing something useful for the country), but it is nice to at least imagine such a world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS4:24 AM

      "loyalty to the nation that they are supposed to be leading"

      Yes, that's a good point but it wouldn't occur to Rudd who is essentially a power luster who is scared even of the colleagues who surround him. He's an absolute control freak.

      Abbott is more likely to be "loyal to the nation" if he knew what that meant as he is a more decent human being. Unfortunately he doesn't. An advocate of big government and a religious conservative as well is something this country needs like a hole in the head.

      Delete
    2. Good point PIRATE!!!!

      Delete
    3. "Abbott is more likely to be "loyal to the nation" if he knew what that meant as he is a more decent human being"

      It really is possible to fool some of the people all of the time.

      Delete
    4. Abbott "is a more decent human being"? Using what metrics to judge him by? A more revolting person to lead this country than Abbott is hard to imagine.

      Delete
    5. MalcolmS11:19 PM

      "A more revolting person to lead this country than Abbott is hard to imagine"

      Oh, I dunno.

      How about Gillard and Rudd for starters :)

      Delete
    6. Abbott is racist and lacks respect for women - and they're his good qualities. When Rudd (who I am no fan of) and Gillard act in the same way as fear-mongoring Abbott (he learnt well at the feet of Howard) then you may have a point.

      But what are your metrics for making your original claim for Abbott? Care to back it up with some examples?

      Delete
    7. A more revolting person to lead this country than Abbott is hard to imagine.

      Oh i dunno Kate.

      Just imagine if the toolshed moved into the basement at the lodge... ;)

      Delete
    8. Sorry Billy, I think that's a bit too cryptic for me. There's plenty of tools in Canberra, but I don't think that's what you mean.

      Delete
    9. MalcolmS11:42 PM

      "Abbott is racist and lacks respect for women - and they're his good qualities"

      ROFLMAO

      Do you have any evidence for that defamatory piece of sliming?

      Next you'll be claiming he's a misogynist :)

      Delete
    10. Malcolm, do you really believe that his asylum seeker policies aren't racist? Do you really believe that he respects women when he believes it's natural that they shouldn't be in positions of power? How many Abbott quotes would you like to me source to demonstrate his lack of respect for women?

      Still waiting for a single scrap of evidence that backs up your claim about him. Finding it too hard?

      Delete
    11. MalcolmS12:39 AM

      "do you really believe that his asylum seeker policies aren't racist?"

      His asylum seeker policies are xenophobic with an eye to security - not racist. As are Labor's and, apparently, the electorate's.

      "Do you really believe that he respects women when he believes it's natural that they shouldn't be in positions of power?"

      You just made that up. That is not his position at all. In fact he advocates baby bonuses for wealthy women of power so they can get back to work quicker.[A disgusting policy] His relationship with the women of his party[positions of power] are excellent as are his domestic relationships. His daughters are highly qualified. You are tilting at windmills.

      "How many Abbott quotes would you like to me source to demonstrate his lack of respect for women?"

      Go for it mate - you haven't found one yet. Abbott has many problems but his relationship with women is not one of them.

      Delete
    12. "You just made that up." Scroll down to quote 5 - that's the one I was referring to.

      Yeah, Abbott's a real delight - not that Malcolm can supply any evidence to support his position, but here's just a few of Abbott's less than charming comments - such a treasure for the human race.

      On immigration:

      1. ‘Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it’s not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia.’

      2. ‘These people aren’t so much seeking asylum, they’re seeking permanent residency. If they were happy with temporary protection visas, then they might be able to argue better that they were asylum seekers’

      On rights at work:

      3. ‘Bad bosses, like bad fathers and husbands, should be tolerated because they do more good than harm’

      On women:

      4. ‘The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience.’

      5. ‘I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons’

      6. ‘I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak’

      7. ‘What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing is that if they get it done commercially it’s going to go up in price and their own power bills when they switch the iron on are going to go up, every year…’

      On Julia Gillard:

      8. ‘Gillard won’t lie down and die’

      On climate change:

      9. ‘Climate change is absolute crap’

      10. ‘If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax.’

      On homosexuality:

      11. ‘I’d probably … I feel a bit threatened’

      12. ‘If you’d asked me for advice I would have said to have – adopt a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about all of these things…’

      On Indigenous Australia:

      13. ‘Now, I know that there are some Aboriginal people who aren’t happy with Australia Day. For them it remains Invasion Day. I think a better view is the view of Noel Pearson, who has said that Aboriginal people have much to celebrate in this country’s British Heritage’

      14. ‘Western civilisation came to this country in 1788 and I’m proud of that…’

      15. ‘There may not be a great job for them but whatever there is, they just have to do it, and if it’s picking up rubbish around the community, it just has to be done’

      On Nicola Roxon:

      16: ‘That’s bullshit. You’re being deliberately unpleasant. I suppose you can’t help yourself, can you?’

      Delete
    13. And more...
      “Abortion is the easy way out. It’s hardly surprising that people should choose the most convenient exit from awkward situations.” March 17th, 2004

      “While I think men and women are equal, they are also different and I think it's inevitable and I don't think it's a bad thing at all that we always have, say, more women doing things like physiotherapy and an enormous number of women simply doing housework.” 2010

      “The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience.” March 17th 2004

      “I would say to my daughters if they were to ask me this question... [their virginity] is the greatest gift that you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving and don't give it to someone lightly, that's what I would say.” January 27th “The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience.” 2010

      "We do not want educated women, at the higher degree level, to deny them a career. If we want women of that calibre to have families - and we should - well we've got to give them a fair dinkum chance to do so." June 2013

      Oh yeah, Tony has great respect for women.

      Delete
    14. MalcolmS2:44 AM

      Aah, well done Kate! You had a nice little dossier all ready to go! Work for one of the branches do you? :) Now, let me see...

      1. Omit the Jesus bit and that's the same position as Gillard. It's also the same position, without omission, as Rudd.

      2. So, what's your point? In what way does that differ from the Labor position?

      3. I'm sure he wasn't opposed to the worker quitting and getting another job. There is no such thing as the 'right to a job' or 'the right to a nice boss' Kate. Just the same as there is no such thing as the bosses 'right to a good/satisfied employee.' If worker or boss are unhappy they should seek a relationship elsewhere.

      4. That's his worst statement but he genuinely believes that an embryo is a human being so is being true to his values. His position is that abortion is murder. I know otherwise. Do you? Can you prove that an embryo is not a human being? Abbott has no power to ban abortion. It would be the end of him.

      5. [where you wanted me to scroll] In general that position is correct and its truth is born out by observing the general community. Having kids tends to place restrictions on a long term, long hours, highly responsible career for a woman. However, a woman who decides on a career is just as capable as a man in achieving those goals. Men can't/won't stop her. So, what stopped you?

      BTW Kate I am not an admirer of Abbott or of conservatism. I did not vote for him because I object to his politics. But he is far less dangerous than trash like Rudd or Gillard who were the first in my memory to be opposed to freedom of speech/press. That is unforgivable. They are simply dangerous thugs.

      Delete
    15. ... the first in my memory to be opposed to freedom of speech/press.

      tsk. Poor ol' gramps.
      That's his memory gone now.

      Delete
    16. Malcolm, raising Labor does not excise the fact that Abbott is a maggot. I'm not a Rudd or Labor fan - so raising those issues with me is nonsense. You claimed Abbott didn't have an issue with women and asked me to provide quotes to back my assertion - I've done that. You are still provide a single shred of evidence that he's "a more decent human being".

      Delete
    17. RalphH 10/097:15 AM

      “Tony Abbot allows his beliefs to cloud his political thinking.” (Stranger6:40 PM)

      From a purely logical standpoint I find that a ridiculous statement Stranger. It’s a person’s (any and every person’s) beliefs that inform and clarify their political thinking, regardless of what those beliefs are.

      All you’re really saying here is that you disagree with his beliefs and hence his politics. You have every right to disagree but please have the honesty to play the ball (attack the argument) rather than the man - by besmirching his intelligence. 


      Delete
    18. RalphH 10/097:22 AM

      Computer dyslexia?? Repeated further down using the correct Reply button.

      Delete
    19. "It’s a person’s (any and every person’s) beliefs that inform and clarify their political thinking, regardless of what those beliefs are."

      Which is the problem Ralph. Beliefs are not necessarily based on facts. I didn't besmirch his intelligence that time. But he does have to have something wrong if he believes in God.

      Delete
    20. MalcolmS12:58 AM

      "Malcolm, raising Labor does not excise the fact that Abbott is a maggot"

      Raising Abbott does not excise the fact that Kate is a maggot.

      See what I did there?

      Easy isn't it?

      Delete
    21. Yes, I do see Malcolm - your particular brand of intellectual and emotional immaturity is easy to spot.

      Delete
    22. MalcolmS7:55 PM

      No Kate, that'll be those who run around calling correspondents 'arse-holes' and 'maggots.'

      Don't complain when you discover you just vomited into the wind.

      Delete
    23. Facts are a challenge for you, aren't they Malcolm? To clarify I called you an arsehole and Abbott a maggot. The more I think about it though, I more I think that it's an insult to both arseholes and maggots - at least both of those things are useful - distasteful, but useful.

      Delete
    24. MalcolmS10:55 PM

      Aah, love ya work Kate :)

      Personally I have tasted neither.

      Welcome back and cherio.

      Delete
  3. The election result reminds me of a movie quote, what was it again... oh yes
    "I am in Hell!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree. At least it was easily foreseeable Hell.

      Delete
  4. I'm looking forward to seeing Tony negotiate with Senators from the Sex Party, Sports Party and the Marriage Equality Party. How will he cope if the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party pass a motion against his bicycle riding? Not to mention Pauline Hanson . . .

    Is it too early to start demanding another election? The libs wanted another go when their team lost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did the Sex Party get up??? (no pun intended - this is a genuine question).
      Dick

      Delete
    2. I don't think anything's confirmed yet, but this seems to suggest that it may be possible:

      http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/welcome-to-your-nightmare-tony-abbott-minor-parties-claim-senate-seats/story-fnho52ip-1226714675119

      Delete
  5. MalcolmS6:23 PM

    So, how did the Secular Party go folks?

    Oh, here it is!

    As of Mon 9 Sep 2013, 11:02am it had polled 3,893 votes with a swing of -0.1%

    Awesome! LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS6:26 PM

      Just goes to demonstrate the point that religion/atheism is NOT a legitimate *political* issue. It belongs in the private domain and not in politics. Only an authoritarian would claim otherwise.

      Delete
    2. "Just goes to demonstrate the point that religion/atheism is NOT a legitimate *political* issue."

      No it just goes to show that people didn't vote for them.

      "Only an authoritarian would claim otherwise."

