Page 4 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 341
  1. #46
    CC International Master Goughfather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    It's possible, but Frau Behrendt certainly didn't want to associate with the Aborigines in the community or allow the government to intervene to protect Aboriginal women and children;
    Who said that Behrendt didn't want to associate with Aborigines in "the community", whatever that means?

    As for your impassioned defence of the intervention, I would have thought that someone who claimed to be a libertarian would have decried government intrusion into the lives of Aboriginal people? Or is it the case that you believe that freedom from government intrusion is only something to which white people should be entitled?
    "People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns. Too many misunderstandings." - Jerry Seinfeld, The Little Kicks

  2. #47
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather View Post
    Who said that Behrendt didn't want to associate with Aborigines in "the community", whatever that means?
    Genuine Aboriginal elder Bess Price, as cited earlier: Aboriginal sophisticates betray bush sisters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather View Post
    As for your impassioned defence of the intervention, I would have thought that someone who claimed to be a libertarian would have decried government intrusion into the lives of Aboriginal people?
    Yawn, another leftard misrepresenting libertarianism, which argues that the government should do nothing but protect life and property, enforce contracts, and punish those who violate life and property. So the intervention was an example of the government exercising one its proper functions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather View Post
    Or is it the case that you believe that freedom from government intrusion is only something to which white people should be entitled?
    Does our resident shyster think that only white women and children should be protected from violence and sexual abuse.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  3. #48
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Not so atypical, given the leftatheopathic leanings of many.
    I was talking about her career trajectory. She is not exactly a mainstream journalist.

    Not Trinitarian, and I don't support death or even imprisonment for homosexuals.
    It doesn't matter. If Gessen is part of the broad same-sex marriage movement even though she actually opposes marriage full-stop then all monotheists can be considered part of the same monotheistic movement and any attempt to judge the SSM movement via Gessen is equivalent to judging the monotheistic movement by tarring it with the brush of not just anti-gay Islamic governments but even monotheistic terrorists or old-school Satanists.

    You're right only in the first clause, but that was hardly harassing. If the situation were reversed and it was a homosexual harassing a heterosexual who reacted with similar thuggery, this would have been a "hate crime".
    I doubt it would, and it's rather difficult to find a case that is an exact mirror image. Generally gay people don't lecture and harass straight people to their face in person about the wrongness of their sexuality.

    "Discredited" is PC-speak for not supporting PC conclusions.
    No, "discredited" is scientific-speak for "exposed as scientifically shoddy". I pointed out some of the weaknesses of the Regnerus study the very day you first mentioned it here: http://www.chesschat.org/showthread....l=1#post336202 There is plenty more where that came from of course but you did not even attempt to challenge that much.

    In trying to pass off the objections to the Regnerus study as merely "PC conclusions" and in implicitly accusing me of "PC-speak" you are just showing you are more interested in culture-warring than the facts. This is a poor attitude but it is also consistent with your indifference to Bolt's rampant factual errors.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 31-05-2014 at 09:25 PM.

  4. #49
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Yawn, another leftard misrepresenting libertarianism, which argues that the government should do nothing but protect life and property, enforce contracts, and punish those who violate life and property. So the intervention was an example of the government exercising one its proper functions.
    Oh no it wasn't. For instance, the intervention included substantial restrictions on the purchase of alcohol that are not applied elsewhere. It is not the proper function of libertarian government to illiberally restrict the alcohol purchases of one person in a community on the grounds that others in the same community have misbehaved while drunk. "protect life and property" does not justify unlimited intrusion into a person's life. If it did, excessive airport screening would be a libertarian policy and so would imprisoning suspected communists and terrorists without trial.

  5. #50
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    ... the preferential treatment, which for all we know could have started in her fräuleinhood.
    If you ignore the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for this.

