PDA

View Full Version : How politically correct racist patronizing attitudes hurt ordinary Aborigines



Pages : 1 [2]

Goughfather
14-07-2014, 11:44 PM
No university should focus on attracting students of particular nationality! This is nonsense. You want to study? study the way other students do!

No university should be a hostile place for students of a particular (minority) group either. It is clear from the attitude that you display yourself and say is also present in other faculty members that your university has a very poor attitude towards Aboriginal students.

MichaelBaron
14-07-2014, 11:57 PM
Charming. With this attitude, is it any wonder that your university has trouble attracting Aboriginal students?

You have a funny idea about Universities...have you ever been to one? Sorry to ask but since you are not posting under your real name and I have no idea who you are, makes me wonder...
The primary responsibility of a lecturer (or any other educator) is to treat all students in his care equally.

MichaelBaron
14-07-2014, 11:58 PM
No university should be a hostile place for students of a particular (minority) group either. It is clear from the attitude that you display yourself and say is also present in other faculty members that your university has a very poor attitude towards Aboriginal students.

Why hostile? How am I discriminating against them? I do not even care (as stated previously) who is Indigenous and who is not.

MichaelBaron
14-07-2014, 11:59 PM
Is that a precis of your teaching philosophy?

Why is it so amazing? You've got a different approach? or are you suggesting special assessment designed for Indigenous students? Sorry, do not quite get your point.

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2014, 12:16 AM
I think Michael is just deliberately imitating another poster here and trolling. Anyway there is now no chance of what he is saying about unemployment payment rates being taken seriously so it really doesn't matter if he is being serious or not.

Rincewind
15-07-2014, 12:32 AM
Why is it so amazing? You've got a different approach? or are you suggesting special assessment designed for Indigenous students? Sorry, do not quite get your point.

I don't think the "one size fits all" is at all reasonable as a philosophy.

For example I had a recent case where a student broke his right arm during semester. So I made copies of my worked examples available to that student so that they didn't need to make copious notes during lectures. Other students did not have access to these notes because it is better in general if students take their own notes of worked examples as it forces them to engage a little more with the techniques used in the example problems.

So no I don't think that it is a problem to cater for the individual needs of students where it is reasonable to do so and where it improves expected student outcomes. Of course this has to be balanced with the available teaching resources and the cost of makes such arrangements to the level of service provided to the whole student body.

The whole issue which you have been skirting around is that the indigenous support issues we have been discussing is simply comes down to two questions:

do indigenous people have greater need than the general population?
is there a reasonable argument that society is responsible for servicing those needs?

If you answer yes to both those question then we are just talking about different strategies for applying resources to the problems. You can argue that current schemes not an effective use of resources. However all we are talking about is how best to fix the problem with the available resources.

MichaelBaron
15-07-2014, 03:13 AM
I don't think the "one size fits all" is at all reasonable as a philosophy.

For example I had a recent case where a student broke his right arm during semester. So I made copies of my worked examples available to that student so that they didn't need to make copious notes during lectures. Other students did not have access to these notes because it is better in general if students take their own notes of worked examples as it forces them to engage a little more with the techniques used in the example problems.


So no I don't think that it is a problem to cater for the individual needs of students where it is reasonable to do so and where it improves expected student outcomes. Of course this has to be balanced with the available teaching resources and the cost of makes such arrangements to the level of service provided to the whole student body.

The whole issue which you have been skirting around is that the indigenous support issues we have been discussing is simply comes down to two questions:

do indigenous people have greater need than the general population?
is there a reasonable argument that society is responsible for servicing those needs?

If you answer yes to both those question then we are just talking about different strategies for applying resources to the problems. You can argue that current schemes not an effective use of resources. However all we are talking about is how best to fix the problem with the available resources.

Ok, thank you for breaking it down into simple questions.
My answers are
1. No
2. Consequently No

1. No -because if someone has greater needs than others, it does not matter whether he/she is indigenous or not.
2. No because I do not feel society has greater responsibility towards the indigenous people than others.

Re your example of student with broken arm. Good on you! I would do the same thing. However, I think its important to distiniguish between ethnisity and disabilities. If your questions would be ''do people with disabilities have greatern needs than general population'' and ''should those needs be addressed'' - my answers would definitely be Yes and Yes.

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2014, 03:49 AM
Actual experience being a summer work experience, and surprise surprise the whole department took with a grain of salt the input of a wet behind the ears intern and declined to change everything on his say-so.

Again, the above socialist misses the point: the bureaucrats were not even interested in finding out whether minimum wages laws hurt or helped real flesh and blood people. Rather, their bureaucratic positions just depended on there being minimum wage laws to implement.

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2014, 03:54 AM
Your ignorance truly saddens me, but is probably typical of those living an existence that is sheltered from seeing the disadvantage that exists in remote Aboriginal communities.
This implies that Aborigenes in major cities from wealthy families are disadvantaged, how exactly? I am also unaware of any wall that keeps Aborigines in remote communities.

Leftard race-baiters like the above also presuppose that any disadvantage is ipso facto due to discrimination, with no need to present actual evidence. Yet Aborigines like Prof. Langton and Noel Pearson blame the welfare system as rewarding sloth and making work less comparatively rewarding.

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2014, 03:57 AM
The primary responsibility of a lecturer (or any other educator) is to treat all students in his care equally.
To normal people, that makes this lecturer a non-racist. In the topsy-turvy world of GF and other race-baiters, colour-blind and equal treatment of all students is racist.

Vlad
15-07-2014, 04:43 AM
The paper that I mentioned earlier showed that, while many aboriginals have broken hands (using language of Rincewind), they are equivalent to some whites who have broken hands. Now the suggestion is that rather than helping only aboriginals, to help everybody who has broken hands. That obviously was not liked by aboriginal groups.

Desmond
15-07-2014, 07:27 AM
There were no questions about my facts. I was asked not to touch the issue due to ''sensitivity'' :).
Majority of academics in the business faculty is as sick of wasting resources on a particular ethnic group as I am.As demonstrated above, many of the things you hold to be facts are not, and perhaps your colleagues were disinclined to spend their time offering you an education.

Desmond
15-07-2014, 07:33 AM
Again, the above socialist misses the point: the bureaucrats were not even interested in finding out whether minimum wages laws hurt or helped real flesh and blood people. Rather, their bureaucratic positions just depended on there being minimum wage laws to implement.Translation: the department was disinclined or too busy to drop everything, and turn the place upside down on the basis of a johnny-come-lately intern. Perhaps if Sowell had worked there for more than a matter of weeks he would have been able to effect change. Perhaps he would have been able to effect change at another time or in another department. But no all he has is a few weeks of "experience" in one section of one department and a lifetime of talking about it.

Rincewind
15-07-2014, 10:32 AM
Ok, thank you for breaking it down into simple questions.
My answers are
1. No
2. Consequently No

1. No -because if someone has greater needs than others, it does not matter whether he/she is indigenous or not.
2. No because I do not feel society has greater responsibility towards the indigenous people than others.

So it is perfectly fine to discriminate based on race since that is what has happened for the last 200 years but when it comes to helping someone based on race that is verboten?

Rincewind
15-07-2014, 10:38 AM
The paper that I mentioned earlier showed that, while many aboriginals have broken hands (using language of Rincewind), they are equivalent to some whites who have broken hands. Now the suggestion is that rather than helping only aboriginals, to help everybody who has broken hands. That obviously was not liked by aboriginal groups.

Vlad the main reason that many indigenous people are disadvantaged as a group is raced based discrimination. To try and fixed the problem on non-race criteria is a noble thought but unlikely to as effective since the disadvantages that indigenous people face have many specifics which don't apply to the wider population and any system that is implemented has to fight against the racist elements of society.

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2014, 10:55 AM
Translation: the department was disinclined or too busy to drop everything, and turn the place upside down on the basis of a johnny-come-lately intern. Perhaps if Sowell had worked there for more than a matter of weeks he would have been able to effect change. Perhaps he would have been able to effect change at another time or in another department. But no all he has is a few weeks of "experience" in one section of one department and a lifetime of talking about it.
That time working for the government showed him that bureaucrats are just as selfish as anyone else, so will help themselves rather than care about whether their policies help those they are meant to help. Then he has investigated these issue for decades. His detail book Knowledge and Decisions (http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-And-Decisions-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465037380) on public choice theory was praised by the Nobel Laureate in that area, James M. Buchanan, and two other laureates, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2014, 10:57 AM
The paper that I mentioned earlier showed that, while many aboriginals have broken hands (using language of Rincewind), they are equivalent to some whites who have broken hands. Now the suggestion is that rather than helping only aboriginals, to help everybody who has broken hands.
Seems eminently fair of course.


That obviously was not liked by aboriginal groups.
Not surprising, since government benefits are a zero sum game, unlike the positive-sum game of the free market.

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2014, 11:02 AM
Vlad the main reason that many indigenous people are disadvantaged as a group is raced based discrimination.
Don't expect the above socialist to offer any evidence for this. Like all leftards, the very existence of disadvantage is ipso-facto enough evidence of discrimination. However, group disparities throughout history are the norm, not the exception, so there is no reason to blame this norm on discrimination. Indeed, in many cases, ‘advantaged’ (successful) groups like Jews in pre-WW2 Europe and Chinese in SE Asia were in no position to discriminate.

MichaelBaron
15-07-2014, 11:35 AM
As demonstrated above, many of the things you hold to be facts are not, and perhaps your colleagues were disinclined to spend their time offering you an education.
Not sure you know what education is but in case you do, you should realize that people should be entitled to their opinions and that one of the main focuses when deliverining training programs of all kids is to treat all the students equally.

MichaelBaron
15-07-2014, 11:40 AM
So it is perfectly fine to discriminate based on race since that is what has happened for the last 200 years but when it comes to helping someone based on race that is verboten?

A lot of bad things happened to many races and nationalities over the years. Should we focus on the currect situation or on events of the past? As CapaFan pointed out, nobody forces people to stay in remote communities if they do not wish to do so. I can also add that nobody forces them to drink, do drugs, sniff petrol...


Also, I suspect the reason that the Indigenous groups were so unhappy about the paper Vlad is referring to is fear that as a result, the funding may be streamlined away from them towards other organisations, who take care of all of those in need irrespectively of nationality.

Rincewind
15-07-2014, 11:51 AM
A lot of bad things happened to many races and nationalities over the years.

And continues to do so today...


Should we focus on the currect situation or on events of the past?

The current situation is indigenous people are disadvantaged as a group and the racist elements of society masquerading as free-market libertarians are trying to maintain the status quo. What we should do is expose such elements for the racists that they are.


As CapaFan pointed out, nobody forces people to stay in remote communities if they do not wish to do so. I can also add that nobody forces them to drink, do drugs, sniff petrol...

Sounds like you are content to be a part of the problem and not only do you not have any idea how to fix the problem you caused, you are simply ignoring your obligation to clean up as mess of your making.

MichaelBaron
15-07-2014, 01:23 PM
And continues to do so today...



The current situation is indigenous people are disadvantaged as a group and the racist elements of society masquerading as free-market libertarians are trying to maintain the status quo. What we should do is expose such elements for the racists that they are.



Sounds like you are content to be a part of the problem and not only do you not have any idea how to fix the problem you caused, you are simply ignoring your obligation to clean up as mess of your making.

1) In Australia today, I do not see how ''the problem continues''...(even though you may referring to worldwide issues...but thats another story all together)
2) They are not disadvantaged, asking someone to get a job and compete fairly is not a disadvantage.

A lot has been said and written about positives and negatives of colonization. No artrosities are to be justified. But if we look specifically at the contemporary Australian society, I do not see it as unfair towards indigenous people -rather unfair to others who have to pay for those extra services provided to people of a particular nationality.