      Tony Abbot allows his beliefs to cloud his political thinking. You really have no idea.

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS7:24 PM

      "Tony Abbot allows his beliefs to cloud his political thinking"

      That was exactly my point!

      Hence his authoritarian streak.

      I suggest you check that your arse is not on fire dopey.

      Delete
    4. Dopey you're the one who said Tony was a nicer guy than Rudd.

      Delete
    5. RalphH 10/097:24 AM

      “Tony Abbot allows his beliefs to cloud his political thinking.” (Stranger6:40 PM)

      From a purely logical standpoint I find that a ridiculous statement Stranger. It’s a person’s (any and every person’s) beliefs that inform and clarify their political thinking, regardless of what those beliefs are.

      All you’re really saying here is that you disagree with his beliefs and hence his politics. You have every right to disagree but please have the honesty to play the ball (attack the argument) rather than the man - by besmirching his intelligence. 


      Delete
    6. MalcolmS wrote: "Just goes to demonstrate the point that religion/atheism is NOT a legitimate *political* issue. It belongs in the private domain and not in politics. Only an authoritarian would claim otherwise"
      Surely you have just described the position that the Secular Party were putting forward.

      Basically they are saying "keep religion out of politics" just as you are.

      Religion/atheism are not a legitimate political issue, but the proposition that they are not a legitimate political issue IS.

      Delete
    7. MalcolmS9:39 PM

      Robin: "Basically they are saying "keep religion out of politics" just as you are"

      **Sigh**!!!

      Then why do you think they advocate funding secular hospitals and not religious hospitals? That's placing religion IN politics!

      Delete
    8. Using taxes to fund religious hospitals puts religion in politics. I would have thought that would be obvious, even to you.

      Delete
    9. MalcolmS12:47 AM

      LJS: "Using taxes to fund religious hospitals puts religion in politics"

      Not if religious AND secular hospitals are funded without discrimination.

      I would have thought that would be obvious, even to you.

      Delete
    10. "Not if religious AND secular hospitals are funded without discrimination."

      No that would just be no discrimination. Funding religious activities with public funds puts religion in politics.

      Delete
    11. MalcolmS7:35 PM

      No it doesn't.

      Separation of church and state means freedom of religion - including the right to construct and run hospitals.

      Delete
    12. FFS Malcolm, why don't you convert? The only person on here who ever agrees with you is Ralph.

      Delete
    13. MalcolmS7:01 AM

      Upsets you does it? :)

      Delete
    14. Upsets you does it? :)

      Smiley face? So you like the thought of someone being upset?

      Thats just one of the things that marks you out as the blogs resident nobjockey.

      I wonder what the rational faculty of capitalism would have to say to you?

      giddyup? ;)

      Delete
    15. MalcolmS8:01 PM

      zedinhisbigloonyflyingtoolshead: "giddyup? ;)"

      Winking smiley face?

      So you like the thought of someone being upset?

      Didn't work :)

      Delete
    16. Ye gods...what a fuckwit!

      rofl ;)

      Delete
    17. Being a fuckwit is a science?

      ;)

      Delete
    18. MalcolmS6:30 AM

      You come across as an expert in the field :)

      Delete
  6. MalcolmS8:55 PM

    "Dopey you're the one who said Tony was a nicer guy than Rudd"

    And you have provided no evidence to change my mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Considering you didn't evidence in the first place why should I?

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS10:10 PM

      Because it was your point and not mine.

      Delete
  7. MalcolmS10:19 PM

    Apparently Abbott hasn't yet decided to move into The Lodge or remain in the family home.

    Not surprising really as The Lodge, at the moment, is receiving a thorough fumigation and an intense bogan washdown :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Dick, I can't believe it's been so long since I've been away from you all.

    What a delight to see the back of Rudd and a horror to have the mad-monk leading the country. A friend of mine recently quipped "In Australian politics, Abbott is to the right of Howard and to the left of no one." Scary and true if you're on the looney left and an atheist to boot. Still, I'm relatively safe from the frightfull Abbott, being an unwed woman past child-bearing age Abbott doesn't even know people such as me exist, but I pity those on whom Abbott's bullshit will fall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS11:01 PM

      "Abbott doesn't even know people such as me exist"

      Abbott knows his sister exists.

      Abbott knows that the dysfunctional aboriginal settlements exist and works in them on a regular and voluntary basis.

      Unlike Rudd and Gillard.

      Delete
    2. Yes Malcolm you're right and he plans to do nothing about the former and even less about the later.

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS11:28 PM

      That remains to be seen.

      The first question is whether he *should* do anything about either.

      Those he followed did squat - they were all platitude and no action.

      Delete
    4. "Those he followed did squat - they were all platitude and no action." That's not a justification. Abbott will not introduce marriage equality and if he can raise levels of education for indigenous people by the end of his term then I will happily eat my words.

      Delete
    5. MalcolmS12:06 AM

      "Abbott will not introduce marriage equality"

      Oh, you mean I won't be allowed to marry the dog? Curses! I should have voted for the Animal Party after all :)

      ".. and if he can raise levels of education for indigenous people by the end of his term then I will happily eat my words"

      Nobody can do that in those settlements. Those apartheid settlements were Whitlam's baby. The worse thing that ever happened to aborigines was socialism. They should all be living as individuals in the general community with equal rights. Their "culture" is finished and it's about time people stop the pretence.

      Delete
    6. Ah Malcolm, you brand of charm has not diminished in our time apart, but your use of obsfuscation seems to be on the increase

      What does marrying the dog have to do with marriage equality? Nothing, it is a moronic argument used by those who fail to understand the term 'consenting adults'.

      So will Abbott get rid of the settlements? Of course not and that's not even what I was talking about. But what measure do you think is appropriate to use to see if Abbott has done anything useful for indigenous Australians by the end of his term (may it come swiftly!)?

      Delete
    7. "Oh, you mean I won't be allowed to marry the dog? Curses! I should have voted for the Animal Party after all "

      If there was any doubt you're a fool you've just managed to dispel it.

      Delete
    8. MalcolmS1:29 AM

      "What does marrying the dog have to do with marriage equality? Nothing, it is a moronic argument used by those who fail to understand the term 'consenting adults'"

      Non sequitur. FYI 'consenting adults' does not require marriage. Marriage is a specific relationship involving a man and a woman - not man/woman and dog. We already have marriage equality - any citizen can marry.

      "So will Abbott get rid of the settlements?"

      Probably not which means he's as bad as his predecessors. What should be done I gave [at 12:06AM]. You are the one who advocates raising the education standards in the settlements. That's racist and what you are accusing Abbott of. There should be no apartheid-like settlements. They should all be living as individuals in the general community with equal rights.

      Delete
    9. MalcolmS1:35 AM

      Stranger: "If there was any doubt you're a fool you've just managed to dispel it"

      Ooh, you just made Rover so cross :)

      Delete
    10. Malcolm, I never mentioned the settlements - that was your comment. I was talking about the education standard of indigenous Australians no matter where they live - it is a fact that fewer indigenous people attend university than other Australians. We could also talk about life expectancy, crime, unemployment as it relates to indigenous people. Nothing I have said has been racist - pathetic attempt on your behalf to slur me.

      Malcolm, on the issue of marriage equality you are clearly just an arsehole. In Australia marriage does require consenting adults. Children can not marry. Most people marry for love - yes, not all, but most. Why should those who love someone of the same sex not be allowed to marry?

      Delete
    11. RalphH 10/098:07 AM

      “*"What does marrying the dog have to do with marriage equality? Nothing, it is a moronic argument used by those who fail to understand the term 'consenting adults'"* (Kate)

Non sequitur. FYI 'consenting adults' does not require marriage. Marriage is a specific relationship involving a man and a woman - not man/woman and dog. We already have marriage equality - any citizen can marry.” (MalcolmS1:29 AM)

      I second the motion Malcolm. The emotional “marriage equality” argument being used to push the idea of ‘same-sex marriage‘ is one of the biggest con-jobs of all time and so many people (including Kevin Rudd) who lack clarity of thought have fallen for it.

      To me marriage equality means that the complementary qualities of a man and woman in a marriage are of equal importance. I also agree with you that every (adult) person has an equal right to marry but that entails choosing one from the opposite/complementary sex. 



      Delete
    12. Good for you Ralph; from you I would expect nothing less as your bigotry has been well documented over many years. However, you fail to explain why marriage should be only between those of the opposite sex. If my two friends, who've been in a same-sex relationship for 17 years, got married tomorrow what possible effect could it have on you, or anyone else? Why should you get to discriminate against them? They are not hurting you or anyone else; they are not breaking the law; they would not discriminate against you. Why is same-sex marriage a 'con job' - what a nasty phrase, but again I expect nothing less from a such a nasty person as yourself. Why do you get to determine which couples have 'complementary qualities' and which don't? Why do you think other people's lives are any of your business? Why do you imagine you have the right to define what marriage means to others? Why should some people be prevented from marrying for love? Did you marry for love Ralph, or did your wife happen to have the right 'complementary qualities' to suit you?

      Delete
    13. MalcolmS10:34 AM

      Kate: "Malcolm, I never mentioned the settlements - that was your comment. I was talking about the education standard of indigenous Australians no matter where they live"

      I am an indigenous Australian Kate. So, what's your point?

      "it is a fact that fewer indigenous people attend university than other Australians"

      So, what are you suggesting? That the indigenous be forced to go to university? That the indigenous are stupid? There is free education in this country Kate and if you qualify you can go to university. Has it not occurred to you that the indigenous placed on welfare for generations don't give a stuff about university? Why would they? Ask Noel Pearson. Who the hell are you to socially engineer the indigenous? Who are you to call others "bigots."

      "Malcolm, on the issue of marriage equality you are clearly just an arsehole"

      And you, madam, are what's coming out.

      "Why should those who love someone of the same sex not be allowed to marry?"

      They should be "allowed" to do what they wish. Just don't call it "marriage" because it's not.

      Delete
    14. Malcolm, you are proving to be more disingenuous at every turn. I have never remotely suggested social engineering anyone - you are hysterical. My point about education, was that the indigenous Australians aren't always getting the education and opportunities of other Australians and that that doesn't seem right to me. Education, generally, brings improved quality of life - that is what I want for indigenous Australians. The majority of non-indigenous Australians have an excellent quality of life; I wish exactly the same for all Australians. How does that make me a bigot?

      Delete
    15. RalphH 10/093:54 PM

      “Good for you Ralph; from you I would expect nothing less as your bigotry has been well documented over many years.” (Kate8:29 AM)

      Hi Kate, nice to hear from you again. Still being belligerent I see and allowing your emotion to over-ride your common-sense. I think you can do better than that. I did not say (or imply) that “same-sex marriage (is) a con-job”. (I believe it is an impossibility). I said that claiming it has anything to do with “marriage equality” is a con-job.