    Larissa Behrendt wasn't the only one Bolt lied about, of course. From the court transcript:
    382 Mr Bolt wrote that Ms Eatock “thrived as an Aboriginal bureaucrat, activist and academic” (1A-28). The comment is unsupported by any factual basis and is erroneous. Ms Eatock has had only six to six and a half years of employment since 1977. In the case of Ms Eatock, Mr Bolt also suggested in the first article that she identified as an Aboriginal for political motives after attending a political rally (1A-27). That statement is untrue. Ms Eatock recognised herself to be an Aboriginal person from when she was eight years old whilst still at school and did not do so for political reasons.

    Enough Shuffling. Since you don't accept that people should be able to take action under the RDA, do you think there should be laws against defamation? Eatock and the others would clearly have a defamation case, given the unsupported and defamatory statements made about them. I only ask about this because you've previously criticised Michael Mann's defamation action.

  6. #51
    CC International Master Goughfather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Genuine Aboriginal elder Bess Price, as cited earlier: Aboriginal sophisticates betray bush sisters.
    I recognise that your comprehension skills are poor, but there is nothing in Marcia Langton's article that says that Ms Behrendt did not want to associate with Aborigines in "the community" - note that you didn't answer the question as to what "the community" means, as you seem to believe that there is only one community. Ms Behrendt may not wish to be associated with Ms Price's views in this one particular respect, but there is nothing there to suggest that Ms Behrendt has no wish or desire to associate with "the community".

    It should also be noted that despite their disagreements, none of Price, Behrendt or Langton would accuse any of the other parties of not genuinely being Aboriginal. Your attempt to slur Ms Behrendt, despite the demonstrable and inexcusable falsehoods of Bolt's article, shows how much of a joke you are for clinging to your absurd race theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Yawn, another leftard misrepresenting libertarianism, which argues that the government should do nothing but protect life and property, enforce contracts, and punish those who violate life and property. So the intervention was an example of the government exercising one its proper functions.
    Kevin's answer is spot on. An appropriate comparison may be a law banning guns in the South on the basis that there are unacceptably high rates of violence towards spouses and children in that region. Of course, if that were to happen, you would cry bloody murder, but you are perfectly happy for the government to intrude into the lives of law-abiding Aboriginal people, precisely because you are a racist hypocrite who only believes in freedom for yourself, even if this freedom is at the expense of others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Does our resident shyster think that only white women and children should be protected from violence and sexual abuse.
    Those who engage in domestic violence and sexual abuse should be vigorously prosecuted and punished. I don't believe that law-abiding people should be punished in the manner I see in communities in which I work, with fines of up to $82,500 or terms of imprisonment of up to 18 months for the offence of possessing alcohol when people who live in the rest of Australia are able to enjoy these freedoms, notwithstanding the fact that domestic violence and sexual abuse occurs in the communities where they live too.
    "People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns. Too many misunderstandings." - Jerry Seinfeld, The Little Kicks

  7. #52
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather View Post
    Those who engage in domestic violence and sexual abuse should be vigorously prosecuted and punished. I don't believe that law-abiding people should be punished in the manner I see in communities in which I work, with fines of up to $82,500 or terms of imprisonment of up to 18 months for the offence of possessing alcohol when people who live in the rest of Australia are able to enjoy these freedoms, notwithstanding the fact that domestic violence and sexual abuse occurs in the communities where they live too.
    Interesting facts about the NT Intervention:

    The emergency measures were initially designed to tackle suspected child abuse in some Indigenous communities. However, since the intervention was rolled out five years ago, not one person has been prosecuted for child sex abuse.
    So what happened to all the child sex abuse that was supposedly occurring?

    The measures are widely opposed by Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, who say they were not properly consulted on the government's plans and that the laws are racist.
    These 'real Aborigines' would presumably agree with Behrendt rather than Price.

  8. #53
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,958
    Indeed, if the intervention measures were even justified to protect children from sexual abuse then just imagine how Capablanca-Fan might respond if there was an intervention against churches for the same reason. Let's see:

    * Clergy to be limited in their allowance to purchase alcohol. Restrictions not to apply to rest of community.
    * Anyone on welfare who is associated with a church to have part of their income quarantined to ensure they spend it on essentials and not on buying presents for children.
    * Government-funded computers supplied to churches to black out pictures of children, links to Biblical text and any reference to NAMBLA.