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2014, 02:19 PM
The current situation is indigenous people are disadvantaged as a group and the racist elements of society masquerading as free-market libertarians are trying to maintain the status quo. What we should do is expose such elements for the racists that they are.
Translation: libertarians want to treat all races equally. But certain race-baiters depend on grievances for their careers so twist the language so that advocates of colour-blind treatment of people is "racist", and their socialist enablers like RW, GF, and rr go along with this.


Sounds like you are content to be a part of the problem and not only do you not have any idea how to fix the problem you caused, you are simply ignoring your obligation to clean up as mess of your making.
What mess did MB make exactly? You're the one keeping the problem alive with your patronizing attitudes towards Aboriginal people, as if they can't succeed without special government benefits.

Rincewind
15-07-2014, 02:30 PM
1) In Australia today, I do not see how ''the problem continues''...(even though you may referring to worldwide issues...but thats another story all together)

There is no racism in Australian society?


2) They are not disadvantaged, asking someone to get a job and compete fairly is not a disadvantage.

Closing the Gap: Tony Abbott delivers mixed report card on Indigenous disadvantage (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-12/abbott-delivers-closing-the-gap-update/5254188)
Levels of unemployment for indigenous people are particularly alarming and getting worse.


A lot has been said and written about positives and negatives of colonization. No artrosities are to be justified. But if we look specifically at the contemporary Australian society, I do not see it as unfair towards indigenous people -rather unfair to others who have to pay for those extra services provided to people of a particular nationality.

The trouble with your view is that it is contrary to the facts. Employment, education and health outcomes are all much worse for indigenous people as compared the rest of Australians. If indigenous people were truly privileged as you contend then we would expect to see better outcomes, not worse ones.

Desmond
15-07-2014, 06:06 PM
That time working for the government showed him that bureaucrats are just as selfish as anyone else,Even if he could draw those conclusions based on his short experience as a wet behind the ears intern in one corner of one department, where is the justification for extrapolating it to public servants everywhere?

Desmond
15-07-2014, 06:20 PM
Not sure you know what education is but in case you do, The day I am in need of an education from an ecommerce lecturer who can't work out how to make a persistent link to a webpage, you'll be the first to know. :lol:


you should realize that people should be entitled to their opinionsBut not their own facts. You know the "facts" that you supposedly present impartially that are anything but, and when called on it you obfuscate.


and that one of the main focuses when deliverining training programs of all kids is to treat all the students equally.No it isn't, unless you draw a distinction between delivering a training program and actually providing an education.

Goughfather
15-07-2014, 06:51 PM
Translation: libertarians want to treat all races equally. But certain race-baiters depend on grievances for their careers so twist the language so that advocates of colour-blind treatment of people is "racist", and their socialist enablers like RW, GF, and rr go along with this.

You made this accusation before and rr asked you to substantiate your claim.

You realised that you had no way of substantiating your rhetoric, so you scuttled back under the rock that you came from.

You hoped that your surreptitious retreat would help people forget that you were found waddling around with your pants around your ankles.

You now bring up the claim up again, like the thoroughly gutless coward that you are.

Rincewind
15-07-2014, 08:48 PM
I think it better to not feed the troll in race related threads since he is incorrigible and he adds absolutely zero by way of serious input.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2014, 12:08 AM
Even if he could draw those conclusions based on his short experience as a wet behind the ears intern in one corner of one department, where is the justification for extrapolating it to public servants everywhere?

Sowell answers this more in his book Knowledge and Decisions with ample documentation. His experience was the trigger to make him question whether big government bureaucracies really helped the people as much as leftists thought.

A man who grew up as a poor black orphan in pre-Civil-Rights America in the 1930s probably also has far more clue about racial issues than modern race-baiters.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2014, 12:18 AM
There is no racism in Australian society?
Not institutionalized, except for these race-preference programs. Any group is going to have a few racists, including Aboriginals, but it's a long way to go from there to blaming a group's problems on racial discrimination.


Closing the Gap: Tony Abbott delivers mixed report card on Indigenous disadvantage (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-12/abbott-delivers-closing-the-gap-update/5254188)
Levels of unemployment for indigenous people are particularly alarming and getting worse.
Yet no proof is offered that unemployment is caused by racism.


The trouble with your view is that it is contrary to the facts.
The trouble with your view is that you treat individuals as nothing but parts of a group when it comes to racial preferences. Fallacy of division is endemic to race-baiting leftards.


Employment, education and health outcomes are all much worse for indigenous people as compared the rest of Australians. If indigenous people were truly privileged as you contend then we the preferred group that are privileged you contend then we would expect to see better outcomes, not worse ones.
The point is that the benefits of racial preference programs do go to individuals from those disadvantaged groups who are individually privileged, in the sense that they are often from wealthier families than many of the non-preferred group who are leapfrogged over. MB and I clearly would rather see benefits to disadvantaged individuals regardless of race.

GF follows his fellow race-baiter Gbbels: repeat a lie often enough and many people will believe it.

MichaelBaron
16-07-2014, 02:00 AM
The day I am in need of an education from an ecommerce lecturer who can't work out how to make a persistent link to a webpage, you'll be the first to know. :lol:

But not their own facts. You know the "facts" that you supposedly present impartially that are anything but, and when called on it you obfuscate.

No it isn't, unless you draw a distinction between delivering a training program and actually providing an education.

1) I won't argue with you about delivery of a training program being same as providing education (obviously) because you may not have an idea what education is :). In particular, you may have difficulties understanding what University education is all about.
2) Re Link: Big deal - I was pasting in a hurry without double checking. I pasted a correct one few hours later. If your education is limited to pasting links...no comment :)
3) So what are the facts? Any factos of the indigenous people being discriminated right now? Or Current generation being discriminated against? Anyone has taken land from them?
Or may be you are referring to what happened over the centuries? Colonization happened, full-stop. It happened many years ago. It happened in many parts of the world. Its negatives may very well outway the positives (even though I am kind of curious what would happen) if the ''white people'' never come to Australia? So what are we going to do about it now? ''decolonize''?

Anyway, nobody can stop you donating your salary towards the needs of the indigenous people. You are more than welcome to do so. But what I dislike is how my taxes are being spent. Or yes, and I also dislike the ''shows'' that is occasionally put on at various locations where some event is opened by an ''indigenous dance'' and people patiently wait for it to end with a polite smile.

I am not a visitor in this country, it is my country. I have every right to call it my country as I live here, pay my taxes here and work hard here. If someone is a lazy drunken bum, then I am sorry to say but I have more rights to be here than he does. I dislike idol, useless people irrespectively of nationality and respect hard workers who happen to be productive. However, if you feel that some ethnic groupls require ''special attention'', fine. Do you best to support them: Indigenous, refugees (btw, international students from the countries where the refugees come from are highly entertained by the fact that those entering Australia illegally will be prosecuted if returned to their country or that poor peasants (as some of them claim to be) can pay 10,000/per person to get on the boats). Just do not do it with my money, thank you!@

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2014, 06:58 AM
So what are we going to do about it now? ''decolonize''?
Let the above race-baiters like RW, GF, and rr lead by example!


I am not a visitor in this country, it is my country. I have every right to call it my country as I live here, pay my taxes here and work hard here.
Australians in general respect hard-working law-abiding people regardless of race, skin colour, or whether native born or naturalized.


If someone is a lazy drunken bum, then I am sorry to say but I have more rights to be here than he does. I dislike idol, useless people irrespectively of nationality and respect hard workers who happen to be productive. However, if you feel that some ethnic groupls require ''special attention'', fine. Do you best to support them: Indigenous, refugees (btw, international students from the countries where the refugees come from are highly entertained by the fact that those entering Australia illegally will be prosecuted if returned to their country or that poor peasants (as some of them claim to be) can pay 10,000/per person to get on the boats). Just do not do it with my money, thank you!@
Leftists are always generous with other people's money.

Kevin Bonham
16-07-2014, 10:53 AM
If someone is a lazy drunken bum, then I am sorry to say but I have more rights to be here than he does. I dislike idol, useless people irrespectively of nationality and respect hard workers who happen to be productive.

Hmmm. I was just about convinced that you were trolling and imitating a certain other poster's obstinate stonewalling but it seems from the volume of your latest effort that you are actually now serious.

You criticise laziness, uselessness, and lack of hard work but you have displayed all of these characteristics in your obfuscation on the question of whether Aboriginal people are entitled to greater unemployment benefits. You first asserted they received double dole, and later asserted they received greater dole. The only actual evidence you could provide for this claim was irrelevant because it referred only to study benefits, which were not at issue. You have not linked to any page directly specifying payment rates for Newstart for Aboriginal people that shows them to be higher than for the rest of them. You have not responded to Rincewind's #247 pointing this out.

When you say "I have every right to call it my country as I live here, pay my taxes here and work hard here. If someone is a lazy drunken bum, then I am sorry to say but I have more rights to be here than he does." on what basis do you claim more rights? Is it the basis that that person is living off the taxes of others? What if someone is a lazy drunken bum but pays their taxes here because they are living off a large inheritance while making no attempt to work? Do you have more right to be here than that person?

I don't think anyone who can't substantiate their factual claims in this sort of debate (but won't even admit the possibility that they are wrong) has any standing to be judgemental about the productivity of others.

Rincewind
16-07-2014, 11:28 AM
By way of another example of Michael Baron's laziness I have on several occasions try to disabuse him of the notion that Aboriginal is not a nationality but he continues to abuse the term. I interpreted this as a deliberate attempt to troll but the Lazy Baron hypothesis might be more parsimonious.

MichaelBaron
16-07-2014, 11:42 AM
By way of another example of Michael Baron's laziness I have on several occasions try to disabuse him of the notion that Aboriginal is not a nationality but he continues to abuse the term. I interpreted this as a deliberate attempt to troll but the Lazy Baron hypothesis might be more parsimonious.

Is it an ethnic group then? How would you refer to this lovely batch of people?

MichaelBaron
16-07-2014, 11:48 AM
When you say "I have every right to call it my country as I live here, pay my taxes here and work hard here. If someone is a lazy drunken bum, then I am sorry to say but I have more rights to be here than he does." on what basis do you claim more rights? Is it the basis that that person is living off the taxes of others? What if someone is a lazy drunken bum but pays their taxes here because they are living off a large inheritance while making no attempt to work? Do you have more right to be here than that person?

I don't think anyone who can't substantiate their factual claims in this sort of debate (but won't even admit the possibility that they are wrong) has any standing to be judgemental about the productivity of others.

Just because I have limited time to reply to chesschat posts, does not mean I am lazy, in fact it suggests I may be having other things to do as well in life :).
If someone is not a liability to others both economically and socially, he can do whatever he likes. So if he drinks quietly but does not rely on others to pay for his drinks and consequently his medical bills (this is another issue with excessive drinking) they can do it. Likewise, if someone does not work due to being finanically secure. He/his family must have earned this lifestyle option.

So not ask me ''what happens if someone stole 10 million dollars then lives off this money''. I assume you are asking about people who are simply enjoying fruits of their/their families' labour.

I am simply against those who are liability to others despite being able (they are not disabled or elderly) to work.

Desmond
16-07-2014, 12:03 PM
1) I won't argue with you about delivery of a training program being same as providing education (obviously) because you may not have an idea what education is :). In particular, you may have difficulties understanding what University education is all about.Well given that I am a university graduate including having actually studied education at university that would indeed be some feat if I managed to not know anything about it.

So riddle me this Professor:
- can a training program be delivered to an empty room?
- can an education be provided to an empty room?


2) Re Link: Big deal - I was pasting in a hurry without double checking.Pretty obvious from the text of the URL that it wouldn't be persistent I would have thought, but if that's outside your observation abilities or beyond your level of understanding that's OK.