      Although I think they are far from the ideal, I fully accept same-sex relationships for those who for various reasons want to form them. I fully accept that many of those who do, do so from some form of love. But I do not believe that such a love is marriage love (in some cases it may involve a very close friendship) because marriage love can only be experienced between complementary beings - or on a lower scale (e.g. a nut and a bolt ) complementary entities.

      Calling a same-sex relationship a marriage is saying that a male/male (or female/female) relationship is the same as a male/female relationship. It destroys the distinction between male and female by implying that they are both the same. It is imperative to maintain that distinction because it exists in reality. To imply otherwise is an emotional delusion.

      So Kate, I am not a bigot, I’m a thinker and reasoner, reasoning I hope from reality rather than emotion. I’m a great lover of truth/reality. I enjoy a philosophical discussion - philosophy being the love of and pursuit of wisdom (check the etymology). The alternative is philodoxy (lovers of opinion - in particular one’s own). There’s a lot of that around. Have a nice day.


      Delete
    16. ...marriage love can only be experienced between complementary beings - or on a lower scale (e.g. a nut and a bolt ) complementary entities.

      See that toolie?
      Its ok for you to marry A Bolt after all.

      I'm sure Andrew will be ecstatic at the news!

      roflmao!! ;)

      Delete
    17. Ah Ralph, still being passive aggressive and claiming qualities for yourself that have never been witnessed by anyone here. You love your truth, not the truth. You love thinking your thoughts, but you never extend yourself to try to think something new. I might be belligerent, but I don't hide behind passive agreesive insincere statements such as "I think you can do better than that" (your opinion of what I can or can't do are patronising and irrelevant) and "Have a nice day" - the ultimate in hollow-sentiment and patronising bullshit.

      "Calling a same-sex relationship a marriage is saying that a male/male (or female/female) relationship is the same as a male/female relationship." Following that 'logic' we would also say that all marriages are the same; but we know that is not the truth - not even your version of the truth could stretch that far. But even then you still haven't supplied a reason why if my friends got married, it would have any affect on you. Their current relationship doesn't impact on you in the slightest, so why would their marriage?

      "To imply otherwise is an emotional delusion." Why? What evidence do you have to support this self-deluded claim?

      Even your analogy of a nut and bolt displays your obvious bigotry - that you can't see it is sad.

      "The alternative is philodoxy (lovers of opinion - in particular one’s own). There’s a lot of that around." Well, you would know; being our resident expert in loving one's own opinion. Have you ever changed your mind about anything Ralph? Ever admitted that you might be wrong? You certainly never have on these pages.

      Delete
    18. The alternative is philodoxy (lovers of opinion - in particular one’s own).

      Philodoxy is a science in nobjectivism land.

      Delete
    19. Ralph,

      n. bigot: A bigot is someone who holds predefined negative views about a class of people.

      Stop writing negative crap like this "Although I think they are far from the ideal, I fully accept same-sex relationships for those who for various reasons want to form them. I fully accept that many of those who do, do so from some form of love." and I won't label you a bigot.

      "I fully accept same-sex relationships" No, you don't. If you did you wouldn't need to include so many loaded, judgemental definitions "some form of love", "for those who for various reasons want to form them", "far from the ideal" etc.

      Delete
    20. Dear Katie,

      Sorry to take so long to catch up. Spent the night in rural Victoria (Ballarat). Great to see you back in the fray with renewed vigour. Talk to you soon.
      Dick

      Delete
    21. " I fully accept same-sex relationships"

      Liar.

      "But I do not believe that such a love is marriage love (in some cases it may involve a very close friendship) "

      That is not fully accepting them.

      " (e.g. a nut and a bolt )"

      By the gods you are stupid. Not all nuts and bolts go together, some are different sizes, some are different materials that won't fit together well, some might be the same size but have different threads, etc.

      " It is imperative to maintain that distinction because it exists in reality. "

      People used to say that about inter-racial marriages. They were also bigots.

      " I’m a thinker and reasoner, reasoning I hope from reality rather than emotion. "

      You don't bother to think outside your own fantasy world. Anytime you have managed to use reason it has been flawed, based on emotion and starting from assumptions you can't prove and just based on your own beliefs and ignorance.

      "I’m a great lover of truth/reality."

      Liar. You reject truth and reality whenever they get in the way of your beliefs.

      "(check the etymology)"

      Are sinister people all left handed?

      "The alternative is philodoxy (lovers of opinion - in particular one’s own). "

      You do love your opinion instead of facts Ralph.

      Delete
    22. " who lack clarity of thought have fallen for it."

      I doubt you have the clarity of thought to understand the irony of that statement Ralph.

      Delete
    23. RalphH 10/095:58 AM

      “Ah Ralph, still being passive aggressive ......... I might be belligerent, but I don't hide behind passive agreesive insincere statements” (Kate4:11 PM)


      Hi again Kate, I may have been a tad patronising with my first statement but I was defending a unfounded charge of bigotry, you know. However I was quite sincere about having a nice day.

      
“Following that 'logic' we would also say that all marriages are the same; ....”

      Can’t see why, there is a great deal of variety in marriages but they all have one thing in common - the combining of two complementary entities/beings.

      “.... if my friends ..... current relationship doesn't impact on you in the slightest, ... why would their marriage?"

      
The discussion is not about the subjective feelings of individuals, it’s about the principle of what marriage actually is. You have disregarded the fact that I don’t believe two of the same sex can marry (in the true sense of the word or more correctly the concept). Whatever word might be chosen the principle that same + same does not = same + different would still apply.

      

“*"To imply (that there is a no distinction between male and female” is an emotional delusion."* (RH) Why? What evidence do you have to support this self-deluded claim?”

      I’d have thought it self evident. If you were to ask a child (too young to have been indoctrinated with prejudices) if there was any difference between mum and dad, (assuming they were old enough to understand the question and articulate an answer), what do you think they’d say?

      
“Even your analogy of a nut and bolt displays your obvious bigotry - that you can't see it is sad.”

      On the contrary, it clearly demonstrates the fact that two different, yet complementary, entities can combine to form one more complex, more useful entity. Please explain how that has anything to do with bigotry.



      “Have you ever changed your mind about anything Ralph? Ever admitted that you might be wrong? You certainly never have on these pages.”

      Of course - when I’ve been shown (in distinction to merely being told) that I’m wrong . I’ve also modified and adapted my ideas a lot in response to new information I don’t know the answer to many things (because life is not simple - or meant to be simple) but there are some things that I’m pretty sure of and the objective definition of marriage (demonstrating it’s uniqueness) is one of them.

      Delete
    24. RalphH 10/096:04 AM

      “Ralph, 

n. bigot: A bigot is someone who holds predefined negative views about a class of people.” (Kate4:57 PM)

      So who or what is the “class of people” you are assuming? Since when do certain feelings establish anyone as a unique “class” of person?

      

“Stop writing negative crap like this "Although I think they are far from the ideal, I fully accept same-sex relationships for those who for various reasons want to form them. I fully accept that many of those who do, do so from some form of love." and I won't label you a bigot.”

      If you think that’s “negative ****), what would be your response if I didn’t accept them.

      

"I fully accept same-sex relationships" No, you don't. If you did you wouldn't need to include so many loaded, judgemental definitions "some form of love", "for those who for various reasons want to form them", "far from the ideal" etc.

      OK, there’s my answer, you think it would be preferable if I didn’t accept them. Well I reckon that would be bigoted. I accept them for what they are not as something they’re not.

      There is nothing judgmental in stating facts. Saying “some form of love” is a positive statement - there are many forms of love depending on the object of love and the context.

      Anyone who does anything has to want (or will) it first. It may occur freely or under some sort of duress. It may be done mindfully or mindlessly. Depending on how freely and knowingly the choice is made the person becomes more or less responsible for it.

      Unless one believes in God and a divine purpose I guess it must be difficult to have a perspective of what is “ideal”. It can then only be something subjective or a thing of whim or fancy.

      Delete
    25. RalphH 10/096:51 AM

      “Liar.” (Stranger1:56 AM)

      Same old immature response.

      


“That is not fully accepting them.”

      As I said to Kate , it’s accepting them for what they are not pretending that they’re something they are not.



      "By the gods you are stupid. Not all nuts and bolts go together, some are different sizes, some are different materials that won't fit together well, some might be the same size but have different threads, etc."

      So, what “gods” declare my stupidity? Could you substantiate their existence and qualifications to so judge?

      Obviously there is a variety of nuts and bolts but particular nuts are designed to go with particular bolts. The difference with humans is that they are not mass-produced so only one particular male/female is a perfect fit for their complement.



      “*" It is imperative to maintain that distinction because it exists in reality. "* (RH)

“People used to say that about inter-racial marriages. They were also bigots.”

      People opposed interracial marriage for a range of reasons. Some were bigoted reasons, others were not. The distinction between male and female is very different and much more fundamental than the distinction between races.




      “You don't bother to think outside your own fantasy world. Anytime you have managed to use reason it has been flawed, based on emotion and starting from assumptions you can't prove and just based on your own beliefs and ignorance.”

      I try to base my thinking on revealed truth (i.e. from a source much higher than my subjectivity) the provenance of which cannot be proved or disproved by human reasoning but only by a life in accord with that truth.

      Sure my reasoning is flawed at times but it has less likelihood of being as flawed as one that relies totally on subjectivity.




      “Liar. You reject truth and reality whenever they get in the way of your beliefs.”

      On the contrary I hold my beliefs because I consider them to be true. I suggest the case is similar for you.




      “Are sinister people all left handed?”

      And the relevance of this left-field gem of wisdom is ..... ?



      “You do love your opinion instead of facts Ralph.”

      Well, that’s your opinion (for what it’s worth). I personally don’t think the opinion of a compulsive liar-caller has much clout.

      Delete
    26. "Same old immature response."

      Typical response of someone caught lying.

      "As I said to Kate , it’s accepting them for what they are not pretending that they’re something they are not."

      No Ralph it's pretending they are something else so you can feel better yourself.

      "So, what “gods” declare my stupidity? Could you substantiate their existence and qualifications to so judge?"

      All of them. They told me so. They are gods.

      "The difference with humans is that they are not mass-produced "

      Yes we are, there are masses of us.

      "The distinction between male and female is very different and much more fundamental than the distinction between races."

      So? Your argument is just as spurious as it was for mixed race marriage.

      "I try to base my thinking on revealed truth"

      No, you base you thinking on what you want to be revealed truth.

      "Sure my reasoning is flawed at times but it has less likelihood of being as flawed as one that relies totally on subjectivity."

      You're too dumb or deluded to understand you reasoning relies totally on subjectivity.

      "On the contrary I hold my beliefs because I consider them to be true."