    (etc)

    All for the protection of children of course; government exercising its proper libertarian function.

    I'll be interested to see if he doubles down or folds on this one. I reckon fold might be the wiser option.

  9. #54
    CC International Master Goughfather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    I'll be interested to see if he doubles down or folds on this one. I reckon fold might be the wiser option.
    Methinks that the "Sarfati Shuffle" (or $arfati $huffle as he would put it) will become the Sarfati Slink Away. That won't stop him from waiting for the embarrassment to pass, then bring up the same discredited argument as though he'd never presented it before.
    "People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns. Too many misunderstandings." - Jerry Seinfeld, The Little Kicks

  10. #55
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Interesting facts about the NT Intervention:
    According to that leftist TV station SBS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    The emergency measures were initially designed to tackle suspected child abuse in some Indigenous communities. However, since the intervention was rolled out five years ago, not one person has been prosecuted for child sex abuse.
    Are you seriously denying that it wasn't an issue? E.g.

    Text of Dr Lara Wieland's letter
    THE AUSTRALIAN JANUARY 23, 2008

    IN 2003 Dr Lara Wieland was the resident Royal Flying Doctor medico on Kowanyama Aboriginal Community in Cape York. Her abhorrence at the incidence of sexual abuse of young children forced her to write a 10-page letter to Prime Minister John Howard and Queensland Premier Peter Beattie. After she handed the letter to Mr Howard, she was sacked by the Queensland Department of Health for making public her concerns. She now works in aboriginal health on Queensland's Atherton Tableland and returns three times a year to Kowanyama where she and her husband, Ron, run volunteer health and recreation programs for the children of Kowanyama during school holidays.

    Letter to John Howard and Peter Beattie

    1. Substance Abuse: Substance abuse has already been identified as a problem of epidemic proportions linked with almost every other issue. …
    2. Mental Health/ Social and Emotional Well-being … Children have been witnessing domestic violence, proven to be psychologically damaging and there is no counselling for this or relationship education for kids. Over-crowding of the family house creates another plethora of problems. It is not uncommon to have twenty people living in a three-bedroom house with one bathroom. …
    3. Family Breakdown/ Domestic violence …
    4. Child abuse and Neglect / Child Protection: Child sexual abuse and neglect is out of control. If you consider the official definition of abuse, which includes emotional abuse such as having to witness violence then almost every child has been abused. As I got to know my patients it has come out that the majority of the young women have been sexually abused. …
    5. Child and Youth Development: There is a whole generation of children who have been left physically and emotionally scarred by the dysfunction of the last twenty years. …
    6. Health Services … Queensland Health does not know because they have never asked nor wanted to listen to the people on the ground who have tried to have input or offer solutions. As these Brisbane bureaucrat- devised systems come in, long term health staff are leaving the Cape in droves as they become stressed out and frustrated with a system they can see doesn’t address the real problems. …
    7. Sexual Assault: Cape York has extraordinarily high rates of adult sexual assault as well as child assault (covered in 4.) …
    8. Sports and Recreation …
    9. Policing/ Law & Order: Law and order is a huge issue as Noel Pearson has also pointed out. Hopefully this should very much improve with the alcohol laws too. …
    10. Capacity Building / Employment …

    Are you also disputing Elder Bess Price's first-hand accounts of violence against Aboriginal women.

    So what happened to all the child sex abuse that was supposedly occurring?[/QUOTE]
    State Labor governments didn't want to know, because of political correctness pushed by the likes of Fraud Behrendt, and firing whistle-blowers like Dr Wieland. Also, we couldn't be sure that there would not be evilly lenient judges handling the prosecution, e.g.:
    Judge condemned over Aborigine child rape case
    Barbara McMahon in Sydney
    theguardian.com [a leftist newspaper that PB would love], Monday 10 December 2007

    A judge in Australia was facing calls to step down today after she failed to jail a group of nine males who admitted gang-raping a 10-year-old girl in an Aboriginal community, saying the young victim "probably agreed" to have sex with them.