3) So what are the facts? For a start the facts you presented that unemployed indigenous receive double benefits. 100% Wrong. The facts you presented that indigenous are more likely to be born into affluence than not. 100% wrong.

Desmond
16-07-2014, 12:04 PM
Let the above race-baiters like RW, GF, and rr lead by example!FOFW. Substantiate your claim or stop repeating it.

Rincewind
16-07-2014, 12:25 PM
Is it an ethnic group then? How would you refer to this lovely batch of people?

If you weren't so lazy you could look back at my posts and see how I have done so. If you still need a clue you could ask in a way that wasn't overtly racist and I might respond.

MichaelBaron
16-07-2014, 01:05 PM
If you weren't so lazy you could look back at my posts and see how I have done so. If you still need a clue you could ask in a way that wasn't overtly racist and I might respond.

I 've seen enough of your posts :). And nothing racist about asking people to compete on equal terms. Anyway, how about the idea of ''optional tax'' so people like you and runner can support those you want :).

Speaking of racism: The very fact that all government jobs have a disclaimer ''Indegenous applicants are encouraged to apply'' is plain racist...Why are Asian applicants not encouraged? or African?

Rincewind
16-07-2014, 01:46 PM
Speaking of racism: The very fact that all government jobs have a disclaimer ''Indegenous applicants are encouraged to apply'' is plain racist...Why are Asian applicants not encouraged? or African?

Speaking of Michael Baron's laziness, it is not true that all government jobs contain the words "Indigenous applicants are encouraged to apply" a fact he could have easily ascertained by himself if he wasn't so bone lazy.

By way of counter example jobs at the ABC say "Indigenous applicants are invited to apply". Other government employers don't have any such commentary. See for example the first defense job i came across..

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/navy/jobs/MarineTechnicianSubmariner/?entryTypeId=11

Even in the 8 page job description you get when you download the PDF version of the ad, there is no mention of inviting or encouraging applications from indigenous applicants.

So another Baron claim shown to be BS.

ER
16-07-2014, 03:11 PM
Even in the 8 page job description you get when you download the PDF version of the ad, there is no mention of inviting or encouraging applications from indigenous applicants.
...

I think there is ...

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/indigenous/

Rincewind
16-07-2014, 06:37 PM
I think there is ...

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/indigenous/

That is not Michael's claim. Both because it is a generic webpage and not specifically listed on every job (as per the claim) and secondly because that page does not use the terminology "encouraged to apply" (as per the claim). It doesn't even use the ABC terminology of "invited to apply".

MichaelBaron
16-07-2014, 06:55 PM
That is not Michael's claim. Both because it is a generic webpage and not specifically listed on every job (as per the claim) and secondly because that page does not use the terminology "encouraged to apply" (as per the claim). It doesn't even use the ABC terminology of "invited to apply".


Michael's claim is that many job ads encourage indigenous applicants to apply...that is total rubbish. Why not write then ''Russians encourages to apply'' or English....why encourage just one group of people? and why assist them more in getting jobs?

MichaelBaron
16-07-2014, 06:59 PM
Plenty of ads/sites like this one: http://scu.edu.au/jobs/index.php/18

Rincewind
16-07-2014, 07:35 PM
Plenty of ads/sites like this one: http://scu.edu.au/jobs/index.php/18

Again your claim was that


all government jobs have a disclaimer ''Indegenous [sic] applicants are encouraged to apply''

I pointed to two counter-examples where government jobs at the ABC and the defence forces did not have a rider or it was significantly different to the "encouraged" version.

I'm not sure if it the concept of "all" you have a problem with or whether you are just too lazy to care about the truth. Which is it?

(After getting of this insurmountable problem we can have a discussion about whether an position at Southern Cross University should be considered a "government job").

Rincewind
16-07-2014, 07:43 PM
Michael's claim is that many job ads encourage indigenous applicants to apply...that is total rubbish. Why not write then ''Russians encourages to apply'' or English....why encourage just one group of people? and why assist them more in getting jobs?

Actually Michael's claim was that "all" government jobs encouraged indigenous applicants. It appears that Michael (who as we know is allergic to admitting he is incorrect) is now that many job ads have such a rider.

Does this mean Michael is changing his claim and if so can Michael please do so explicitly. While he is at it he can clarify if he still claims that indigenous job-seekers receive more welfare benefit (New Start or equivalent) than non indigenous job-seekers. Because the burden of proof has been on him for several days on this one and the public record is incomplete on this issue.

ER
16-07-2014, 08:29 PM
From indigenous overview page of the site referred to in my previous:

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/indigenous/jobsAndStudyOptions.aspx

Job and Study Options
Every position within the ADF is available to Indigenous Australians. The continued contribution of Indigenous personnel strengthens our operational capability and creates a workplace reflective of Australia's diversity. As you will see, there are a range of different opportunities for all Australians to become involved in the ADF.

and that belongs in the WOW category:

Defence Indigenous Cadetship Project (DICP)

The Department of Defence recognises the need to provide employment and career development opportunities for all Australians. If you've already started a full-time undergraduate degree, and are of Aboriginal or Torres Strait islander descent, you may be eligible for the DICP. You could have the rest of your Uni fees paid for while you finish your degree, as well as earn a work placement opportunity within the Australian Defence Force.

Rincewind
16-07-2014, 08:39 PM
Hi Elliott I'm not sure that you are misunderstanding Michael's original claim or if you are trying to start up a whole new thread. If it is the former please review post #290 and couch your post along the line of how it substantiates the claim that


all government jobs have a disclaimer ''Indegenous [sic] applicants are encouraged to apply''

If you are starting up something new like a claim that the DICP is racist then just make that claim explicitly.

MichaelBaron
16-07-2014, 08:40 PM
I am not saying that all jobs have it. I am saying that MANY jobs have this unfair discrimination of other Australians against Aborigines. Even some private companies (like Real Tinto) create ''special job opportunities'' to help the indigenous people...
In my view, there should not even be a SINGLE job where preference is given to an ethnic group by default.

Rincewind
16-07-2014, 08:41 PM
I am not saying that all jobs have it. I am saying that MANY jobs ...

OK but do you agree that in post #290 you did say "all government jobs"?

MichaelBaron
16-07-2014, 08:41 PM
Hi Elliott I'm not sure that you are misunderstanding Michael's original claim or if you are trying to start up a whole new thread. If it is the former please review post #290 and couch your post along the line of how it substantiates the claim that



If you are starting up something new like a claim that the DICP is racist then just make that claim explicitly.

Orh, so few do not have? what an achievement?
Btw, with some university jobs Indigenous applicants are also given preference.

MichaelBaron
16-07-2014, 08:43 PM
OK but do you agree that in post #290 you did say "all government jobs"?

I agree. Now do you agree that MANY government jobs give preference? And (since we happen to belong to the same industry) do you agree that Indigenous people should be ''encouraged to apply'' for University teaching jobs while others can do so without extra encouragement?

Rincewind
16-07-2014, 08:43 PM
Orh, so few do not have? what an achievement?

Sorry I didn't realise the truth was such a burden for you. BTW what is your current claim on indigenous unemployment benefits?


Btw, with some university jobs Indigenous applicants are also given preference.

Let's deal with one false claim at a time ,if we may.

Rincewind
16-07-2014, 08:51 PM
I agree.

That could be a record


Now do you agree that MANY government jobs give preference?

No. I have not seen any evidence that any government jobs give preference. Encouraging an under-represented group to apply does not imply preference. However if you have evidence of preference then you are welcome to present it.


And (since we happen to belong to the same industry) do you agree that Indigenous people should be ''encouraged to apply'' for University teaching jobs while others can do so without extra encouragement?

Adding the words to the bottom of job ads has (in my experience) very little if any measurable effect. It is more a demonstration of the an Equal Opportunity Policy exists. Now as I am not an indigenous person I can't say how much of an effect that might have in applying for a job, I imagine the existence of such a policy is probably a desirable feature of a potential employer and so perhaps it has some use but it is certainly not racist or indicative of affirmative action.

ER
16-07-2014, 09:03 PM
Hi Elliott I'm not sure that you are misunderstanding Michael's original claim or if you are trying to start up a whole new thread. If it is the former please review post #290 and couch your post along the line of how it substantiates the claim that

If you are starting up something new like a claim that the DICP is racist then just make that claim explicitly.

In no way I intend to derail this discussion.

On the other hand I don't think that this is a Baron contra il mondo thread.

We all participate in a discussion in regards to the effect of certain social behavioural patterns such as "patronising" on a certain group.

In the examples I referred to

the first (#229)
had to do with the very strong language (perverted handouts) used by a top academic of indigenous descent to describe financial assistance to indigenous people

and the second with the direct encouragement of a government body toward indigenous youth to consider a potential career!

My intention was to contribute and not to disrupt.

Desmond
16-07-2014, 09:27 PM
On the other hand I don't think that this is a Baron contra il mondo thread.Oh I don't know, I think he is giving a fine rendition of this to the amusement of all ;)

nauLgZISozs

Check back in the morning to see if Jono continues to perform as the tinman.

Kevin Bonham
16-07-2014, 09:50 PM
Just because I have limited time to reply to chesschat posts, does not mean I am lazy, in fact it suggests I may be having other things to do as well in life :).

No, that is just another lazy excuse. I have many other things to do with life but I still take the time to do an issue of fact justice if I am going to debate it at all. If I'm actually not sure about something, I just admit that I'm not sure, instead of carrying on as if I know when I don't. I have examined the Human Services website in search of evidence that Aboriginal people are entitled, by virtue of that status, to higher Newstart rates for being unemployed, and found nothing. If you have evidence otherwise and can find the spare time to post it some time in the next 20 years, please do so. Until then as you cannot substantiate your claim there is no reason for anyone to take it seriously.


I am simply against those who are liability to others despite being able (they are not disabled or elderly) to work.

Right, so this is not about work as an indicator of supposed moral worth by itself, it is just about cutting your tax bill because you think it's being blown out by drunken dole bludgers.

So first question, if they looked for work would they actually be able to find it, or would tougher Centrelink requirements that forced them to look harder just waste money on compliance costs?

Second question, if they found work would that actually cut your tax bill, or just put someone else on the dole?

Rincewind
16-07-2014, 11:07 PM
On the other hand I don't think that this is a Baron contra il mondo thread.

I would describe it as Baron's rivolta contra il mondo moderno.

MichaelBaron
17-07-2014, 12:07 AM
So first question, if they looked for work would they actually be able to find it, or would tougher Centrelink requirements that forced them to look harder just waste money on compliance costs?

Second question, if they found work would that actually cut your tax bill, or just put someone else on the dole?

Question 1: if they looked for work, I do not see how it would be harder for them to find a job than for a similarly quailifield and experienced non-Indigenous person
Question 2: If they found work it would cut my tax bill in the long run rather than put someone else on the dole. An economy where people have greater desire to gain employment and be self-sufficient gradually developes and creates more jobs. That would be in the longer term. In a short-term, there would be a benefit of people working harder and more productively due to greater competition.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2014, 12:21 AM
By way of another example of Michael Baron's laziness I have on several occasions try to disabuse him of the notion that Aboriginal is not a nationality but he continues to abuse the term.

Is this the best you can do? OK, ethnicity as MB suggested just below your post. I don't care for indigenous because as someone born in Australia, I am as indigenous as anyone else. Further, someone who immigrates to Australia and becomes a law-abiding and tax-paying citizen has as much right as any indigenous person. No one alive today is to blame for bad things that happened well before they were born, and no one alive is a victim of same.

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2014, 09:48 AM
Question 1: if they looked for work, I do not see how it would be harder for them to find a job than for a similarly quailifield and experienced non-Indigenous person

On average they might be further disadvantaged by remoteness, poverty and possibly the racism of some employers. Beyond that that's not much consolation if a "similarly quailifield and experienced non-Indigenous person" would also find work hard to find.