      That doesn't negate the fact you reject truth in favour of your beliefs.

      "And the relevance of this left-field gem of wisdom is ..... ?"

      Your idiot comment about etymology.

      "Well, that’s your opinion (for what it’s worth). I personally don’t think the opinion of a compulsive liar-caller has much clout."

      That's because you're the compulsive liar.

      Delete
    27. "There is nothing judgmental in stating facts."

      You're not stating facts.

      "Anyone who does anything has to want (or will) it first."

      Breathing our heartbeats and sexuality are not under our conscious control. You really are stupid.

      "Unless one believes in God and a divine purpose I guess it must be difficult to have a perspective of what is “ideal”."

      Arrogant as well as stupid. Ideal notions do not have to involve God.

      Delete
    28. "Of course - when I’ve been shown (in distinction to merely being told) that I’m wrong "

      Liar, you've been shown to be wrong many times but you haven't changed your mind. You only accept what you want to be true, not what actually is true.

      Delete
    29. RalphH 11/095:27 PM

      I won’t respond to most of your usual carry-on Stranger except for a couple of points that I think require challenging.



      “Breathing our heartbeats and sexuality are not under our conscious control. You really are stupid.” (Stranger3:45 PM)

      You refer, of course to the autonomic or involuntary nervous system which takes care of certain bodily functions which are largely (but not entirely) beyond conscious control.

      From a religious perspective this is God’s way of taking immediate control of bodily sustaining functions which would be rather critical if we had the ability to mess them up as we do with so many other things.

      My question is, “How did ‘sexuality‘ pop in there? Is that a modern myth or did you make it up for the occasion? Sexual arousal is one of the functions under the control of the ANS but “sexuality” !!! How desperate are you to score points?

      I believe that sexuality is very much chosen albeit at times under the duress of aberrant feeling of sexual attraction. No one has to be a slave to their feelings.




      “Arrogant as well as stupid. Ideal notions do not have to involve God.”

      It would only appear arrogant to one who was ignorant of or aggressive towards the concept of God. Eternal God is the true ‘objective’ - above, beyond the temporal confusion of limited, subjective beings.

      Although our picture/concept of God is limited by our subjectivity we have been gifted with the capabilities of abstraction and rational thought to enable us to a large extent to overcome these limitations if e are willing to make the effort.

      “Ideal notions” that do not “involve God” would be dealing with very limited ideals.

      Delete
    30. Ralph, what I would prefer is irrelevant - I am merely pointing out your hypocrisy and deluded belief that you 'fully accept' homosexual relationships. You begrudgingly accept that they exist - the relationships themselves you acknowledge as something less, something inferior to heterosexual relationships. It's also interesting to note that you think your acceptance is even relevant.

      "There is nothing judgmental in stating facts." No there isn't; when you include some verifiable facts I won't argue with you - all we have seen from you is your opinion.

      The "class" in the definition I provided just means 'group', 'cohort', category'. You are a bigot towards people in the homosexual group/cohort/category/demographic. I know that label doesn't sit well with you - few people like to admit that they are racist or bigoted - but it doesn't mean the term doesn't apply to you. You think you have the right to judge people and withhold something from people based solely on their sexuality - you fit the definition perfectly.

      Thankfully, you do not get to determine "the principle of what marriage actually is" for everyone - you are free to determine "what marriage actually is" for your marriage, but no one else’s.

      "Unless one believes in God and a divine purpose I guess it must be difficult to have a perspective of what is “ideal”. It can then only be something subjective or a thing of whim or fancy." As usual your guess is wildly wrong. All this time in discussion with non-believers and you still understand nothing yet feel free to ungracefully leap to assumptions that are not borne out by any evidence. Your opinion of non-believers is so clouded by subjective opinion and so lacking in objective opinion as to be just laughable.

      Delete
    31. "I won’t respond to most of your usual carry-on Stranger"

      Translation: I won't respond because I don't have any answers.

      "From a religious perspective"

      Translation: Something I made up.

      "My question is, “How did ‘sexuality‘ pop in there?"

      It was mentioned earlier. You really are stpuider than grass.

      "I believe that sexuality is very much chosen"

      It isn't. Why do you ignore what the research shows?

      "Eternal God is the true ‘objective’"

      No, God is a subjective idea until you actually manage to show God exists.

      "“Ideal notions” that do not “involve God” would be dealing with very limited ideals."

      No they would just not involve God. God doesn't exist because you want him to.

      Delete
    32. RalphH 12/095:21 PM

      “Ralph, what I would prefer is irrelevant - I am merely pointing out your hypocrisy and deluded belief that you 'fully accept' homosexual relationships. You begrudgingly accept that they exist - the relationships themselves you acknowledge as something less, something inferior to heterosexual relationships. It's also interesting to note that you think your acceptance is even relevant.” (Kate9:58 PM)


      What amazing deduction Kate! I’ve progressed from a bigot to a hypocrite. I’ve read and re-read what I wrote and don’t see any of either. You’ve taken particular umbrage to my saying that I “fully accept” so in retrospect it would probably have been better to have expressed that differently. However my meaning is quite plain if the paragraph is read as a whole. I think my acceptance is relevant because it shows that I accept the possible as distinct from the impossible.


      As I’ve said, I fully accept same-sex relationships for what they are, i.e. a social contract/agreement between two people, but do not accept that they are or can be marriage relationships because the criterion for marriage is different.

      I did not state that one type of relationship was inferior to the other, my aim was to establish that they are different. If I didn’t believe there is a difference (a substantial difference) I’d have nothing to say - which apparently is what you want.

      Many marriages are also “far from the ideal” which is an equal, committed and loving relationship between one man and one woman, but they still fall within the marriage category whereas same-sex relationships do not. It is obvious that I was expressing an opinion because I used the terms “I think” and “I believe”.



      “The "class" in the definition I provided just means 'group', 'cohort', category'. You are a bigot towards people in the homosexual group/cohort/category/demographic. I know that label doesn't sit well with you - few people like to admit that they are racist or bigoted - but it doesn't mean the term doesn't apply to you. You think you have the right to judge people and withhold something from people based solely on their sexuality - you fit the definition perfectly.”

      My whole point is that we are not dealing with a separate class of beings. You’re the one doing the stereotyping and categorising. The fact that you want to do that does not make me bigoted. I’m not “judging” or “withholding” anything. I have merely pointed out that a choice of that type of relationship is not a choice of a marriage relationship (regardless of any legal mumbo-jumbo). IMO, it's not a "class" issue, it's a reality issue.

      

“Thankfully, you do not get to determine "the principle of what marriage actually is" for everyone - you are free to determine "what marriage actually is" for your marriage, but no one else’s.”

      Of course I don’t, a principle is a statement of reality (like the law/principle of gravity). There’s nothing stopping people believing that principles don’t exist and pretending. They can even pass civil laws disregarding or thinking to avoid them. But regardless, the 'real' will prevail in the end. Eventually there will be a child pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

      “As usual your guess is wildly wrong. All this time in discussion with non-believers and you still understand nothing yet feel free to ungracefully leap to assumptions that are not borne out by any evidence. Your opinion of non-believers is so clouded by subjective opinion and so lacking in objective opinion as to be just laughable.”

      Now I’m in trouble for guessing/speculating. IMO the very concept of God is an ideal - something beyond the mundane and limitations of the temporal. God adds the element of the eternal - a whole new ball-game with limitless potential and purpose for good. 


      Delete
    33. "I’ve progressed from a bigot to a hypocrite."
      You could be both. Multi-tasking may be a real possibility here.

      Delete
    34. "My whole point is that we are not dealing with a separate class of beings"

      Stamp collectors and non-stamp collectors are two different classes. One can be bigoted towards the other.

      " it's a reality issue."

      Says the person who hides from reality. You;re right it is a reality issue, but reality does not agree with your bigoted ideas.

      "Of course I don’t, a principle is a statement of reality"

      Marriage is not a principle.

      "Now I’m in trouble for guessing/speculating"

      You do say that science is speculation.

      Delete
    35. RalphH 12/095:43 AM

      “*"My whole point is that we are not dealing with a separate class of beings"* (RH)

      

“Stamp collectors and non-stamp collectors are two different classes. One can be bigoted towards the other.” (Stranger3:48 AM)

      Amazing observation Stranger! Let me just remind you that the subject was “class of beings”. The difference between collecting or not collecting stamps is an interest and behaviour or lack thereof - not two distinct classes of beings.

      The only two classes of human beings that I am aware of are males and females. I know there is a very small %age ought in limbo between the two but they do not constitute a separate class.

      You can check on your birth certificate - you’ll be listed as one or the other. My guess is male (because your alter ego is Andrew, you think you know everything and hate to admit that you could be wrong about anything).

      “*" it's a reality issue."* (RH)

      

Says the person who hides from reality. You;re right it is a reality issue, but reality does not agree with your bigoted ideas.”

      When you get a handle on a broader concept of reality you might be able to make that call. I’m glad though that you have seen that it is a “reality issue” but reality doesn’t “agree” or disagree with anything. Reality just is. It’s our ideas that either agree with or are at odds with reality.



      “Marriage is not a principle.”

      Maybe not but there is a principle that applies to the term/concept marriage and that principle is (you guessed it) complementarity of beings/entities.


      Delete
    36. Ralph are you being deliberately obtuse? "Class" is just another term for demographic - that's the only way I have used it. You are using class in a way no one else here has. I don't believe that your vocabularly is that limited; I never suggested we were "dealing with a separate class of beings" - so in that we are in agreeance; but for you to suggest that's what I'm doing, well that's is just obfuscation on your part - whether or not it's deliberate only you can know.

      One of the passages in the bible that is tryly worthy is Luke 6:31 and from this we get most the basis of most of our laws. In secular society we have broadened the concept of "do no harm to people" to include the environment and even business/organisations. The foundations of our laws are to protect people. Like it or not, the Marriage Act is not bound by your religious beliefs. Removing the changes that Howard implemented in 1996(?) and allowing for gay marriage to be recognised will not harm anyone. No one will be injured physically or mentally by allowing gay people to marry; but millions will benefit. A few people, who think along the same lines as you, will have your emotional maturity challenged, but absolutely no harm will come to you.

      Whatever you think of marriage, how you personally define "what marriage is" is irelevant. If you don't want to marry a bloke then no one will force you too. That you don't think two chaps or two lasses can be married is your problem - that's the reality.

      Delete
    37. "Amazing observation Stranger! Let me just remind you that the subject was “class of beings”."

      They classes of beings you utter moron.

      "The only two classes of human beings that I am aware of are males and females."

      That's because you're an idiot.

      "When you get a handle on a broader concept of reality you might be able to make that call."

      I do have a handle on that, which is why I can make the call. You do not so can't.