    Instead of jailing the three adults, aged 17 to 26, one of whom was a repeat sex offender, and giving custodial sentences to the six juveniles aged 14 to 16, Queensland District Court judge Sarah Bradley handed out suspended sentences and probation orders.

    The lenient sentencing was greeted with outrage and disbelief across Australia, which has been wrestling with the problem of child sex abuse in indigenous communities after a report, Little Children Are Sacred, released earlier this year, described the problem as widespread and endemic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    The measures are widely opposed by Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, who say they were not properly consulted on the government's plans and that the laws are racist.
    These 'real Aborigines' would presumably agree with Behrendt rather than Price.
    Yet Price is a real Aboriginal who cares about the violence in the community. Fraud Behrendt is well away from these communities. It is common with government bureaucratic programs that they benefit a few "leaders" at the expense of most of the community, and these "leaders" didn't want their gravy train ended.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  11. #56
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Indeed, if the intervention measures were even justified to protect children from sexual abuse then just imagine how Capablanca-Fan might respond if there was an intervention against churches for the same reason.
    Oh yes, the typical atheopathic lie about sexual abuse in the churches, although it was minuscule compared to sexual abuse in the government schools where it's 100 times worse.

    Even the anti-christian Newsweek had to admit (7 April 2010):
    "[B]ased on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. 'We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else,' said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children …
    "Experts disagree on the rate of sexual abuse among the general American male population, but Allen says a conservative estimate is one in 10. Margaret Leland Smith, a researcher at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says her review of the numbers indicates it’s closer to one in 5 …
    "Since the mid-1980s, insurance companies have offered sexual misconduct coverage as a rider on liability insurance, and their own studies indicate that Catholic churches are not higher risk than other congregations … It's been that way for decades."

    And of course we have the atheopathic child-abuser Kinsey lionized by Hollywood and Polansky defended.

    If there is indeed abuse by any clergyman, then he should be prosecuted. But the small number of accusations, let alone convictions, were from decades ago, mainly the 1960s to 1980s, and the Catholic church followed the generally accepted procedure at the time of psychological counselling rather than prosecution, i.e. just as the secular courts were doing at the time:

    We began studying sexual abuse in the 1970s, discovered it caused real harm in 1978, and realized perpetrators were difficult to rehabilitate in the 1990s. During the ’70s when we were sending offenders to treatment, the criminal justice system was doing the very same thing with convicted offenders — sending them to treatment instead of prison.
    At the time, it was believed they could be cured with relative ease. This is a very young body of knowledge, and as we sort through both valid and questionable criticisms, we must consider the historical context of any given episode.

    Of course, the various atheopathic gutter sites and the Leftmedia ignore this salient fact:

    "No one would hold a brain surgeon to today's standard of care for professional decisions he made in 1970. Yet the decisions made in 1970 by Catholic bishops, who routinely consulted with mental health professionals about sick priests, are being judged by today's standards. Today, the confidence of the mental health community about the likelihood of curing sexual disorders is far less than it was in 1970."
    – L. Martin Nussbaum, "Changing the Rules" (America magazine, 2006)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    * Clergy to be limited in their allowance to purchase alcohol. Restrictions not to apply to rest of community.
    Is there any evidence that alcohol contributes to violence and abuse among clergy as it does in the Aboriginal communities?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    * Anyone on welfare who is associated with a church to have part of their income quarantined to ensure they spend it on essentials and not on buying presents for children.
    There should be restrictions for anyone on welfare. Taxpayer money should not subsidies people's tobacco or alcohol addictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    I'll be interested to see if he doubles down or folds on this one. I reckon fold might be the wiser option.
    Dream on. When you actually make a good argument instead discredited atheopathic arguments against the church, it might be different. In any case, atheistic communist regimes have already tried to repress the church for equally trumped up excuses, and it failed.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  12. #57
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Oh yes, the typical atheopathic lie about sexual abuse in the churches, although it was minuscule compared to sexual abuse in the government schools where it's 100 times worse.
    So now you're accusing me of lying when it is a fact that sexual abuse occurs in the churches from time to time, and you even admit it is a fact. How often it (allegedly) occurs in government schools, or any other institution, is completely irrelevant since the comparison point was abuse in Aboriginal communities. There are plenty of known cases in religious institutions (clearly not only Catholics either), yet as other posters have pointed out, evidence of the Aboriginal sexual abuse epidemic supposed to justify the intervention has been a little difficult to come by. Sure, there would be sexual abuse in those communities - and there is, alas, child sexual abuse in pretty much all societies everywhere.