Question 2: If they found work it would cut my tax bill in the long run rather than put someone else on the dole. An economy where people have greater desire to gain employment and be self-sufficient gradually developes and creates more jobs.

Hmmm, that sounds more like a free-market article of faith than an empirically verified proposition. After all western economies have developed enormously over time without average unemployment rates greatly improving, in part because an aspect of development is being able to mechanise more tasks which in turn gets rid of more jobs unless employees rapidly re-skill. It just doesn't seem that unemployment rates are greatly controlled by people's desire for self-sufficiency or by economic development.

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2014, 09:51 AM
No one alive today is to blame for bad things that happened well before they were born, and no one alive is a victim of same.

I agree with the first part but not necessarily the second. Dispossession can have powerful flow-on effects on subsequent generations. Just because some who come from historically dispossessed backgrounds make good does not mean no-one down the line is still being adversely affected.

Patrick Byrom
17-07-2014, 02:14 PM
I agree with the first part but not necessarily the second. Dispossession can have powerful flow-on effects on subsequent generations. Just because some who come from historically dispossessed backgrounds make good does not mean no-one down the line is still being adversely affected.
Exactly.

But it's a strange argument for Capablanca-Fan to make. There are many examples given in the Old Testament where people are the victim of God's punishment because of the actions of their ancestors (eg, the plagues imposed on Egypt). And there is also the concept of 'original sin', where people today are the 'victims' of bad things done by Adam and Eve.

Rincewind
17-07-2014, 04:45 PM
He is riddled with paradoxes but clearly post #311 is inconsistent with the notion of original sin.

MichaelBaron
17-07-2014, 05:41 PM
On average they might be further disadvantaged by remoteness, poverty and possibly the racism of some employers. Beyond that that's not much consolation if a "similarly quailifield and experienced non-Indigenous person" would also find work hard to find.



Hmmm, that sounds more like a free-market article of faith than an empirically verified proposition. After all western economies have developed enormously over time without average unemployment rates greatly improving, in part because an aspect of development is being able to mechanise more tasks which in turn gets rid of more jobs unless employees rapidly re-skill. It just doesn't seem that unemployment rates are greatly controlled by people's desire for self-sufficiency or by economic development.

1) Racism by some employers....any evidence for this? Any evidence they are victims of racism to a greater extent than say Indian Australians? if its poverty...should people in poverty be assisted or specifically indigenous people in poverty?
2)It is rather obvious that greater competition for jobs improves economic performance. Unemployment rates are also linked to economic growth and efficiently so not quite getting your point? Are you suggesting that we should just keep paying them their benefits? I do not think so. And if not, then what else to do? :)

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2014, 10:24 PM
1) Racism by some employers....any evidence for this?

I said "possibly" to indicate that I was not taking a definite position that it happened.


Any evidence they are victims of racism to a greater extent than say Indian Australians?

Well there you go then. If Indian Australians are victims of racism to some extent, and Aboriginal people are victims of racism to even the same extent, then Aboriginal people are disadvantaged compared to the average person with the same qualifications and experience.


if its poverty...should people in poverty be assisted or specifically indigenous people in poverty?

Not really relevant to the question of whether people can or can't find work.


2)It is rather obvious that greater competition for jobs improves economic performance. Unemployment rates are also linked to economic growth and efficiently so not quite getting your point?

My point is that the influence of these factors seems to be relatively small compared to whatever it is that periodically causes high unemployment in Western society. It is apparently just not the case that pursuing harsh measures to "encourage" everyone to be skilled up and competing for jobs would lead magically to a world of effectively zero unemployment. Much unemployment is nothing to do with whether the unemployed person is doing their best with the skills they have; many who do their best to find work with the skills they have are continually rejected.


Are you suggesting that we should just keep paying them their benefits? I do not think so.

In my view unemployment benefits should work something like this. A person who is on them, Aboriginal or otherwise, is required to accept any reasonable job offer. A person who is on them is required to register as looking for work and cooperate with documenting the skills they have honestly. (I would have agencies able to look for work based on such registrations and being paid for success in finding work for people, rather than rewarded for failure.) There should be some requirement that a person receiving benefits does something that either increases their chance of finding work in the future or benefits the community, but this should be assessed very broadly and fluidly rather than by rigid criteria. And that's about it. I'd make Work for the Dole completely voluntary and abolish all requirements to look for specific numbers of jobs.

Until we have a much more humane system I oppose crackdowns on "bludgers" within the current one, except where the bludgers are illegally double-claiming for example. I am less concerned about my taxes going to such "bludgers" and far more concerned about my taxes going to paying those responsible for the current unemployment system.

MichaelBaron
18-07-2014, 02:37 AM
[overquote of full post for one-line reply snipped -mod]

So do we agree then that all should be treated equally irrespectively whether they are aboriginal or not?

Rincewind
18-07-2014, 02:39 AM
So do we agree then that all should be treated equally irrespectively whether they are aboriginal or not?

Lazy Michael. Very lazy.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2014, 03:23 AM
Lazy Michael. Very lazy.

Evasive, RW. Very evasive.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2014, 03:31 AM
Exactly.
As has been pointed out earlier, other people groups have suffered too generations ago, but managed to pick themselves up and excel without government handouts, e.g. Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees in America and Australia, the Jews, Chinese in SE Asia. It does the Aborigines no favours by reinforcing the notion that they are hopelessly disadvantaged and need special favours from the government.


But it's a strange argument for Capablanca-Fan to make. There are many examples given in the Old Testament where people are the victim of God's punishment because of the actions of their ancestors (eg, the plagues imposed on Egypt).
Not at all. That was for current sins, mainly Pharaoh keeping the Israelites as slaves.


He is riddled with paradoxes but clearly post #311 is inconsistent with the notion of original sin.
Not at all. Original sin is concerned with answerability to God for one particular sin from the first man, not to keep harping on about crimes for generation after generation. When it comes to human-administered justice, the principle comes from Ezekiel 18:20


The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Why would atheopaths like you and PB care anyway about biblical precedents; I thought you didn't like bringing biblical religion into national politics.

Rincewind
18-07-2014, 11:16 AM
Evasive, RW. Very evasive.

I think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope as usual (although I suspect you haven't yet heard of a telescope).

I have several posts responding to Michael and asking for clarification which Michael has not replied to. In the post in question I was commenting on Michael's laziness in a reply to Kevin. Kevin's post dealt with a number of issues and rather of dealing with each one or even making a reasoned reply on even one, Michael offered a throw away line which was not responding to the post but simply reiterating his position. Since in previous post Michael has railed against what he perceived as the laziness of a particular race. It is especially noteworthy when he displays a laziness of this magnitude, not to mention a total disregard of the person with whom he was supposed to be having a discussion.

MichaelBaron
18-07-2014, 11:32 AM
Lazy Michael. Very lazy.

Sorry, I do not live on this forum so can not be checking messages 24 hours a day. However, I believe I have already said enough about my views on giving special treatment on Aborigines. Definitely I am strongly against it. Irrespectively of what happened in the past, current generation of indigenous people is recieving benefits that I find unfair. In a nutshell, this is what my point is all about.

Patrick Byrom
18-07-2014, 12:21 PM
Not at all. Original sin is concerned with answerability to God for one particular sin from the first man, not to keep harping on about crimes for generation after generation.
...
Why would atheopaths like you and PB care anyway about biblical precedents; I thought you didn't like bringing biblical religion into national politics.
I was using your premises to show the contradiction in your position. You have claimed that Adam's sin brought death into the world ("The big picture is that Adams sin is the reason for all the death in the world."). So (according to you) everyone alive today is a victim of a 'bad thing' that happened well before they were born. Which contradicts:

No one alive today is to blame for bad things that happened well before they were born, and no one alive is a victim of same.
I'm surprised a noted logician such as yourself didn't recognise a reductio ad absurdum argument :(

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2014, 10:47 PM
Original sin is concerned with answerability to God for one particular sin from the first man, not to keep harping on about crimes for generation after generation.

I'll take this one to another thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?15441-Original-sin-and-responsibility-%28sf-PC-hurts-Aborigines%29&p=380755#post380755).

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2014, 11:21 PM
Sorry, I do not live on this forum so can not be checking messages 24 hours a day.

Feeble excuse as usual. For instance, I worked 9 hours 35 mins yesterday and 8 hrs 35 mins today, meaning I was offline from the forum for 11 and 10 hours respectively, not to mention the c. 7 hours I spent asleep and the time spent doing other things (including chess admin emails). And when I work, I work very hard and fast, and frequently arrive home utterly exhausted. Yet I still find time to make a proper effort.

MichaelBaron
19-07-2014, 12:56 AM
Feeble excuse as usual. For instance, I worked 9 hours 35 mins yesterday and 8 hrs 35 mins today, meaning I was offline from the forum for 11 and 10 hours respectively, not to mention the c. 7 hours I spent asleep and the time spent doing other things (including chess admin emails). And when I work, I work very hard and fast, and frequently arrive home utterly exhausted. Yet I still find time to make a proper effort.

Not only that I work more than that, I obviously have other things to do as well as participate in the forum. However, I am indeed replying to all the messages...just takes a little bit of time :)

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2014, 04:23 AM
I was using your premises to show the contradiction in your position. You have claimed that Adam's sin brought death into the world ("The big picture is that Adam’s sin is the reason for all the death in the world."). So (according to you) everyone alive today is a victim of a 'bad thing' that happened well before they were born. Which contradicts:
No it doesn't, since a contradiction is a and not-a, in the same sense. This should have been obvious because it used the phrase "bad things" (plural) not the one unique sin (sin) of the first man, the Federal Head of all humanity.


I'm surprised a noted logician such as yourself didn't recognise a reductio ad absurdum argument :(
That's because it was a lousy attempt, as demonstrated. The Fall of Adam was a special case; the policy when it comes to human institutions of government, law, and justice is the Ezekiel passage.

So after your little distraction and weak attempt at petty point-scoring, do you have any serious reason for punishing poor white people today for what then-powerful but now long-dead white people supposedly did to the Aborigines centuries ago?

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2014, 04:27 AM
I think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope as usual (although I suspect you haven't yet heard of a telescope).
Why? It was pioneered by fellow creationists like Galileo, and improved on by another one, Newton, inventor of the reflecting telescope.

Also, since RW has fallen for lots of mythology about religion and science, the article Who refused to look through Galileo's telescope? (http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-refused-to-look-through-galileos.html) by Ph.D. historian of science James Hannam concludes:


According to the historical record, no one did for certain. The argument was over what they could see once they once they did look.

Desmond
19-07-2014, 09:02 AM
No it doesn't, since a contradiction is a and not-a, in the same sense. This should have been obvious because it used the phrase "bad things" (plural) not the one unique sin (sin) of the first man, the Federal Head of all humanity.Special pleading much?

Patrick Byrom
19-07-2014, 10:47 AM
No it doesn't, since a contradiction is a and not-a, in the same sense. This should have been obvious because it used the phrase "bad things" (plural) not the one unique sin (sin) of the first man, the Federal Head of all humanity.
Are you seriously arguing that the use of a plural (such as "bad things") doesn't also generally include the possibility that there is only one example (a 'bad thing') :wall:

Although in this case, since both Adam and Eve sinned, there are actually two 'bad things'!

If you refuse to accept that 'bad things' in the past can have an effect on future generations, then it's pointless discussing how Aborigines should be treated, since this is a major issue in that discussion.

Rincewind
19-07-2014, 10:56 AM
Why? It was pioneered by fellow creationists like Galileo, and improved on by another one, Newton, inventor of the reflecting telescope.