      "Maybe not but there is a principle that applies to the term/concept marriage and that principle is (you guessed it) complementarity of beings/entities."

      The principle is different in different cultures, you really are stupider than grass.

      Delete
    38. RalphH 13/098:42 PM

      “They (are {I assume}) classes of beings you utter moron.” (Stranger6:21 PM)

      Now let’s check that out Stranger. We can have male stamp-collectors and female collectors but we don’t have stamp-collector males and stamp-collector females.

      The major classification is obviously ‘male‘ and ‘female‘. Stamp-collecting is merely an activity that both male and female can indulge in.

      

“That's because you're an idiot.”

      I think it must be pretty clear to anyone (aside from you) reading our interchanges that whatever I might be it is not “an idiot”. Your continual name-calling does nothing for your credibility.

      "*"Maybe not but there is a principle that applies to the term/concept marriage and that principle is (you guessed it) complementarity of beings/entities."

“*

      The principle is different in different cultures, you really are stupider than grass.”

      All cultures have a concept of complementarity as opposed to two of any old thing attempting to join or be joined together. All cultures from day dot have realised that the conjunction of a man and a woman in a committed, loving relationship is different and extremely special when compared with other types of relationship.

      But, surprise! surprise! I’ve actually learned something from you for a change. “Stupider than grass” - how did you find that one out? Did someone say it about you?

      Delete
    39. "We can have male stamp-collectors and female collectors but we don’t have stamp-collector males and stamp-collector females."

      Yes we do.

      " Stamp-collecting is merely an activity that both male and female can indulge in."

      It's still a classification you idiot.

      "I think it must be pretty clear to anyone (aside from you) reading our interchanges that whatever I might be it is not “an idiot”"

      I bet you're wrong (apart from Mal who is also an idiot).

      "All cultures have a concept of complementarity as opposed to two of any old thing attempting to join or be joined together..."

      You know fuck all about other cultures (you know fuck all about anything not covered by the Bible) so how would you know? Some cultures didn't have a problem with same sex marriages until Christians came around.

      " “Stupider than grass” - how did you find that one out? Did someone say it about you?"

      Why would someone say it to me? Unlike you I am smarter than grass.

      Delete
    40. "The only two classes of human beings that I am aware of are males and females. I know there is a very small %age ought in limbo between the two but they do not "

      Why do transexuals not "constitute a separate class"? I assume that you have some reason for this assertion? Are you using the word "class" with a special secret meaning?

      Delete
    41. RalphH 14/094:32 PM

      “I bet you're wrong (apart from Mal who is also an idiot).” (Stranger9:39 PM)

      Malcolm and I have in common a love of looking at things rationally. Our concepts of what constitutes being rational however and our basic assumptions and prejudices are very different but neither of us are ‘idiots’. You however seem to be stuck in a cycle of looking at things emotionally - hence all the name-calling and one-up-manship.

      Malcolm and I agree on some points e.g. the nature of marriage as being between a male and a female but also disagree on many things

      .


“You know ******* about other cultures (you know ******* about anything not covered by the Bible) so how would you know? Some cultures didn't have a problem with same sex marriages until Christians came around.”

      You can swear all you like. It doesn’t make any difference. Same-sex ‘marriage‘ (so-called) is a modern idea even though there may be a few mentions or extrapolations of evidence of same-sex relationships in the past and/or in other cultures. It could only ever have been an oddity or fetish of some sort because such relationships produce no off-spring. They are self eradicating.

      The massively over-riding tradition is that marriage is exclusively with the opposite (different) sex/gender for the sake of the joining together of male and female qualities and the production and rearing of off-spring. Aside from the usual male/female attraction it really is a matter of common-sense.

      


“.......... Unlike you I am smarter than grass.”

      Well you certainly had me Buffaloed. It must have been a great consolation when you found that out. I bet it looks good on your resume.

      Delete
    42. "Malcolm and I have in common a love of looking at things rationally."

      Neither of you are very good at looking at things rationally, even if it was true that you love doing it.

      "but neither of us are ‘idiots’."

      Claiming that dog-like equates to dog shows otherwise for you.

      "Same-sex ‘marriage‘ (so-called) is a modern idea"

      No it isn't. You can pretend it is all you like but that doesn't change the fact.

      ". It could only ever have been an oddity or fetish of some sort because such relationships produce no off-spring. "

      Except they weren't, and were revered in some cultures. See you do know fuck all about other cultures.

      "Well you certainly had me Buffaloed."

      It's not hard to confuse you Ralph, a 6 year old could do it.

      Delete
    43. RalphH 14/097:15 PM

      “Ralph are you being deliberately obtuse?” (Kate4:45 PM)

      That’s often the way it seems when we are disagreeing with someone. I could equally claim that you are being “obtuse” by failing to recognise the distinction between a same-sex and a ‘opposite’-sex relationship.

      I am deliberately expressing a different opinion because I do not believe there is any justification for classifying people (as a different type of person) on the basis of feelings (which can be quite fluid and changeable). I’m fine with males and females because these classifications are not based on the way one ‘feels’.

      “I never suggested we were "dealing with a separate class of beings" - so in that we are in agreeance; but for you to suggest that's what I'm doing, well that's is just obfuscation on your part - whether or not it's deliberate only you can know.”

      The whole campaign to change marriage is based on the idea that there is a “separate group/class of people” who are currently excluded. I don’t believe in a separate classification (on the basis of feelings) so don’t believe there is any exclusion. IMO, if people don’t like what marriage is and don’t want to participate they can start their own tradition and call it what they want.

      

“One of the passages in the bible that is tryly worthy is Luke 6:31 and from this we get most the basis of most of our laws. In secular society we have broadened the concept of "do no harm to people" to include the environment and even business/organisations. The foundations of our laws are to protect people.”

      Otherwise known as ’The Golden Rule’ or colloquially as ‘do as you would be done by’. When seen in the light of other teachings like “You shall not follow a crowd to do evil/wrong .....“ ( Exd 23:2), I can see it leading to the concept of “no harm to people”

      “Like it or not, the Marriage Act is not bound by your religious beliefs.”

      Agreed, it’s a human construct. We can make civil laws saying whatever we want (whether they agree with reality or justice or not).

      “Removing the changes that Howard implemented in 1996(?) and allowing for gay marriage to be recognised will not harm anyone.”

      It does ‘harm’ to the concept of marriage as being a complementary conjunction - it destroys it. It looks only to the social aspect of marriage and sends the (false) message that same-sex relationships are identical to different-sex relationships.

      “No one will be injured physically or mentally by allowing gay people to marry; but millions will benefit. A few people, who think along the same lines as you, will have your emotional maturity challenged, but absolutely no harm will come to you.”

      Many, particularly the young and simple will be fooled by the deception and could become trapped in relationships that “emotional maturity” will demonstrate to be far different from what they imagined/were led to believe, all the time missing out on a true marriage relationship.



      “Whatever you think of marriage, how you personally define "what marriage is" is irelevant. If you don't want to marry a bloke then no one will force you too. That you don't think two chaps or two lasses can be married is your problem - that's the reality.”

      As pointed out, your “reality” involves deception and pretense. I believe there are spiritual consequences to accepting that sort of “reality”. It may be “irrelevant to you but it’s very relevant to me.

      Delete
    44. MalcolmS9:46 PM

      Stranger: "It's not hard to confuse you... a 6 year old could do it"

      How do you know dopey?

      At least wait until *after* your birthday :)

      Delete
    45. Ralph, I'm not even going to respond to your last post - it was such bigoted nonsense, it doesn't deserve a response. However, you repeatedly stand by your claim that sexuality is a choice, even though the only people who agree with you are found on conservative Christian web sites.

      I would be interested to know if you be prepared to reconsider your "choice" belief in light of the following. It would certainly show that you are prepared to consider evidence from learned people who study human sexuality; as opposed to those who allow their religious beliefs to form their opinions for them.

      "Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.4,5 Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood." http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.long

      "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

      In 2006, the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and National Association of Social Workers stated in an amicus brief presented to the Supreme Court of the State of California: "Gay men and lesbians form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects. The institution of marriage offers social, psychological, and health benefits that are denied to same-sex couples. By denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the state reinforces and perpetuates the stigma historically associated with homosexuality. Homosexuality remains stigmatized, and this stigma has negative consequences. California's prohibition on marriage for same-sex couples reflects and reinforces this stigma". They concluded: "There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

      "Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual — including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents’ sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual." http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

      Delete
    46. MalcolmS10:46 PM

      "Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual"

      What's this desire for "consensus" that moderns crave? Consensus does *not* equate to causality.

      When Galileo, Newton and Darwin announced their Earth shattering discoveries they did not have consensus - but they were true.

      Delete
    47. "What's this desire for "consensus" that moderns crave? Consensus does *not* equate to causality."

      All the statement is saying is there is no agreed upon method, ie we still don't know for sure.

      "When Galileo, Newton and Darwin announced their Earth shattering discoveries they did not have consensus - but they were true."

      Not all of Newton's ideas about gravity were correct.

      Delete
    48. MalcolmS12:54 AM

      Newton's ideas about gravity were correct. In fact they were necessary for subsequent discoveries about gravity.

      Delete
    49. MalcolmS1:00 AM

      "All the statement is saying is there is no agreed upon method"

      It has nothing to do with "method."

      Universal agreement ["consensus"] does *not* demonstrate causality.

      Delete
    50. "It does ‘harm’ to the concept of marriage as being a complementary conjunction - it destroys it"

      No it doesn't. Two people of the same sex can be complementary.

      "Many, particularly the young and simple will be fooled by the deception and could become trapped in relationships that “emotional maturity” will demonstrate to be far different from what they imagined/were led to believe, all the time missing out on a true marriage relationship."

      The only people spreading deception are those like you. Gay people can't have what you call a true marriage relationship because they are not attract to the opposite sex.

      "As pointed out, your “reality” involves deception and pretense"

      No Ralph that's your reality.

      ". I believe there are spiritual consequences to accepting that sort of “reality”."

      What you believe has no bearing on reality unless you can show they are true.

      Delete
    51. "Newton's ideas about gravity were correct."

      No they weren't. For a start gravity is not instantaneous.

      " In fact they were necessary for subsequent discoveries about gravity."

      So was the discovery of electricity but many of the ideas about it were wrong.

      Delete
    52. Kate10:25 PM

      Kate one of that will matter to Ralph as he doesn't accept any science that goes against what he wants to be true. Despite him saying he accepts science.

      Delete
    53. "As pointed out, your “reality” involves deception and pretense."

      Two words: Mercurian. Cattle.

      Delete
    54. MalcolmS6:50 AM

      Stranger: "For a start gravity is not instantaneous"

      So what? How does that contradict Newton's law of gravity?

      Without Newton's law subsequent scientists could not have discovered that! Because Newton didn't discover everything does not mean what he did discover is false!

      Delete
    55. RalphH 14/097:45 AM

      “Ralph, I'm not even going to respond to your last post - it was such bigoted nonsense, it doesn't deserve a response. However, you repeatedly stand by your claim that sexuality is a choice, even though the only people who agree with you are found on conservative Christian web sites.”(Kate10:25 PM)

      Kate, I flatly deny your suggestion of bigotry. I do believe that sexuality is a choice but that has not been my main argument. My main argument is that men and women are different and the ideology that tries to conflate same-sex relationships with complementary relationships is flawed and false.

      I don’t believe that sexual orientation (or a tendency towards feelings of attraction towards one’s own gender) is a choice anymore than feelings of attraction for drugs or tendencies to anger are choices. Feelings alone do not determine behaviour. How one chooses to interpret and respond to those feelings is what determines sexuality or whatever.

      I therefore have no disagreement with your first two quotes. I found the third however very questionable.

      "Gay men and lesbians form stable, committed relationships that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential respects.”

      What do the writers mean by “are equivalent to”? and by “in essential respects”? (I would suggest superficially). We are not told relative percentages which is important.

      “The institution of marriage offers social, psychological, and health benefits that are denied to same-sex couples.”

      Civil unions provide the same benefits (how is there any advantage by tagging on the name marriage) so how are these benefits denied.

      “By denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the state reinforces and perpetuates the stigma historically associated with homosexuality.”

      The lack of a marriage tag is not what has created the stigma.

      “Homosexuality remains stigmatized, and this stigma has negative consequences.”

      Why no suggestion that homosexuality itself may have “negative consequences”?

      “"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."

      These are all social aspects which are covered equally by civil unions. There is ample scientific basis for distinguishing at the personal level because we have two sames in one corner and two differents in the other.

      The last sentence left me scratching my head. “However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual.”

      Firstly , what are “lesbian and gay parents”? (at least one would be a foster parent and there would be a another parent off in the wings somewhere - the other may have been involved in a heterosexual relationship which makes their gayness questionable).

      And what does all this show other than it’s not genetic (which we know anyway) and other relationships outside the ‘family’ group can have more influence than the ‘home’ sphere (which is also well known) both of which strongly reinforce the idea of sexuality as a choice.


      Delete
    56. "So what? How does that contradict Newton's law of gravity?"

      I didn't say it did.

      Delete
    57. MalcolmS8:34 AM

      Yes, you did.

      Delete
    58. RalphH 15/093:30 PM

      “Kate one of that will matter to Ralph as he doesn't accept any science that goes against what he wants to be true. Despite him saying he accepts science.” (Stranger2:49 AM)

      Stranger, firstly I had to decipher what on earth you were on about (one = none - not actually scientifically correct). Secondly, there you go again - presenting your opinion of what you think are other people’s ideas as fact. That’s definitely not scientific - it’s more mindless gossip.

      I’m quite capable of thinking and talking for myself and will continue to do so.

      Delete
    59. RalphH 15/093:32 PM

      “*"As pointed out, your “reality” involves deception and pretense."*

“

      Two words: Mercurian. Cattle.” (LJS5:07 AM)

      LJ, this would actually make more sense from your oft repeated ridiculing campaign POV if you wrote it as “Mercurian cattle.” That said, there is no deception or pretense involved as you would realise if you expanded you knowledge of the writer and the context.


      Delete
    60. "I do believe that sexuality is a choice..."
      "I don’t believe that sexual orientation (or a tendency towards feelings of attraction towards one’s own gender) is a choice..."
      "...both of which strongly reinforce the idea of sexuality as a choice.
"

      Ralph, what are you talking about? Choice, not a choice and then back to choice again! No wonder you can't see your own bigotry, you can't even follow your own argument.

      Ralph, only a really nasty, bitter, judgemental and ignorant twit could have written this. "Firstly , what are “lesbian and gay parents”? (at least one would be a foster parent and there would be a another parent off in the wings somewhere - the other may have been involved in a heterosexual relationship which makes their gayness questionable)."

      So step/foster/adoptive parents aren't real parents? Why would anyone have to have been in heterosexual relationship to produce a child? Even if they were, why does it make their "gayness questionable"? Why do you think you have the right to question someone's "gayness" (it is with revulsion that I used your term)? Ever heard of a turkey baster? Ever heard of IVF? Ever heard of adoption? Ever heard of people being bi-sexual and/or moving along the sexual continuum at various stages in their life? Your conclusions are totally lacking in logic and any understanding of human sexuality.

      But what it all boils down to is that you don't like homosexual sex - hence your repeated reference to "complementary relationships". In the same way that you don't get to determine what marriage means for others, you don't get to determine what is complementary for others. How is that so hard for you to understand?

      Why do think you have any right to judge the sex lives of others? If you really believe that individuals have the right to judge the sex lives of others can you please provide details of your sex life so we can all pass judgement? If not, why won't you? If sex is so important in deciding who can do what in life and you feel you are a good person, who has access to human rights that others don't, then there can be nothing in your sex life that you should be afraid of sharing? Surely you must feel secure in the virtuousness of your own sex life to share it with the rest of us?

      Delete
    61. RalphH 15/096:55 PM

      “*"It does ‘harm’ to the concept of marriage as being a complementary conjunction - it destroys it"*

“

      No it doesn't. Two people of the same sex can be complementary.” (Stranger2:44 AM)

      Not as to their essential natures and being (which is what marriage is all about).




      “The only people spreading deception are those like you. Gay people can't have what you call a true marriage relationship because they are not attract to the opposite sex.”

      There’s nothing deceptive about it Stranger. You almost even got it right - a same-sex relationship is not a marriage relationship. Many marriage relationships are not “true”/ideal because they lack love and commitment. Some same-sex relationships do have love (not marriage love but a deep friendship) and commitment but are not marriages because they lack the essential complementarity with their partner.

      


“No Ralph that's your reality.”
      I’m sure there are elements of self-deception and pretense in my reality too even though I work hard at exposing and eradicating them.

      


“What you believe has no bearing on reality unless you can show they are true.”

      The first part is correct but it’s not because I can’t “show they are true”. Anything that’s true is true regardless of what anyone thinks about it or their ability to ‘show’ it to be true. Reality is reality, period.

      Delete
    62. "When Galileo, Newton and Darwin announced their Earth shattering discoveries they did not have consensus - but they were true." Well derr... They were the first, or among the first, to discover those things. How can you have consensus on your own? As time goes on their their theories (laymen's use of the term, not scientific) have been proven by others and so we have consensus.

      Delete
    63. "Not as to their essential natures and being (which is what marriage is all about)."

      Yes they can.

      "There’s nothing deceptive about it Stranger."

      Yes there is, you are telling lies and falsehoods.

      "Some same-sex relationships do have love (not marriage love but a deep friendship)"

      You are the arrogant shit aren't, telling gay people how they experience love. Seeing you have no idea about psychology nor any evidence to back up you stupid claims why should we accept your bullshit?

      "I’m sure there are elements of self-deception and pretense in my reality too even though I work hard at exposing and eradicating them."

      Elements? Your whole reality is a self-deception and pretense and you do not do anything to dispel them, please stop lying.

      "Anything that’s true is true regardless of what anyone thinks about it or their ability to ‘show’ it to be true. "

      No, you must show it is true for it to be true. Claiming that there is a tea-pot orbiting Mars is not true unless one can show it. Similarly claiming God exists is not true unless you can show God exists. Claims are just claims, not reality.

      Delete
    64. "That said, there is no deception or pretense involved as you would realise if you expanded you knowledge of the writer and the context."

      So where are the cattle on Mercury Ralph? Deception and pretense is all you have.

      Delete
    65. "Yes, you did."

      No I didn't. All i said was that Newton was not completely correct. You are just too stupid to even understand simple sentences made from simple words.

      Delete
  9. Mal: They should be "allowed" to do what they wish. Just don't call it "marriage" because it's not.

    If anything and everything can be called a science, why can't anything and everything be called a marriage?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Silly Terrence

      Only Professor Toolie is qualified to opine WRT the "science of marriage"

      rolmao!

      Delete
    2. According to the Oxford dictionary, one of the definitions is:

      "a combination or mixture of elements: her music is a marriage of funk, jazz, and hip hop."

      Delete
    3. Merriam-Webster:

      "(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."


      Collins dictionary doesn't even mention gender:

      "the state or relationship of living together in a legal partnership
      the legal union or contract made by two people to live together
      (as modifier) ⇒ "marriage licence", "marriage certificate"

      the religious or legal ceremony formalizing this union; wedding

      a close or intimate union, relationship, etc ⇒ "a marriage of ideas"

      (in certain card games, such as bezique, pinochle) the king and queen of the same suit"

      Of course, we understand that your grandfather's dictionary says otherwise, but that's the risk you take when relying on an old book for all your knowledge.

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS11:08 PM

      LJS: "Of course, we understand that your grandfather's dictionary says otherwise, but that's the risk you take when relying on an old book for all your knowledge"

      Does it? What does it say? You haven't a clue. I have not even defined marriage or looked up its definition. The concept *marriage* is far more than its definition as are all concepts. That's a matter of epistemology and something you are simply unqualified to speculate on.

      For example I would define *man* as the rational animal/being. This does not preclude the fact that he has ten toes, a nose, lungs and a spleen - all of which are included in the concept but not the definition. You would not have a clue. You are the sort of lunatic who would define man as the *featherless biped* and think you were being amusing.

      Handy hint for idiot pirates: Go marry your bosun, cabin boy, plank walker, dog, parrot or any number of same [can't discriminate against polygamists and bestialitists can we?] and when you have had a decade of marital bliss you can return and enlighten the morons on this site who haven't a clue as to what constitutes marriage. Hopefully it will demonstrate to their delusional minds why "marriage equality" is a pile of crap and why "marriage" is actually between a man and a woman and is a valid, objective concept.

      Delete
    5. "marriage" is actually between a man and a woman and is a valid, objective concept.

      Marriage is between complimentary entities toolie.

      You know what an entity is, don't you? ;)

      Delete
    6. For example I would define *man* as the rational animal/being.

      You must be a "man" then. ;)

      Delete
    7. [can't discriminate against polygamists and bestialitists can we?]

      Awwww... boring.

      I know; lets discriminate against nobjockeys! ;)

      lol

      Delete
    8. 100 years ago, the concept of "U.S. President" would have excluded the possibility of a black man.

      The concept of "voter" used to exclude women.

      In Saudi Arabia, the concept of driving cars doesn't include women.

      It is no more rational/valid/objective to assume that homosexuals are necessarily excluded from the concept of "marriage" than it is to assume that indigenous people are excluded from the concept of voting (even though there was a time when that was not legally permitted here).

      If the concept of "marriage" is assumed to include the notion that it is a legal contract, then dogs, parrots and cabin boys are excluded from a marriage for the same reason that they cannot enter into a business partnership - they are not legally allowed to enter into a contract. However, there is no more reason to assume that homosexuals can't marry than there is to assume that they can't enter into a legal business partnership.

      ". . . when you have had a decade of marital bliss you can return and enlighten the morons on this site who haven't a clue as to what constitutes marriage."

      Check in a decade with some of the gay couples who ARE marrying in (Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark,France, Iceland, Netherlands,New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden or Uruguay. Of course, there are plenty of heterosexual marriages which don't last for that long, so the concept that marriage necessarily implies "a decade of marital bliss" is quite silly.

      Delete
    9. "Hopefully it will demonstrate to their delusional minds why "marriage equality" is a pile of crap and why "marriage" is actually between a man and a woman and is a valid, objective concept."

      Actually it's a valid subjective concept that we can define as we wish.

      Delete
    10. MalcolmS7:21 AM

      "Actually it's a valid subjective concept that we can define as we wish"

      If marriage is a "subjective concept" then anything goes. If same sex couples can marry then so can man/dog/woman and so can six women. The sky's the limit. After all dopey all you have to do is "wish" - you don't have to take into account facts or objectivity.

      However, men and women are different in fundamentally different ways bequeathed to them, not by their "wishes," but by nature - differences both physical and psychological. It is *that* which determines the proper status of the relationship we call marriage.

      Delete
    11. MalcolmS7:59 AM

      Furthermore Andrew,

      If marriage is a subjective concept, then, what possible objection could you have to arranged marriages and child brides?

      After all, all you have to do is "wish" and you're Muhammad and Aisha - married when she was six and consummated when she was nine and he was 53!

      Delete
    12. "If marriage is a "subjective concept" then anything goes."

      Indeed if that is society's wish. You really don't understand the difference between subjective and objective, much like Ralph.

      "what possible objection could you have to arranged marriages and child brides?"

      Informed consent. You may need to find out what informed means.

      Delete
    13. MalcolmS7:26 PM

      Stranger: "Indeed if that is society's wish".

      You have just tried to justify arranged marriages and child brides. Which is what I warned you of. Unless you can show there is something objective about marriage there is no way out for you.

      "Informed consent. You may need to find out what informed means"

      Same problem again. Without 'informed' and 'consent' having an objective meaning they have zero meaning.

      Your position is in very deep do-dos and, since you think all the mind's products are subjective, you can't even know that!

      Delete
    14. "You have just tried to justify arranged marriages and child brides."

      No I didn't. I wrote 'Indeed if that is society's wish.' I didn't say anything about the practices being good or bad. You really are stupid.

      "Same problem again"

      Can you define same, problem and again as you obviously don't use normal dictionary definitions or you wouldn't write such stupid comments.

      "Your position is in very deep do-dos

      No it isn't, but you don't have the intelligence or knowledge to understand why.

      Delete
    15. MalcolmS8:12 PM

      Stranger: "I didn't say anything about the practices being good or bad"

      Exactly my point.

      As a subjectivist there is no way you can morally condemn arranged marriages and child brides.

      You have relegated yourself to the cognitive status of a plank of wood.

      Delete
    16. "Exactly my point."

      Fuck me you are thick, your point was "You have just tried to justify arranged marriages and child brides." Which anyone more intelligent than an amoeba would have seen I did not do.

      "You have relegated yourself to the cognitive status of a plank of wood"

      No that's still you dopey.

      Delete
    17. However, men and women are different in fundamentally different ways bequeathed to them, not by their "wishes," but by nature - differences both physical and psychological. It is *that* which determines the proper status of the relationship we call marriage.

      I thought you didnt like conservatives tooly.

      Obviously cognitive dissonance is another science in nobjectivist land.

      Delete
    18. MalcolmS7:40 PM

      zedinhisbigloonyflyingtoolshead: "I thought you didnt[sic] like conservatives"

      Some of my best friends are conservatives.

      But their political philosophy is false.

      Delete
    19. lol

      Stupid is a sci.. Oh wait.

      We've done that one too...

      Delete
    20. "If marriage is a subjective concept, then, what possible objection could you have to arranged marriages and child brides?"

      Nice attempt at changing the subject. We can approve of some marriages and disapprove of others without asserting that the ones which we disapprove of are not included in "the concept of marriage". You and Ralph can disapprove of gay marriages, I can disapprove of arranged marriages, but none of that alters the question of whether such a relationship can be described as a "marriage".

      Delete
    21. MalcolmS7:21 AM

      LJS: "We can approve of some marriages and disapprove of others without asserting that the ones which we disapprove of are not included in "the concept of marriage""

      Sure we can! Or we can go fly a kite!

      However, if you regard marriage as a subjective concept there would be no way to distinguish a proper marriage from an improper marriage. That's the point I was making.

      "You and Ralph can disapprove of gay marriages, I can disapprove of arranged marriages, but none of that alters the question of whether such a relationship can be described as a "marriage""

      Actually, I disapprove of both. However, the issue is not whether a Muslim calls an arranged marriage a marriage but whether it is "proper" and should be enshrined in law. Same with SS marriage.

      Delete
  10. Mal: ... the indigenous are stupid?

    It's obvious Kate does not think that. But keep going, and she'll have to change her mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS11:28 PM

      Oh.. I dunno!

      She already has indigenous Terry as an example.

      Or, were you born in LA-la land?

      You seem to have a lot of spare time on your hands lately!

      Don't give up the government job.

      Delete
    2. Malcolm, what does "She already has indigenous Terry as an example" mean?

      Delete
    3. Kate: Malcolm, what does "She already has indigenous Terry as an example" mean?

      You probably missed the session in which Mal declared that he doesn’t do questions. And so I’ll answer for him, if you don’t mind.

      Mal doesn’t ‘mean’ anything. The old bloke is an automaton. He has no capacity for original thought. Anything you say to him is a stimulus which elicits an automatic response. The response is usually in the form of objectivist ideology. But every now and then he ‘tilts’ in the way of a pinball machine. And something unfathomable plops out of him. I think this ‘indigenous Terry’ thing may be an instance of it.

      Delete
    4. Thanks Terry! Malcolm has always baffled me and I rarely attempt a conversation with him because of his refusal to answer questions. In a conversation above he did the same, while demanding I answer his and then having a go at me because I actually provided an answer - it seems it was an answer he didn't like - hence his pathetic attempt to insult me. I think I'll go back to my previous stance of reading his posts, but not engaging. Cheers.

      Delete
    5. MalcolmS7:04 PM

      Kate: "Malcolm, what does "She already has indigenous Terry as an example" mean?"

      I was referring to your previous false use of 'indigenous.' The concept has no racial connotations whatsoever. I am indigenous - that does not make me the member of a particular "race." From his previous posts I presume Terry is likewise.

      Delete
    6. Malcolm, I didn't link indigenous and race in any way - I've never used those words together in any post. You are expert in finding things that don't exist and also making links where none exist - your assumption that I was calling indigenous people stupid is a classic example. I until today, I knew nothing of your cultural background or Terry's - your point is meaningless. Cherio.

      Delete
    7. MalcolmS8:52 PM

      Kate, I did not assume that you were calling indigenous people stupid. I merely asked the question. Your point is meaningless. Cherio.

      Delete
  11. MalcomS wrote: "But he is far less dangerous than trash like Rudd or Gillard who were the first in my memory to be opposed to freedom of speech/press. That is unforgivable. They are simply dangerous thugs."

    Have you forgotten that Abbott went to law to force Bob Ellis to pulp a book because he and Costello were offended by the fact that Ellis repeated a story about their university days?

    It seems that a right wing journalist telling malicous lies about indigenous people is OK but a left wing journalist repeating a malicious lie about Liberal grandees is not allowable.

    Your "dangerous thugs" label just reflects your political prejudice.

    I recall that the heroine of conservatives - Margaret Thatcher - passed a law to limit free speech about homosexuality.

    It seems that when people like Bolt talk about free speech they only mean free speech for the conservative version of political correctness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS7:48 PM

      Robin: "Have you forgotten that Abbott went to law to force Bob Ellis to pulp a book because he and Costello were offended by the fact that Ellis repeated a story about their university days?"

      Why link me with Abbott and conservatives? He and they do not represent my views and I do not vote for them. In fact I voted informal in the Reps this election.

      Also, anti freedom of speech activities by government has nothing to do with, and is not the same as, legal defamation suits by private citizens which is what that affair was about. The former is improper behaviour by government and the latter is an appropriate matter for private legal resolution. You have wilfully conflated the two for your own obfuscation and purpose.

      "Your "dangerous thugs" label just reflects your political prejudice"

      The inquisition of Bolt was action commensurate with a totalitarian regime as was the recent attempt to muzzle the Murdoch press. Gillard and her henchmen were nothing less than thugs and goons in the entire affair. I have added you to the list of members of their lynch mob.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS wrote: "Why link me with Abbott and conservatives?"

      I am not, I am simply responding to your claim that the Labor government were the first to attack free speech - I am pointing out that Abbott has a track record in muzzling speech.

      MalcolmS wrote: "The inquisition of Bolt was action commensurate with a totalitarian regime "

      Oh, dear "inquisition".

      Private citizens brings a journalist, who had spread untrue information about them, to court using a long standing law supported by both sides of politics.

      According to you, if the journalist is a left winger then that is perfectly OK, but if the journalist is a right winger then it is an "inquisition". Nice double standard.

      MalcolmS wrote: "I have added you to the list of members of their lynch mob."

      Arbitrarily added me that that list? Or do you imagine that there is some kind of reasoning behind you preposterous statement?

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS9:13 PM

      Robin: "MalcolmS wrote: "Why link me with Abbott and conservatives?" I am not"

      You did, and also to Thatcher and Bolt.

      "I am pointing out that Abbott has a track record in muzzling speech"

      Your example does not apply. "Free speech" can only be eliminated/restricted by government. Ellis was not prevented from publishing anything he chose by government. The plaintiffs in that case were in their capacity as four private citizens: Abbott, Costello and their wives. The plaintiffs had to prove that Ellis' claims were: 1. false, 2. caused reputation/commercial damage. The issue was NOT the issue of speech. The issue was what was the commercial cost of Ellis' lies. If either 1. or 2. could not be proved by the plaintiffs they lose. They won. Ellis then republished without the lies.

      I am well aware of conservative governments banning books in my youth - state governments - and that's as bad and as thuggee as Gillard. However that's entirely different to your example.

      Delete
    5. Where, exactly have I linked you with conservatives, Abbott, Bolt and Thatcher? I have made no link whatsoever between them and you. You are imagining things.