    I think we can on that basis add "lie" to the list of words too long for you to understand their meaning. You don't get to call me a liar because you don't like my analogy and object to it failing to detour down sidetracks convenient to you. Leastways, you don't get to do it without looking copiously silly.

    Is there any evidence that alcohol contributes to violence and abuse among clergy as it does in the Aboriginal communities?
    Who needs evidence? This is about protecting life and property, supposedly a libertarian function of government as it was with heavy-handed racially discriminatory illiberal intervention policies that punished individuals who were doing nothing wrong. Theoretical danger will do just fine. Frankly your ignorance of the illiberal nature of putting an alcohol restriction on someone who has never been drunk and disorderly just because they are in a community where alcohol is a problem is doing nothing to disabuse the joke about libertarianism being primarily a white male thing.

    There should be restrictions for anyone on welfare. Taxpayer money should not subsidies people's tobacco or alcohol addictions.
    Do you include middle-class welfare in this? How about companies that receive concessions and deals from governments; should their employees be required to be drug-tested routinely as a condition of receiving taxpayer funding?

    Dream on. When you actually make a good argument instead discredited atheopathic arguments against the church, it might be different.
    I have not made any discredited argument. You just responded to my argument by strawmanning it into something you thought you could beat and then wasting 30 lines blowing your own irrelevant strawman over. Happy now then?

  13. #58
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    So now you're accusing me of lying when it is a fact that sexual abuse occurs in the churches from time to time, and you even admit it is a fact. How often it (allegedly) occurs in government schools, or any other institution, is completely irrelevant since the comparison point was abuse in Aboriginal communities. There are plenty of known cases in religious institutions (clearly not only Catholics either), yet as other posters have pointed out, evidence of the Aboriginal sexual abuse epidemic supposed to justify the intervention has been a little difficult to come by. Sure, there would be sexual abuse in those communities - and there is, alas, child sexual abuse in pretty much all societies everywhere.
    When the horrific widespread abuse in Aborigines has been well documented, while the incidents in the Catholic Church have been very rare and is mostly decades old, it is crass to make a comparison. However, it's par for the course for atheopaths looking to smear the church unfairly—unfair for the reasons I gave.

    The usual objections to intervention did not dispute the abuse but rather were politically correct moral/cultural relativistic nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Who needs evidence? This is about protecting life and property, supposedly a libertarian function of government as it was with heavy-handed racially discriminatory illiberal intervention policies that punished individuals who were doing nothing wrong. Theoretical danger will do just fine. Frankly your ignorance of the illiberal nature of putting an alcohol restriction on someone who has never been drunk and disorderly just because they are in a community where alcohol is a problem is doing nothing to disabuse the joke about libertarianism being primarily a white male thing.
    It is hardly a racial problem when it was about restricting grog to certain communities where alcoholism is rife. Aborigines like Frau Behrendt in cities could drink as much as they liked without any government interference.