Also, since RW has fallen for lots of mythology about religion and science, the article Who refused to look through Galileo's telescope? (http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-refused-to-look-through-galileos.html) by Ph.D. historian of science James Hannam concludes:


According to the historical record, no one did for certain. The argument was over what they could see once they once they did look.

Typical obfuscation. Replying to a rhetorical device as if it is the main point of my post and ignoring the rebuttal to which you have no answer. In case you somehow missed the 80% of my post you didn't reply to here it is again...


I have several posts responding to Michael and asking for clarification which Michael has not replied to. In the post in question I was commenting on Michael's laziness in a reply to Kevin. Kevin's post dealt with a number of issues and rather of dealing with each one or even making a reasoned reply on even one, Michael offered a throw away line which was not responding to the post but simply reiterating his position. Since in previous post Michael has railed against what he perceived as the laziness of a particular race. It is especially noteworthy when he displays a laziness of this magnitude, not to mention a total disregard of the person with whom he was supposed to be having a discussion.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2014, 11:02 AM
Are you seriously arguing that the use of a plural (such as "bad things") doesn't also generally include the possibility that there is only one example (a 'bad thing') :wall:
Should be obvious. There is no precedent for humans punishing other humans as a policy.


Although in this case, since both Adam and Eve sinned, there are actually two 'bad things'!
The Fall is connected only to Adam's sin. If you want to bring the Bible into this, try to learn about it first.


If you refuse to accept that 'bad things' in the past can have an effect on future generations, then it's pointless discussing how Aborigines should be treated, since this is a major issue in that discussion.
Not what I said. I said that no one should be punished for actions of long-dead people who happen to share the same ethnicity. This happens to poorer people in the disfavoured group in racist and sexist affirmative action programs.

Patrick Byrom
19-07-2014, 11:10 AM
The Fall is connected only to Adam's sin. If you want to bring the Bible into this, try to learn about it first.
Didn't Eve's sin lead to Adam's sin? So 'the Fall' is the result of two bad things!

Patrick Byrom
19-07-2014, 03:59 PM
Not what I said. I said that no one should be punished for actions of long-dead people who happen to share the same ethnicity. This happens to poorer people in the disfavoured group in racist and sexist affirmative action programs.
My post:

If you refuse to accept that 'bad things' in the past can have an effect on future generations, then it's pointless discussing how Aborigines should be treated, since this is a major issue in that discussion.
was in response to:

... No one alive today is to blame for bad things that happened well before they were born, and no one alive is a victim of same.
I actually agreed with your first clause in a previous post.

But I've said nothing about 'punishing' anyone of the same ethnicity, or about affirmative action. So how you got from the (self-evident to me) statement that Aborigines today are the victims of bad things that have happened before they were born, to a discussion about affirmative action, is beyond me :(

I will repeat myself, to avoid further confusion: The fact that Aborigines today have been affected by bad things that happened to their ancestors in the past doesn't necessarily imply anything. It's just a fact :whistle:

Goughfather
20-07-2014, 09:06 PM
If you want to bring the Bible into this, try to learn about it first.

If only you could follow your own advice.

MichaelBaron
21-07-2014, 02:59 AM
I will repeat myself, to avoid further confusion: The fact that Aborigines today have been affected by bad things that happened to their ancestors in the past doesn't necessarily imply anything. It's just a fact :whistle:

Absolutely. But why is it so hard for some people to stop linking events of the past to the current environment where all of us are having lesser rights and benefits than the indigenous inhabbitants? What if someone is born Half-aboriginal half-Italian? Should he be regarded as a ''half-victim'' of the colonization? :)

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2014, 07:55 AM
Absolutely. But why is it so hard for some people to stop linking events of the past to the current environment where all of us are having lesser rights and benefits than the indigenous inhabbitants? What if someone is born Half-aboriginal half-Italian? Should he be regarded as a ''half-victim'' of the colonization? :)
That's basically what the racist affirmative action policies imply. There have been cases of two half-brothers with the same upbringing where one has been eleigible for Abstudy; evidently a half-victim despite no demonstrable disadvantage.

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2014, 07:57 AM
Didn't Eve's sin lead to Adam's sin? So 'the Fall' is the result of two bad things!

Adam blamed Eve, but God didn't accept that excuse. The curse of death was in response to Adam's sin.

Rincewind
21-07-2014, 10:17 AM
Adam blamed Eve, but God didn't accept that excuse. The curse of death was in response to Adam's sin.

But didn't Eve get special treatment for her part in the fall? Something like god made childbirth more painful to punish women for tempting men into sin.

Patrick Byrom
21-07-2014, 11:43 AM
Adam blamed Eve, but God didn't accept that excuse. The curse of death was in response to Adam's sin.
I didn't say that Eve was responsible for Adam's sin, only that her sin lead to Adam's sin.

But if you agree that people today can be the victim of bad things, or even one bad thing, in the past, then we can move on to discussing the treatment of Aborigines. Obviously you believe that death is the result of Adam's sin, so you clearly believe that people today can be the victim of (at least) one bad thing in the past.

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2014, 12:49 PM
I didn't say that Eve was responsible for Adam's sin, only that her sin lead to Adam's sin.
No, that was Adam's excuse: "the woman You gave me …" The Bible makes it clear that Adam was not deceived while Eve was.


But if you agree that people today can be the victim of bad things, or even one bad thing, in the past, then we can move on to discussing the treatment of Aborigines. Obviously you believe that death is the result of Adam's sin, so you clearly believe that people today can be the victim of (at least) one bad thing in the past.
No one is disputing that there can be generational consequences of what one's ancestor has done. No baby is guilty for being a crack baby or being born with fetal alcohol syndrome, but suffers the consequences of bad choices by the mother. No one is at fault for being born in poverty. But help should be given to the poor or crack babies etc. regardless of ethnicity. The racial preference policies tend not to help the Aborigines most in need of this help, but go to the most privileged people who are not at all disadvantaged, e.g. Frau Behrendt.

Patrick Byrom
21-07-2014, 12:55 PM
No one is disputing that there can be generational consequences of what one's ancestor has done.
And can there also be generational consequences of what was done to one's ancestor?

Capablanca-Fan
22-07-2014, 01:35 AM
And can there also be generational consequences of what was done to one's ancestor?
Certainly. However, as Aboriginal leaders like Pearson, and African-American thinkers like Sowell and Williams point out, many of the problems today are not the result of what was done to their ancestors. E.g. Sowell and Williams point out that single parenthood among black families was much rarer during and shortly after slavery, at times of horrible Jim Crow discrimination, than after welfare was introduced in the 1960s. So while many American blacks have problems, they are not civil rights problems or due to racial discrimination.

Modern racist affirmative action also fails to address “generational consequences of what was done to one's ancestor”, because the benefits overwhelmingly go to those suffering the least consequences, given that they come from wealthy families.

This is an interesting article, and parts of this are relevant to this issue, Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist (http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/07/ten_reasons_i_am_no_longer_a_leftist.html#.U8yXmsJ Wi9Y.facebook), by Danusha V. Goska, American Thinker, 21 July 2014:


Rolling his eyes, Prof. X went on to say that he was wary of accepting a position on this lowly commuter campus, with its working-class student body. The disconnect between leftists' announced value of championing the poor and the leftist practice of expressing snobbery for them stung me. Already vulnerable students would be taught by a professor who regarded association with them as a burden, a failure, and a stigma.

Leftists freely label poor whites as "redneck," "white trash," "trailer trash," and "hillbilly." At the same time that leftists toss around these racist and classist slurs, they are so sanctimonious they forbid anyone to pronounce the N word when reading Mark Twain aloud. President Bill Clinton's advisor James Carville succinctly summed up leftist contempt for poor whites in his memorable quote, "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find."

The left's visceral hatred of poor whites overflowed like a broken sewer when John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate in 2008. It would be impossible, and disturbing, to attempt to identify the single most offensive comment that leftists lobbed at Palin. One can report that attacks on Palin were so egregious that leftists themselves publicly begged that they cease; after all, they gave the left a bad name. The Reclusive Leftist blogged in 2009 that it was a "major shock" to discover "the extent to which so many self-described liberals actually despise working people." The Reclusive Leftist focuses on Vanity Fair journalist Henry Rollins. Rollins recommends that leftists "hate-**** conservative women" and denounces Palin as a "small town hickoid" who can be bought off with a coupon to a meal at a chain restaurant.

Smearing us is not enough. Liberal policies sabotage us. Affirmative action benefits recipients by color, not by income. Even this limited focus fails. In his 2004 Yale University Press study, Thomas Sowell insists that affirmative action helps only wealthier African Americans. Poor blacks do not benefit. In 2009, Princeton sociologists Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford demonstrated that poor, white Christians are underrepresented on elite college campuses. Leftists add insult to injury. A blue-collar white kid, who feels lost and friendless on the alien terrain of a university campus, a campus he has to leave immediately after class so he can get to his fulltime job at MacDonald's, must accept that he is a recipient of "white privilege"—if he wants to get good grades in mandatory classes on racism.

The left is still looking for its proletariat. It supports mass immigration for this reason. Harvard's George Borjas, himself a Cuban immigrant, has been called "America’s leading immigration economist." Borjas points out that mass immigration from Latin America has sabotaged America's working poor.

It's more than a little bit weird that leftists, who describe themselves as the voice of the worker, select workers as their hated other of choice, and targets of their failed social engineering.

If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. One of those eggs was objective truth.

Ron Kuby is a left-wing radio talk show host on New York's WABC. He plays the straw man card hourly. If someone phones in to question affirmative action—shouldn't such programs benefit recipients by income, rather than by skin color?—Kuby opens the fire hydrant. He is shrill. He is bombastic. He accuses the caller of being a member of the KKK. He paints graphic word pictures of the horrors of lynching and the death of Emmett Till and asks, "And you support that?"

Well of course THE CALLER did not support that, but it is easier to orchestrate a mob in a familiar rendition of righteous rage against a sensationalized straw man than it is to produce a reasoned argument against a reasonable opponent.

My students do know—because they have been taught this—that America is run by all-powerful racists who will never let them win. My students know—because they have been drilled in this—that the only way they can get ahead is to locate and cultivate those few white liberals who will pity them and scatter crumbs on their supplicant, bowed heads and into their outstretched palms. My students have learned to focus on the worst thing that ever happened to them, assume that it happened because America is unjust, and to recite that story, dirge-like, to whomever is in charge, from the welfare board to college professors, and to await receipt of largesse.

Patrick Byrom
22-07-2014, 12:46 PM
Certainly. However, as Aboriginal leaders like Pearson, and African-American thinkers like Sowell and Williams point out, many of the problems today are not the result of what was done to their ancestors. E.g. Sowell and Williams point out that single parenthood among black families was much rarer during and shortly after slavery, at times of horrible Jim Crow discrimination, than after welfare was introduced in the 1960s. So while many American blacks have problems, they are not civil rights problems or due to racial discrimination.
...[Sarfati Shuffle Snipped!]
I am trying to restrict the discussion to Aborigines - otherwise we'll be all over the place.

Okay - so we agree that some of the problems that Aborigines face are the result of what was done to their ancestors.

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2014, 03:28 AM
I am trying to restrict the discussion to Aborigines - otherwise we'll be all over the place.
That's reasonable, but there was a place for comparing certain policies that have been applied in all inhabited continents over many different racial groups, with very similar results.


Okay - so we agree that some of the problems that Aborigines face are the result of what was done to their ancestors.
Probably true.

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2014, 04:21 AM
Do Blacks Need Favors? (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/27606)
By Walter E. Williams [himself black] Jul. 23, 2014

Earlier this month, the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act was celebrated. During the act’s legislative debate, then-Sen. Hubert Humphrey, responding to predictions, promised, “I’ll eat my hat if this leads to racial quotas.” I don’t know whether Humphrey got around to keeping his promise, but here’s my question: Is it within the capacity of black Americans to make it in this society without the special favors variously called racial preferences, quotas, affirmative action and race-sensitive policies? What might a “yes” answer to that question assume and imply about blacks? Likewise, what would a “no” answer assume and imply? Let’s look at it.

There are some areas of black life in which excellence can be found without the slightest hint of racial preferences. Young blacks dominate basketball, football and some track-and-field events despite the fact that there has been a history of gross racial discrimination in those activities. Blacks are also prominent in several areas of the entertainment industry. Those observations mean that racial discrimination alone is not an insurmountable barrier to success. By the way, I can’t think of any two fields with more ruthless competition.

You say, “OK, Williams, everyone knows about the success of blacks in sports and entertainment, but what about the intellectual arena?” A few inner-city junior high and high schools have produced black champion chess players, schools such as Philadelphia’s Roberts Vaux High School and New York’s Edward R. Murrow High School. Last year, two black teens – from Intermediate School 318 Eugenio Maria de Hostos in Brooklyn, New York – won the national high-school chess championship. All of this is in addition to quite a few black international masters and grandmasters in chess. Moreover, there’s a long list of former and current black inventors and scientists. So there’s no question that black people have the capacity to compete intellectually.

Civil rights organizations and their progressive allies, who all but suggest that blacks cannot achieve unless they are given special privileges, grossly insult and demean black people. …

Rincewind
24-07-2014, 10:26 AM
You do realise that Walter E Williams is not an aboriginal right?

Goughfather
27-07-2014, 02:11 AM
You do realise that Walter E Williams is not an aboriginal right?

I think that Jono is still trying to work this out. I'm sure he'll get back to you eventually.

Capablanca-Fan
29-07-2014, 04:51 AM
The socialist race-baiters like RW and GF have no clue that the lessons of welfare applied to American blacks have applications to Australian Aborigines.

Patrick Byrom
29-07-2014, 12:58 PM
The socialist race-baiters like RW and GF have no clue that the lessons of welfare applied to American blacks have applications to Australian Aborigines.
The group in the US that you should be comparing Australian Aborigines to are the Native Americans. Australian Aborigines were here before the Europeans arrived, fought against the European settlers, were never slaves, and many live today in isolated settlements.

Rincewind
29-07-2014, 02:15 PM
The group in the US that you should be comparing Australian Aborigines to are the Native Americans. Australian Aborigines were here before the Europeans arrived, fought against the European settlers, were never slaves, and many live today in isolated settlements.

There are clearly more parallels there but Jono tends to not look at problems logically but rather groups all dark-skinned people on welfare in the same category.

Goughfather
29-07-2014, 10:50 PM
The group in the US that you should be comparing Australian Aborigines to are the Native Americans. Australian Aborigines were here before the Europeans arrived, fought against the European settlers, were never slaves, and many live today in isolated settlements.

I would have said this too, but our resident racist truly is beyond help. His decidedly unsophisticated analysis shows that he only judges people by the colour of their skin and that taking the time to understand people who look different to himself is a bridge too far.

Returning to the discussion with the adults, looking at life expectancy (http://http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/life-expectancy-native-american) for Native Americans as compared with African Americans and White Americans is quite interesting. Overall, the life expectancy (and presumably other health indicators) for Native Americans and for African Americans is relatively similar, but is there is greater variation in the life expectancy of Native Americans than in African Americans. From the statistics, it looks like Native Americans who live in remote communities do worst of all and are indeed very similar to the Aboriginal population in that respect.

Capablanca-Fan
30-07-2014, 12:08 AM
Evidently our resident racist shyster is beyond help, because he still maintains the need for race-based preferential treatment rather than treatment based on individual need.

When it comes to actual ‘race’, African Americans who have just come from Jamaica to the USA do fine, and from Nigeria they excel. This is further evidence that any problems of African Americans today are not due to racism but due to welfare and the general victicratic mentality promoted by the native race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and their white leftard Democrat enablers who want to keep blacks dependent and thus voting for the party of ‘free’ stuff.

About Aboriginals and Native Americans, maybe there is something in the comparison: living in remote communities might be bad for one's health.

Capablanca-Fan
30-07-2014, 12:10 AM
There are clearly more parallels there but Jono tends to not look at problems logically but rather groups all dark-skinned people on welfare in the same category.
Our resident socialist atheopath has ignored how I also connected them to light-skinned ‘Anglo-Saxon’ people in the UK on welfare, because they have many similar social pathologies thanks to ideologies of leftist academics.

Patrick Byrom
30-07-2014, 12:36 AM
... When it comes to actual race, African Americans who have just come from Jamaica to the USA do fine, and from Nigeria they excel. This is further evidence that any problems of African Americans today are not due to racism but due to welfare and the general victicratic mentality promoted by the native race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and their white leftard Democrat enablers who want to keep blacks dependent and thus voting for the party of free stuff.
But there is clearly a lot of white racism in the US, as shown by the fact that as recently as 2003, only 60% of whites approved of black-white marriages (http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx).

And it can't be welfare which is the problem, as the Nordic states have very high levels of welfare, but don't have anything like the social problems of the US or Britain.

Rincewind
30-07-2014, 12:46 AM
Our resident socialist atheopath has ignored how I also connected them to light-skinned ‘Anglo-Saxon’ people in the UK on welfare...

But your did not try to categorise by skin-colour in that instant. However that is not the same as posting links to opinion pieces by Williams and Sowell which are titled, for example "Do blacks need favours?" and when you do you proudly reaffirm that Williams is "himself black". It is lazy and just crass racial stereotyping.

Rincewind
30-07-2014, 12:54 AM
When it comes to actual ‘race’, African Americans who have just come from Jamaica to the USA do fine, and from Nigeria they excel. This is further evidence that any problems of African Americans today are not due to racism but due to welfare...

That just sounds like the result of a naive analysis of the data. Due to the the way the American immigration laws are structured people of any skin colour coming to America are more likely to be highly skilled than those that are the product of the American education system. Hence the problems are not welfare but rather a class mobility issue.

Desmond
30-07-2014, 08:06 AM
But there is clearly a lot of white racism in the US, as shown by the fact that as recently as 2003, only 60% of whites approved of black-white marriages (http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx).

A shocking figure, and it appears worse in the South.

Capablanca-Fan
31-07-2014, 12:33 AM
A shocking figure, and it appears worse in the South.
It is indeed shocking that there is any opposition to inter-racial marriage, and a relic of when the South was heavily run by Democrats.

Rincewind
31-07-2014, 12:42 AM
It is indeed shocking that there is any opposition to inter-racial marriage, and a relic of when the South was heavily run by Democrats.

You are talking about ancient history.

The respondents to the survey are in the South now and vote Republican now.

Capablanca-Fan
31-07-2014, 07:56 AM
You are talking about ancient history.

The respondents to the survey are in the South now and vote Republican now.
They are more likely Democrat holdouts or direct descendants who have not yet rid themselves of the Democratic racism of their forebears. I doubt that this immoral opposition to inter-racial marriage will last another generation.

Capablanca-Fan
31-07-2014, 07:56 AM
Please Stop Helping Us (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/27806)
By Walter E. Williams [himself black] Jul. 30, 2014

While reading the first chapter of Jason Riley’s [himself black] new book, Please Stop Helping Us, I thought about Will Rogers' Prohibition-era observation that “Oklahomans vote dry as long as they can stagger to the polls.” Demonstrative of similar dedication, one member of Congress told Vanderbilt University political scientist Carol Swain that “one of the advantages and disadvantages of representing blacks is their shameless loyalty. … You can almost get away with raping babies and be forgiven. You don’t have any vigilance about your performance.” In my opinion, there appear to be no standards of performance low enough for blacks to lose their loyalty to their black political representatives.

Riley says that between 1970 and 2001, the number of black elected officials skyrocketed from fewer than 1,500 to more than 9,000, but black poverty has remained roughly the same. Between 1940 and 1960, when black political power was virtually nonexistent, the black poverty rate fell from 87 percent to 47 percent. Riley points out that there has been significant achievement among the black middle class but that wide black-white gaps remain with respect to income, educational achievement, unemployment, labor force participation, incarceration rates and other measures. Despite political gains, there have been dramatic reversals in teen unemployment, crime, out-of-wedlock births and family stability. Political power is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for socio-economic progress.

Riley lays out the devastating deal black political leaders and civil rights leaders have made with labor unions, in his aptly named chapter “Mandating Unemployment.” Black leaders of the past recognized that labor unions were hostile to the interests of ordinary blacks. Frederick Douglass, in his 1874 essay “The Folly, Tyranny, and Wickedness of Labor Unions,” argued that unions were not friends of blacks. W.E.B. Du Bois called unions “the greatest enemy of the black working man.” Booker T. Washington also opposed unions because of their adverse impact on blacks.

Today’s black leaders have little reservation about giving their support to union policies that harm their constituents.

Patrick Byrom
01-08-2014, 02:50 PM
Returning to Australia, it's interesting how paternalism is considered okay for Aborigines (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/01/tony-abbott-doesnt-rule-out-expanding-income-management), but not for (most) white people:


Abbott played down the prospect of the far-reaching income management proposal suggested by Forrest when the pair released the report in Sydney on Friday.

We have no plans to expand welfare quarantining as widely as Andrew is recommending, but welfare quarantining has been in place for quite some time, the prime minister said at a combined media conference.

It began in the remote communities of the Northern Territory as part of the intervention back in 2007. It was expanded by the former Labor government to all long-term unemployment beneficiaries in the Northern Territory regardless of their race or culture or location. It was subsequently trialled in a number of areas in Western Australia and elsewhere.

Capablanca-Fan
02-08-2014, 12:17 AM
Is there a problem here? Since welfare comes from taxpayers, taxpayers should have some say in how it is used. People don't work hard and pay taxes, i.e. doing without some of the fruits of their labour, to subsidize other people's alcohol and tobacco, for example.

Kevin Bonham
02-08-2014, 01:46 AM
Is there a problem here? Since welfare comes from taxpayers, taxpayers should have some say in how it is used. People don't work hard and pay taxes, i.e. doing without some of the fruits of their labour, to subsidize other people's alcohol and tobacco, for example.

I don't work hard and pay taxes for them to be wasted on obsolete defence equipment, and I certainly don't work hard and pay taxes for them to be spent on putting chaplains in state schools. For some reason the crusade against waste seems to be conducted far more vigorously when the recipients are on welfare than in many other areas of possible waste.

Capablanca-Fan
02-08-2014, 03:48 AM
I don't work hard and pay taxes for them to be wasted on obsolete defence equipment, and I certainly don't work hard and pay taxes for them to be spent on putting chaplains in state schools. For some reason the crusade against waste seems to be conducted far more vigorously when the recipients are on welfare than in many other areas of possible waste.
One prime area of waste of taxpayer money is crony capitalism or welfare for corporations, America's historic national past-time.

Patrick Byrom
02-08-2014, 11:24 AM
Is there a problem here? Since welfare comes from taxpayers, taxpayers should have some say in how it is used. People don't work hard and pay taxes, i.e. doing without some of the fruits of their labour, to subsidize other people's alcohol and tobacco, for example.
So you think governments should control how people spend their money - isn't that socialism??

Capablanca-Fan
04-08-2014, 12:56 AM
So you think governments should control how people spend their money - isn't that socialism??
There's the crux of the matter: whose money is it in the first place? PB regards the welfare money as belonging to the recipients; in reality has been coerced from those who work for it. The left think that those who work for their money must give up any say in how it is spend by the recipients.

Patrick Byrom
04-08-2014, 12:56 PM
There's the crux of the matter: whose money is it in the first place? PB regards the welfare money as belonging to the recipients; in reality has been coerced from those who work for it. The left think that those who work for their money must give up any say in how it is spend by the recipients.
Any say? People receiving money from the government are subject to an enormous number of conditions already.

And what about the rest of government spending - when do taxpayers get to control that? Most taxpayers don't agree with the budget, but I don't recall having a say in that.

Capablanca-Fan
05-08-2014, 01:56 AM
Any say? People receiving money from the government are subject to an enormous number of conditions already.
It is hardly fair when those who work for a living can't afford some of the things that beneficiaries can waste ‘their’ money on.

And what about the rest of government spending - when do taxpayers get to control that? Most taxpayers don't agree with the budget, but I don't recall having a say in that.[/QUOTE]
That is something of a problem. The answer is not to reduce taxpayers' say even more. It's touching how much faith that you and RW have in the government's ability to spend taxpayers' money so wisely.

Patrick Byrom
05-08-2014, 12:14 PM
It is hardly fair when those who work for a living can't afford some of the things that beneficiaries can waste their money on.
And how would the government prevent someone buying food and then swapping it for alcohol?

Rincewind
05-08-2014, 12:35 PM
Seems like Jono is actually advocating big government. The administrative overhead of running a second currency (like food-coupons) or checking that welfare recipients aren't "wasting Jono's money" will just add layers of government bureaucracy for no value.

Capablanca-Fan
06-08-2014, 01:06 AM
Seems like Jono is actually advocating big government. The administrative overhead of running a second currency (like food-coupons) or checking that welfare recipients aren't "wasting Jono's money" will just add layers of government bureaucracy for no value.
All that would prove is what free market advocates have long pointed out: government intervention almost always begets more government intervention.

Rincewind
06-08-2014, 01:14 AM
All that would prove is what free market advocates have long pointed out: government intervention almost always begets more government intervention.

Only if we follow your advice?

Goughfather
06-08-2014, 05:25 PM
Seems like Jono is actually advocating big government. The administrative overhead of running a second currency (like food-coupons) or checking that welfare recipients aren't "wasting Jono's money" will just add layers of government bureaucracy for no value.

As I've said before, when Jono [himself a hypocrite] proudly announces that he is a libertarian, all he means is that he supports absolute freedom for himself at the expense of everyone else. It is simply a code word for his own untrammeled selfishness. Of course, Jono [himself a misanthrope] loves restricting the freedom of woman, gays and ethnic minorities. He especially salivates at the idea of sending Aboriginal people to prison for the heinous crime of having a drink in their own communities.

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2014, 01:16 AM
More nonsense from GF (himself a shyster and race-baiter).

Actually there is a good limited government/libertarian case for man woman marriage (http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/MN4M-The-Libertarian-Case-for-Man-Woman-Marriage1.pdf).
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. The Left-libertarian attack on real marriage overlooks the important role of marriage and family as a welfare and character-building system. Weakening that has always meant that the government sticks its fat beak in more and more to try to put the pieces back together (foster care, single mothers on welfare, and more). See for example Privatizing Marriage Will Expand the Role of the State (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5071/).

It's notable that one of the leading free market economists, Milton Friedman, stated that we are not really an individual society but a really a family society.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4

Similarly, leftards like GF preen their own supposed moral superiority by how much he really wants to help Aborigines, and doesn't care that the leftard policies like welfare and untrammelled access to grog on the taxpayer dime has done much harm to them.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2014, 02:41 AM
More nonsense from GF (himself a shyster and race-baiter).

Actually there is a good limited government/libertarian case for man woman marriage (http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/MN4M-The-Libertarian-Case-for-Man-Woman-Marriage1.pdf).
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. The Left-libertarian attack on real marriage overlooks the important role of marriage and family as a welfare and character-building system. Weakening that has always meant that the government sticks its fat beak in more and more to try to put the pieces back together (foster care, single mothers on welfare, and more).

Er, no, this is actually about the worst sort of pro-limited-government/libertarian case imaginable.

Here's the same thing applied to another issue hypothetically:

The Left-libertarian attack on alcohol prohibition (for whites as well as blacks) overlooks the important role of sobrietry in helping the family to function as a welfare and character-building system. Weakening that has always meant that government sticks its fat beak in more and more to try to put the pieces back together (alcoholics on welfare, using taxpayer funds to treat alcohol health issues and more).

The basic idea of libertarianism is that you give people freedom. If they use that freedom to cause harm to themselves, then instead of using that harm and the possibility that big-statists would use it to justify intervention as a reason to ban things, you defend their right to experience the consequences of their actions and on that basis tell the state to rack off.

To oppose freedom on the grounds that allowing it could be used to justify impositions on freedom is the most self-defeating, tortured, ridiculous, pathetic conception of libertarianism imaginable.

What we have here from the conservative right is nothing but ideological astroturfing. They've noticed people are attracted to pro-freedom ideologies so they try to market their own position as much more pro-freedom than it is.

Goughfather
08-08-2014, 06:56 PM
Similarly, leftards like GF preen their own supposed moral superiority

I don't need to make grandiose claims to feel morally superior. I just have to have to compare myself to a truly terrible human being like yourself.



by how much he really wants to help Aborigines

I'd say over three years living in a remote community at great cost to my quality of life gives me some entitlement to claim a genuine desire to help Aboriginal people. What have you got?



and doesn't care that the leftard policies like welfare and untrammelled access to grog on the taxpayer dime has done much harm to them.

What's your alternative to a social safety net? Placing the Aboriginal population under the control of a Protector again and supplying them with rations?

It is a pity that you fail to realise that many people in these communities you seek to denigrate are gainfully employed and are much harder workers than a parasitic scam artist like you will ever be.

Capablanca-Fan
09-08-2014, 04:57 AM
What's your alternative to a social safety net?
Noel Pearson has already covered this. The current welfare system you idolize divorces work from reward, so harms rather than helps them.


Placing the Aboriginal population under the control of a Protector again and supplying them with rations?
You're the one who thinks only of government being the answer, with welfare as the great Protector. Your ilk looks down on the market, where people earn money by supplying what other people want and freely pay for.


It is a pity that you fail to realise that many people in these communities you seek to denigrate are gainfully employed and are much harder workers
That's a good thing, but then they have nothing do do with the welfare problem.

Capablanca-Fan
09-08-2014, 05:05 AM
Er, no, this is actually about the worst sort of pro-limited-government/libertarian case imaginable.
Come off it. It's the GayStapo who want government to interfere and change the definition of marriage from what it's always been. The libertarian case for marriage recognizes that just as the government needs to protect private property, it also should protect marriage there are obligations to the parties involved when they freely enter into it, both to each other and to their children in a way. There is nothing now that stops other people from living together, but this should not be called "marriage".

It happens to be true that marriage breakdown has resulted in much more government. This is the opposite from the disaster of the alcohol prohibition or the current war on drugs, which also require an expansion of government and considerable reduction in the rights of the citizenry.

Goughfather
09-08-2014, 12:24 PM
Noel Pearson has already covered this. The current welfare system you idolize divorces work from reward, so harms rather than helps them.

I asked for your answer - what is it?


You're the one who thinks only of government being the answer, with welfare as the great Protector. Your ilk looks down on the market, where people earn money by supplying what other people want and freely pay for.

I asked for your answer - what is it?


That's a good thing, but then they have nothing do do with the welfare problem.

But they are also at risk of fines of up to $82,500 and terms of imprisonment of up to 18 months for having a drink in their own community.

Capablanca-Fan
09-08-2014, 01:01 PM
I asked for your answer - what is it?
You can ask. I told you who has it: a real aboriginal leader who cares about actual results rather than moral preening that you and other welfare pushers resort to.


But they are also at risk of fines of up to $82,500 and terms of imprisonment of up to 18 months for having a drink in their own community.
That'a absurdly harsh.

Patrick Byrom
09-08-2014, 02:39 PM
Noel Pearson has already covered this. The current welfare system you idolize divorces work from reward, so harms rather than helps them.
So you no longer support the Humphreys proposal, under which everyone can get $10 000 for doing nothing?

Goughfather
09-08-2014, 03:30 PM
You can ask. I told you who has it: a real aboriginal leader who cares about actual results

So you acknowledge that you have no answer despite your pathetic grandstanding?


rather than moral preening that you and other welfare pushers resort to.

I gave my bona fides on my last response and asked you to substantiate a single thing that you have ever done for Aboriginal people. You showed how gutless you were by scuttling back under the rock you came out from without providing a response on the last post before scuttling back out from hiding in this post to throw mud again in the hope that people would forget your cowardly behaviour from one post ago.


That'a absurdly harsh.

It's absurd whether or not that person is employed. It is ridiculous in and of itself that someone is at risk of any period of imprisonment at all for drinking alcohol. Perhaps it is more justifiable that imprisonment is open if someone is sly grogging to people within the community.

One thing you might be interested in is that the absolute prohibition on alcohol on Mornington Island (get a map if you don't know where that is) has provided one area for the free market to flourish: the sale of homebrew within the community. The going rate for 20 litres of homebrew is currently about $300. Personally, I'd prefer a bit of regulation so that what people is drinking is safer for their physical health. Another consequence of reduced access to alcohol is that there is more demand for cannabis (also known as "gunja" or "yaandi"), which might not be the worst thing in the world, given that it is probably results in less crime and less adverse health effects than alcohol for my clientele, at least when not smoked in conjunction with the consumption of alcohol.

Patrick Byrom
09-08-2014, 03:58 PM
It's absurd whether or not that person is employed. It is ridiculous in and of itself that someone is at risk of any period of imprisonment at all for drinking alcohol. Perhaps it is more justifiable that imprisonment is open if someone is sly grogging to people within the community.
These NT laws (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/09/court-challenges-discriminatory-alcohol-orders-says-aboriginal-legal-agency) also seem ridiculously harsh:


APOs were introduced in late 2013 to combat problem drinkers. They can be issued to anyone who, while drunk, is charged with an offence that would attract a potential jail term of at least six months. The person is prohibited from possessing or drinking alcohol or entering licensed premises for three to 12 months. Such crimes can include loitering or shoplifting, and people on orders can be prevented from entering supermarkets and sports stadiums that sell alcohol. APOs can be implemented before people are found guilty by the courts, and if they breach them they can be jailed.

Loitering while drunk is a crime?

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2014, 01:22 AM
So you no longer support the Humphreys proposal, under which everyone can get $10 000 for doing nothing?

This is disingenuous, because you opposed this because it wasn't enough.

But of all the proposed options, this seemed by far the least bad in the context it was in: that people would be rewarded for any work they did, as opposed to being financially worse off by working than not working, and in the context of removing the harassment by Centrelink.

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2014, 01:26 AM
So you acknowledge that you have no answer despite your pathetic grandstanding?
There is no helping race-baiters like GF who dismiss proposals by Aboriginal leaders like Noel Pearson, who rightly blames welfare as poisoning his people. Yet GF wants to continue this failed program, because he wants to preen himself as doing good for the Aborigines regardless of whether actual good has been done.


It's absurd whether or not that person is employed. It is ridiculous in and of itself that someone is at risk of any period of imprisonment at all for drinking alcohol. Perhaps it is more justifiable that imprisonment is open if someone is sly grogging to people within the community.
Best to punish the supplier not the drinker. The point was to prevent the problems caused by alcohol abuse, such as violence and fetal alcohol syndrome, not to add to the problems by punishing drinkers harshly.


One thing you might be interested in is that the absolute prohibition on alcohol on Mornington Island (get a map if you don't know where that is) has provided one area for the free market to flourish: the sale of homebrew within the community. The going rate for 20 litres of homebrew is currently about $300. Personally, I'd prefer a bit of regulation so that what people is drinking is safer for their physical health. Another consequence of reduced access to alcohol is that there is more demand for cannabis (also known as "gunja" or "yaandi"), which might not be the worst thing in the world, given that it is probably results in less crime and less adverse health effects than alcohol for my clientele, at least when not smoked in conjunction with the consumption of alcohol.
Probably correct.

Kevin Bonham
12-08-2014, 06:09 AM
Come off it. It's the GayStapo who want government to interfere and change the definition of marriage from what it's always been.

That's not relevant to my comment, but in any case, it is not about changing anyone's private definition of marriage who doesn't want it changed. It's about the state ceasing to apply a discriminatory definition in its own policies.


The libertarian case for marriage recognizes that just as the government needs to protect private property, it also should protect marriage

Marriage is not under threat.


there are obligations to the parties involved when they freely enter into it, both to each other and to their children in a way.

These supposed obligations are scarcely much policed with existing marriages, but your illiberalism would bar the opportunity even to even the most absolutely committed same-sex couples.


There is nothing now that stops other people from living together, but this should not be called "marriage".

If you think that, then don't call it marriage. I already don't call "marriages" of two people who oppose same-sex marriage as real marriages (since they are founded on a discriminatory sham) but I'm not asking the State to agree with me.


It happens to be true that marriage breakdown has resulted in much more government.

Indeed. By definition, almost entirely of mixed-sex marriages. Yet you want to refuse to extend the institution to same-sex couples when mixed-sex couples were the overwhelming cause of the problem. Really by the form of argument you use, mixed-sex marriage encourages more government, therefore ban it.


This is the opposite from the disaster of the alcohol prohibition or the current war on drugs, which also require an expansion of government and considerable reduction in the rights of the citizenry.

And here is another reason why it was a crap argument that you quoted. The disaster of same-sex marriage bans is requiring increased government activity to maintain as these pointless bans are increasingly contested, with governments wasting large sums in court and promoting unnecessary discrimination. The extent of reduction of rights of the citizenry is only becoming apparent now that it is possible for same-sex couples to speak out without breaking the law by admitting their sexuality.

Kevin Bonham
12-08-2014, 06:09 AM
Come off it. It's the GayStapo who want government to interfere and change the definition of marriage from what it's always been.

That's not relevant to my comment, but in any case, it is not about changing anyone's private definition of marriage who doesn't want it changed. It's about the state ceasing to apply a discriminatory definition in its own policies.


The libertarian case for marriage recognizes that just as the government needs to protect private property, it also should protect marriage

Marriage is not under threat.


there are obligations to the parties involved when they freely enter into it, both to each other and to their children in a way.

These supposed obligations are scarcely much policed with existing marriages, but your illiberalism would bar the opportunity even to even the most absolutely committed same-sex couples.


There is nothing now that stops other people from living together, but this should not be called "marriage".

If you think that, then don't call it marriage, just leave the State out of it. I already don't call "marriages" of two people who oppose same-sex marriage as real marriages (since they are founded on a discriminatory sham) but I'm not asking the State to agree with me.


It happens to be true that marriage breakdown has resulted in much more government.

Indeed. By definition, almost entirely of mixed-sex marriages. Yet you want to refuse to extend the institution to same-sex couples when mixed-sex couples were the overwhelming cause of the problem. Really by the form of argument you use, mixed-sex marriage encourages more government, therefore ban it.


This is the opposite from the disaster of the alcohol prohibition or the current war on drugs, which also require an expansion of government and considerable reduction in the rights of the citizenry.

And here is another reason why it was a crap argument that you quoted. The disaster of same-sex marriage bans is requiring increased government activity to maintain as these pointless bans are increasingly contested, with governments wasting large sums in court and promoting unnecessary discrimination. The extent of reduction of rights of the citizenry is only becoming apparent now that it is possible for same-sex couples to speak out without breaking the law by admitting their sexuality.

Capablanca-Fan
01-09-2014, 12:16 PM
If you think that, then don't call it marriage, just leave the State out of it. I already don't call "marriages" of two people who oppose same-sex marriage as real marriages (since they are founded on a discriminatory sham) but I'm not asking the State to agree with me.
So you don't call most marriages in recorded history real marriage. They wouldn't give a monkey's.


Indeed. By definition, almost entirely of mixed-sex marriages. Yet you want to refuse to extend the institution to same-sex couples when mixed-sex couples were the overwhelming cause of the problem. Really by the form of argument you use, mixed-sex marriage encourages more government, therefore ban it.
Although the break-up rate of same-sex relationships is far than for real marriage.


And here is another reason why it was a crap argument that you quoted. The disaster of same-sex marriage bans is requiring increased government activity to maintain as these pointless bans are increasingly contested, with governments wasting large sums in court and promoting unnecessary discrimination. The extent of reduction of rights of the citizenry is only becoming apparent now that it is possible for same-sex couples to speak out without breaking the law by admitting their sexuality.
They have long been free to admit this. Nowadays they are rewarded for it. It's those who don't want to be forced to bake cakes or rent farms for same-sex "marriage" that are under threat.

Capablanca-Fan
01-09-2014, 12:20 PM
New ways needed to arrest indigenous imprisonment rates (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/new-ways-needed-to-arrest-indigenous-imprisonment-rates-20140325-35gc2.html)
Ross Gittins, Sydney Morning Herald's Economics Editor. 26 March 2014

The commission found that Aborigines were no more likely to die in jail than other prisoners. The reason so many died was that they constituted such a high proportion of the prison population.

The Keating government accepted all but one of the commission's recommendations and allocated the present-day equivalent of almost $700 million to put them into effect. State and territory governments committed themselves to a comprehensive reform program.

But get this: rather than declining since then, the rate of Aboriginal imprisonment has got worse.

''It is hard to imagine a more spectacular policy failure,'' Weatherburn says.

It would be easy to blame the problem on racism in the justice system but, though there may be some truth in this, it's not the real reason. Similarly, Weatherburn argues it's not good enough to blame it on ''indigenous disadvantage''.

If that were the case, virtually all Aborigines would be actively involved in crime and they aren't. Most are never arrested or imprisoned.
The plain fact is that more Aborigines are in jail because more Aborigines commit crimes, particularly violent crimes.

In NSW, for example, the indigenous rate of arrest for assault is 12 times higher than the non-indigenous rate. The rate of indigenous arrest for break and enter is 17 times higher. Measures taken after the royal commission failed to reduce crime because they assumed this would be achieved if indigenous Australians were ''empowered''. Much of the money and effort was devoted to legal aid and land acquisition.

Weatherburn argues that if you want to understand indigenous offending, you need to look at the factors likely to get anyone involved in crime, regardless of race.

''The four most important of these are poor parenting (particularly child neglect and abuse), poor school performance, unemployment and substance abuse,'' he says. ''Indigenous Australians experience far higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, child neglect and abuse, poor school performance and unemployment than their non-indigenous counterparts.''

Goughfather
01-09-2014, 06:44 PM
Not surprisingly, you've missed the point of the article and the accompanying monologue by taking the soundbites that you like and ignoring the broader context. But then again, this is all standard operating procedure for Snake-oil Sarfati.

I asked you quite a number of posts ago if there is a single thing you have ever done for the Aboriginal population or even for an Aboriginal person in your entire time on this planet. The silence in response has been most telling.

Capablanca-Fan
02-09-2014, 01:50 AM
Shyster GF again with his Alinskyite tactics, ignoring the substance. That is: throwing lots of taxpayer money at the Aboriginals has not helped them. Noel Pearson has said much the same thing, in particular with welfare. GF is typical of leftard demagogues in preening himself over his self-assessed moral superiority that he doesn't have to care about the incentives and consequences for the people he affects to cares about.

antichrist
02-09-2014, 06:42 PM
Jono from above a bit
Weatherburn argues that if you want to understand indigenous offending, you need to look at the factors likely to get anyone involved in crime, regardless of race.

''The four most important of these are poor parenting (particularly child neglect and abuse), poor school performance, unemployment and substance abuse,'' he says. ''Indigenous Australians experience far higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, child neglect and abuse, poor school performance and unemployment than their non-indigenous counterparts.''

AC:
Exactly, and if you go right around the world it is the same. Where ever indigenous populations suffered from invasion, dislocation of land, genocide, cultural destruction, isolation, discrimination - the story is the same. They are all devastated as a race or people. Many many become alcoholics and all the other abuses that go with it, and with lack of social and identity cornerstones, where ever for white or coloureds it is exactly the same result. I just hope it does not hope to the Palestinians who have been under so much put down, pressure and dislocation for generations.

Goughfather
02-09-2014, 07:13 PM
Exactly, and if you go right around the world it is the same. Where ever indigenous populations suffered from invasion, dislocation of land, genocide, cultural destruction, isolation, discrimination - the story is the same. They are all devastated as a race or people. Many many become alcoholics and all the other abuses that go with it, and with lack of social and identity cornerstones, where ever for white or coloureds it is exactly the same result. I just hope it does not hope to the Palestinians who have been under so much put down, pressure and dislocation for generations.

Of course, if good old "Dregs o' society" Sarfati (I think he should be affectionately known as "Dregsy" from now on to remind him of his rightful standing in the community) actually read the entire article in context, he would have been aware of this. But comprehension is not Dregsy's strong suit, especially when he is strongly motivated to miss the point in the first place.

Damodevo
03-09-2014, 02:24 PM
Exactly, and if you go right around the world it is the same. Where ever indigenous populations suffered from invasion, dislocation of land, genocide, cultural destruction, isolation, discrimination - the story is the same. They are all devastated as a race or people. Many many become alcoholics and all the other abuses that go with it, and with lack of social and identity cornerstones, where ever for white or coloureds it is exactly the same result. I just hope it does not hope to the Palestinians who have been under so much put down, pressure and dislocation for generations.

You obviously don't know the first thing about Weatherburn's work because he points out that the situation was improving from 1900 to 1960 where the gap in incarceration actually closed but widened after the 1960's. Not exactly a pattern we would expect if racism and land dispossession were the culprits:


Weatherburn (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/unweaving-the-web-of-aboriginal-welfare-dependency-wont-be-easy/story-e6frg6n6-1227043001156) gently demo*lishes the claim that those outcomes reflect indigenous disempowerment. As he shows, the differences in incarceration rates actually declined after 1900, with the current gap only emerging in the 1960s.

Capablanca-Fan
03-09-2014, 10:49 PM
Once again, the Aboriginal situation parallels the African-American one, and for much the same reasons. In both cases, their situations improved up to the 1960s, then got worse, although in both countries, there was much less racism and poverty than before. Race-baiters like GF pretend to care about these groups, but want to continue the policies that have harmed them.

antichrist
06-09-2014, 03:42 PM
There are probably numerous reasons why more Aborigines are being locked up.

The outrageous law and order campaigns by shock jocks on radio stations, where Aborigines are picked on by some police and harassed and the Aborigine reacts with foul language, violence whatever.

There are many Aborigine deaths in custody due to police violence that proves the racist treatment.

From sixties Aborigines could enter hotels and legally drink liquor, same goes for the whites, more grog more breakdown of family and society, look at Russia. Before that the Aborigines got drunk in their reserves or camps away from the public eye and police.

Aborigines may be more susceptible to alcohol due to their relatively late consumption of alcohol that came with the Bible.

The stolen generations left devastated parents and children. The parents often became drunks to hide their pain, and same for children later in life.

But why isolate the Aborigines in this manner. The same goes for the Maoris, Alaskan natives, etc.

In many widespread cases nothing short of genocide occurred to the Aborigines, for over a hundred years until they were fully conquered and herded into concentration camps. These days traumatised people receive counselling, for the Aborigines absolutely nothing. There water holes were poisoned, they were fed with poisoned flour, their children's heads were kicked off their shoulders, many massacres etc etc

I have worked alongside Aborigines since a young teenager, had them camp in our sheds during winter and fed them for chores, there was nothing wrong with them, they were excellent horsemen. I admire the radicals amongst them for sticking up for their tortured race.