      Now you claim that there was an "inquisition" against Bolt, worthy of a totalitarian regime. You have to explain how this differs to the Abbott and Costello case against Ellis.

      MalcolmS wrote "The plaintiffs in that case were in their capacity as four private citizens"

      The plaintiffs in Bolt's case were also private citizens. So what is the difference?

      Delete
    6. Incidentally, the Abbott Costello Defamation action has nothing to do with commercial cost, it was about damage to reputation and injured feelings.

      Delete
    7. And as far as I am aware Bolt was free to republish without the lies.

      Delete
    8. MalcolmS12:26 AM

      Robin: "the Abbott Costello Defamation action has nothing to do with commercial cost, it was about damage to reputation and injured feelings"

      Incorrect. Without reference to commercial cost there is no way to compute damages. The point you are evading is that Abbott etc were not acting in their capacity as politicians. Any citizen can take the same action.

      "And as far as I am aware Bolt was free to republish without the lies"

      I followed that case and read the "offending" article and it was excellent. [I still have a copy] There were no lies. Only the hurt feelings of the lefty precious who had been otherwise demolished. As they had been by Windshuttle. That's the problem with anti-vilification legislation. It is an authoritarian doctrine which explicitly violates the principle of free speech. The plaintiffs were insiders and acting at the behest of government interests. Bolt was in a political show trial.

      Delete
    9. MalcolmS, I have read the judgement and it makes no reference to commercial costs and in fact explicitly says there is no economic loss. It was damage to reputation and injury to feelings plus a little extra for not apologising and pulling the book in the first place.

      Read the judgement.

      Now if you had followed the Bolt case you will know that Bolts lawyers agreed right at the beginning that Bolt had got his facts wrong.

      So uou are apparently saying that it is an excellent article even though the facts were wrong.

      Delete
    10. "Free speech" can only be eliminated/restricted by government.

      Bullshit is also a science in nobjectivist land.

      Delete
    11. So uou are apparently saying that it is an excellent article even though the facts were wrong.

      Yep: Thats our toolie all right...

      Delete
    12. MalcolmS wrote: "The plaintiffs were insiders and acting at the behest of government interests. Bolt was in a political show trial."

      Nobody told me it was loony right wing conspiracy theory day.

      Delete
    13. Nobody told me it was loony right wing conspiracy theory day.

      That's not all they're keeping from you you know...

      Delete
    14. "Without reference to commercial cost there is no way to compute damages. The point you are evading is that Abbott etc were not acting in their capacity as politicians."

      The finding is here:
      http://australianpolitics.com/1999/03/05/abbott-costello-ellis-defamation-action.html

      The complaint was the suggestion that Abbott and/or Costello defected from the Labour Party & became Liberals in return for sexual favours. The allegation is found to be false, but the damage is obviously connected to their work as politicians.

      Bill Hayden ". . . felt that he was invited to consider that the woman was “a schemer” who caused two men to betray their principles to go to bed with her. He felt the story would be politically damaging for all of them."

      One of the issues raised in the case was ". . . the fact that such rumours are started, though without foundation, (he, perhaps unwisely, gave some examples) would deter people of talent and repute from entering political life. The price may seem too high."
      How would that be relevant if the case had nothing to do with their politics?


      I quite like this part in the judgement (quoting another judge):
      In my opinion, it would be open to the jury to conclude that a reasonable or right-thinking member of the community would take the view that religious or ethical principles, as currently understood or propounded, impose too high or too rigid a standard of sexual morality and that the standards by which the community judges sexual associations are, if not lower and more flexible, at least different."

      According to the judge, there IS the possibility of calculating damages without reference to commercial cost:
      The law requires ". . . that there be an “appropriate and rational relationship between the relevant harm and the amount of damages awarded” and that the judge “take into consideration the general range of damages for non-economic loss in personal injury awards …” "

      ". The amount of damages must be sufficient, not only to compensate for wounded feelings, but also to vindicate the plaintiff’s reputation."

      In considering the damages awarded to Costello, the judge found that "His political prospects were at risk of greater damage."

      Can you point to ANYTHING in the judgement which refers to commercial cost, Mal?

      Delete
    15. MalcolmS12:14 AM

      My point is that if there is a finding of "vilification" only that is perfectly legitimate in a proper society which recognises free speech and the accused should be found not guilty. However, if the accused speech is false AND causes economic harm, then, he is guilty[of economic harm]. If the accused speech is TRUE and causes economic harm he is innocent.

      That was the basis of the political/legal philosophy underlying defamation law in the US as originally interpreted from the constitution - the US being the most consistent free speech exponent. If that is no longer the case in the US and here[I don't know and am not a lawyer] then it should be restored and "vilification" abolished.

      Nobody should go to prison purely for expressed opinion or "hurting feelings" if that is all he has done.

      Delete
    16. My point is that you were wrong.
      Again.

      Delete
    17. MalcolmS7:17 AM

      And you are wrong.
      Again.

      Delete
    18. I was at Monash with Peter and Tim Costello and knew both well. They were both in the Evangelical Union. I was pretty entrenched atheist then. Peter was charismatic from the start and Tim was just as morally driven then as now. They were both formidable, impressive and destined for the greatness they have both achieved.
      Peter's political conversion must be related to an assault he suffered at the hands of another mate of mine, the anarchist Red Bingham. Red lives around the corner from me and our daughters are very close. Small world.
      Peter was never a member of the ALP Club merely a fellow traveller. His drift to the Right was simply a matter of maturation and the assault. There was nothing sinister in it. It was a natural progression of many of us and accelerated and deepened by the assault. I hope this helps.
      The Dickster

      Delete
    19. "They were both formidable, impressive and destined for the greatness they have both achieved."

      Neither of them are great.

      Delete
    20. I'm not wrong Mal. You said there was no way to decide damages if there is no commercial cost. the judge in the case did precisely the same thing that you said was impossible.

      Delete
    21. MalcolmS6:50 AM

      I did not say it was "impossible." That's not what I said at all. Can't you read?

      Delete
    22. Mal: I did not say it was "impossible."

      You suck at the science of arguing. Your ‘there is no way to’ and Pirate’s ‘impossible’ say the same thing.

      Delete
    23. MalcolmS7:16 PM

      No, they don't say the same thing - so keep sucking.

      Delete
    24. MalcolmS7:30 PM

      BTW Terry

      "Impossible" implies 'certainty' - which you reject.

      Fallacy of the stolen concept.

      LOL Hypocrite!

      Delete
    25. MalcolmS7:31 PM

      Furthermore Terry

      Rhetoric is a 'science.'

      ROFLMAO

      Delete
    26. 1. not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc.
      2. unable to be done, performed, effected, etc.: an impossible assignment.

      In what way does "no way to compute" not mean any of the above?

      Delete
    27. "Furthermore Terry

      Rhetoric is a 'science.'

      ROFLMAO"

      According to your definition of science "An 'art or practice' which is pursued rationally and systematically *is* a science." rhetoric can be a science.

      Delete
    28. MalcolmS1:11 AM

      So, you agree dopey :-)

      Delete
    29. Rhetoric is a science in nobjectivist land

      fixed it for ya.

      Delete
    30. Are synonyms not a science in Mal-land?

      Delete
    31. Mal: Rhetoric is a science.

      You’re just making a pathetic attempt to elevate the status of the crap you’ve spent your life studying. But the truth is that rhetoric, like music, is just something we humans like to do. Calling it a science is like calling gossiping a science.

      Science is about explaining why we like things like rhetoric and music. What compels humans to want to persuade other humans all the time? Why do particular sound waves evoke strong emotions in us?

      Delete
    32. Mal: No, they don't say the same thing - so keep sucking.

      Childish, predictable and pathetic. Nothing quite so boring as a know-it-all with zero capacity for wit.

      Delete
    33. MalcolmS6:30 PM

      "Childish, predictable and pathetic. Nothing quite so boring as a know-it-all with zero capacity for wit"

      Spoken by the expert in the field.

      Delete
  12. MalcolmS5:50 PM

    Robin: "So uou[sic] are apparently saying that it is an excellent article even though the facts were wrong"

    It was an excellent article and was factually correct.

    The issue his lawyers conceded was an error[as in not a lie], was trivial detail and in no way detracted from the truth of the article.

    That a newspaper columnist can be hauled up before a court of law and convicted for hurting the feelings of a few of his readers is obscene and belongs in a totalitarian regime. All anti-vilification legislation should be axed.

    That's all I have to say on the matter to you.

    If you are still interested in discussion perhaps you could raise it with Merkel and Finkelstein at your next Gestapo meeting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was an excellent article and was factually correct.

      The issue his lawyers conceded was an error


      So: Not factually correct then.
      Stupidity is a science in nobjectivism land.

      If you are still interested in discussion perhaps you could raise it with Merkel and Finkelstein at your next Gestapo meeting.

      Whup, .. Oh wait.

      We did "Nazi Meteorology is a science" last week didnt we?

      lol

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS8:17 PM

      zedinhisbigloonyflyingtoolshead: "We did "Nazi Meteorology is a science" last week didnt[sic] we?"

      No, "we" didn't :)

      Delete
  13. Meanwhile in other election results it seems we are finally in for some good news. Indi looks like it has given Sophie Mirabella the boot - nice one Indi!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Katie, Dickie

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS9:27 PM

      Kevin Rudd claims victory on election night: "I’m also proud of the fact that despite the pundits we appear to have held every seat in Queensland"

      Meanwhile, after Rudd leaves and the waffle stops: Labor has conceded defeat in Capricornia, which is a seat it had held since 1998... Labor is also set to lose Petrie, north-east of Brisbane, leaving the party with only six of the 30 seats in Queensland.

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-13/labor-concedes-in-capricornia/4955660

      The Labor Party said this was a referendum on Tony Abbott and the Newman Government in Queensland. Sure was.

      Delete
  14. I'm excited about the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party getting into the Senate. Will they try to stop Tony from riding his bicycle?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Budgie smuggling is a science in nobjectivist land

      Delete
    2. Tony's bike addiction is the best thing about him.

      Delete
    3. Turn back the bikes!

      Delete
  15. http://www.australianmotoringenthusiastparty.org.au/ricky_muir_looking_set_to_take_a_seat_in_the_senate

    With a photo of our new senator "when he's not throwing Kangaroo-Poo at this brother..." (sic)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Budgie smuggling is a science in nobjectivist land

      Delete
  16. Mal: All anti-vilification legislation should be axed.

    You’re right, twerp. But Batman’s little friend didn’t ask you for this opinion. He wants to know why you have double standards. If you don’t want to answer him, then allow me:

    Robin: Yes, Mal is applying double standards. That’s because he’s a one-eyed git. Next question.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Double standards are a science

    ReplyDelete

Followers