    My own libertarianism has been influenced largely by black males like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, and by my fellow Jew Milton Friedman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Do you include middle-class welfare in this? How about companies that receive concessions and deals from governments; should their employees be required to be drug-tested routinely as a condition of receiving taxpayer funding?
    I detest middle class welfare and government picking corporate winners, as I have made abundantly clear here.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  14. #59
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    When the horrific widespread abuse in Aborigines has been well documented, while the incidents in the Catholic Church have been very rare and is mostly decades old, it is crass to make a comparison. However, it's par for the course for atheopaths looking to smear the church unfairly—unfair for the reasons I gave.
    You might find it "crass" but punishing innocent people because some people are abusive while drunk is much crasser, and considering that to be consistent with the principles of libertarianism is about the crassest thing that I can think of. It's also funny that you keep trying to tie my comments to Catholicism when I did not restrict them to any particular church. And even if you find it crass that doesn't make my use of that analogy a lie, an inference that if you weren't being so crass yourself you would have retracted.

    The usual objections to intervention did not dispute the abuse but rather were politically correct moral/cultural relativistic nonsense.
    Even if that is true it is irrelevant to the point at hand: that the intervention was an illiberal and unlibertarian measure that punished the innocent and guilty alike.

    It is hardly a racial problem when it was about restricting grog to certain communities where alcoholism is rife.
    Alcoholism is rife in plenty of white communities too.

    I detest middle class welfare and government picking corporate winners, as I have made abundantly clear here.
    Sure, but you don't completely detest the idea of some kind of income support for the unemployed. Yet it is only them for whom you are supporting quarantining. Surely if quarantining makes any sense it would be a good idea to start with applying it to those forms of government welfare that people do not actually need and that ideally wouldn't be paid at all.

    I don't mind the application of quarantining-type principles to specific dole recipients who have been shown to neglect their children by wasting money on drugs, or to people who actually request to have their own income quarantined. But if someone else is able to get by on welfare and be thrifty enough to have money left over to spend on whatever they enjoy, good luck to them.

  15. #60
    CC International Master Goughfather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    You might find it "crass" but punishing innocent people because some people are abusive while drunk is much crasser, and considering that to be consistent with the principles of libertarianism is about the crassest thing that I can think of. It's also funny that you keep trying to tie my comments to Catholicism when I did not restrict them to any particular church. And even if you find it crass that doesn't make my use of that analogy a lie, an inference that if you weren't being so crass yourself you would have retracted.
    This assumes that Jono feels the slightest sense of shame and possesses the slightest hint of integrity, neither of which have been detected to date.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Even if that is true it is irrelevant to the point at hand: that the intervention was an illiberal and unlibertarian measure that punished the innocent and guilty alike.
    Jono doesn't have a problem with an innocent party being punished as long as they are Aboriginal, as that is enough of an offence for his purposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Alcoholism is rife in plenty of white communities too.
    That's very unfair for you to bring up, given that it does not fit neatly into Jono's intended narrative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    I don't mind the application of quarantining-type principles to specific dole recipients who have been shown to neglect their children by wasting money on drugs, or to people who actually request to have their own income quarantined. But if someone else is able to get by on welfare and be thrifty enough to have money left over to spend on whatever they enjoy, good luck to them.
    If they are going to start quarantining the income and drug testing those on public money, then federal politicians should lead by example. For a start, measures should be taken to ensure that there are no more long lunches for Hockey and his colleagues, with the consumption of wine and other intoxicants strictly off-limits.

    With respect to those on welfare, there is very little latitude for luxury items once the essentials are purchased. Of course, if the welfare recipient is Aboriginal, even the slightest degree of latitude is unthinkable for Jono.
    "People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns. Too many misunderstandings." - Jerry Seinfeld, The Little Kicks

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Vic Labor's proposed anti-discrimination laws
    By Capablanca-Fan in forum Politics
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 02:05 PM
  2. anti-discrimination case in Toronto sf SSM
    By Capablanca-Fan in forum Politics
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 18-07-2013, 05:48 AM
  3. Court rejects Jetstar discrimination claim
    By antichrist in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18-01-2012, 07:42 AM
  4. Discrimination against Gays (homosexuals)
    By antichrist in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-01-2012, 03:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •