The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The debate is far from over > Comments

The debate is far from over : Comments

By Ben-Peter Terpstra, published 24/5/2007

The media fuel children’s insecurities with more doom and gloom prophecies.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I agree with a lot of the argument. But then you could say the "debate is over" according to the right on Economic Rationalism.
Posted by Whitty, Thursday, 24 May 2007 9:41:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And yes there are still some people who think the earth is flat, despite that damned liberal Galileo declaring 600 years ago that the debate was over.
Posted by Mr Denmore, Thursday, 24 May 2007 10:24:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article!
Posted by runner, Thursday, 24 May 2007 10:39:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nominating Andrew Bolt a 'voice of sanity'rather dilutes your argument.
Posted by MsFuzz, Thursday, 24 May 2007 10:49:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's a good point, the debate should continue, and the science should extend.
However at some point one has to take what data one has, even if lacking, and make a decision and act. It is possible to get stuck in debate, in an endless stalemate of back and forth bickering or idle contemplation where nothing gets done. That is a worse state than taking an action that is unfruitful. Especially when there is urgency or danger involved, sitting and thinking or arguing about it is clearly not the smart thing to do.
It may be bad to declare the debate over when it is not and even worse to then suppress any counter-opinion, but it's also dangerous to be so extremely skeptical as to never take action.
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 24 May 2007 11:12:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"even the “capital punishment debate” is over (in spite of the fact that over 50 per cent of Australians support the death penalty). In other words, whenever the cultural left is lost for words, the debate is always over. Then, they pile on, and on, and on."

85 per cent of all Australians know that if you're going to toss a controversial statistic like that out there, you gotta back it up or have your audience assume it's either made up or from a biased source.

The author hammers a child's show, captain planet. I seem to recall that show. Is Mr Terpstra honestly advocating pollution? What the hell is so wrong about putting on a cartoon with conservation values? It was a commercial program that rated - if people didn't like it it wouldn't have. You can't fire that old 'ABC bias' argument at that one.

Mr Terpstra claims that the left just claims the argument's over when these things are brought up. I say, that the 'left' as a united entity is a myth that conservatives like to pummel their opponents with, and that these debates are always raging, but right wingers sulk when they lose.

By the same token, let's get pissed off at sitcoms. After all, the people on those programs live in cities buy things. They're clearly advocating capitalism, and need to be stopped.

Overanalysed bulldust from the disgruntled.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 24 May 2007 2:07:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ho hum, same old whining, this time dressed with hilarious pseudoscience - but its by repetition that influence is gained, and Terpstra packs plenty of nonsense into one page. Theres the obligatory airing of 'chattering classes' type labels, an almost nostalgic Stalinist smear, and the implication that he is somehow defending the kiddies - so far so ordinary, timeless even. But theres also an attempt to claim/reframe 'denial' as anyone who can't see Ben's bogeyman, a very late claim to 'scientists breaking ranks' (presumably on climate, bet hes got that list of weathermen Mark Ramsay was peddling last week), and the complete lack of references or supporting links for his claims that is such a hallmark of RightThink intellectuals.

What exactly is Ben after here, apart from a hynotic repetition of 'The debate is over?' If he's looking for the debate and the change its happening all around him, he oughta get out more (out of the Liberal party particularly). If he wants to participate in debate maybe he should bring something apart from his cliches (eg. data, info or knowledge).
Posted by Liam, Thursday, 24 May 2007 5:56:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ever since the the evolution of our consciousness we've always been faced with some sort of survival dilemma whether we have a Chimp or Homo Sapien perspective.

People who suffered WW2 had far less surity of survival yet coped better than our present generation of whimps who seek excuses not to face the next challenge."We are the Hollow Men,head piece filled with straw."Just love Elliot.

I think that our humanity naturally decays unless we have a challenge that tests our survival instincts and skills.

Presently we are in the process of serious decay.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 24 May 2007 11:43:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I could not agree more with some of the above comments, particularly Donnie's comment about finally taking a position despite not having proof. We may never actually prove that global warming is caused by human activity, but when the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of the idea that we are causing it, then we need to act. To do anything else is irresponsible.

Also, dare I say it, the debate actually is over Ben. Just because there are some scientists who disagree with the majority (as there always will be) we are told that there is a debate. This is Andrew Bolt's line. Far from being a voice of sanity, he is one of the most unbalanced and manipulative journalists out there, yet he sees himself as the last bastion of truth. When the vast majority of the world's scientists are saying that global warming is caused by human activity, Bolt will quote the few who are saying the opposite, in the name of balance, and say "There! There is a debate".

This attitude from Bolt can be seen in his rigid defense of the ABC screening 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' when the science that this program defends has been debunked and even one of the scientists appearing on the documentary has openly said he was misrepresented, and at least one other has been actually proven to be wrong.

We all know what our children will say to us in 50 years time if we are proven right. However, even if we are proven wrong, there will be respect for those who decided to take a stand to try and make the earth a better place.
Posted by Nils, Friday, 25 May 2007 1:15:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree fully with Ms McFuzz. Bolt! Wish he would.

TRTL has a rant against "the left" yet again. Quoting statistics he can't back up in his claim. Assume you made it up TRTL. Perhaps you are being humourous, I can't tell the difference.

As to the issue of this article. Very good. Agree with most written.

I'd extend it though to include all of us. We are daily attacked with a variety of tragedies, dramas and very little good. All day every day.

And who are the most prolific exponents of this? Politicians. Currently our PM is the vilest practicer of this. He wants to create fear as he has no other way of gathering support. "I'll save ya's" is his motto really. But he doesn't. Or dossent as he pronounces it.

I'm sick to death of the gloom and doom and have started tuning out of politics as I find that once a week is all you need to find out the whole week's "issues". Nothing ever actually happens. Check it out. Keep a list of all the "big" issues" over a year and see if you can remember them at the end of the year. Bet you can't. Even just scroll through OLP's back items and you'll see the same thing. Why the hell was I interested in THAT is what you will feel on most issues.

You just miss the bickering and BS that is said.
Posted by pegasus, Friday, 25 May 2007 1:30:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pegasus

Yeah. My 85 per cent was a joke. Yes, you failed to see the humour. Perhaps the joke was flat, but the fact remains that Terpstra doesn't back up his claim regarding the death penalty, and quite frankly, I don't believe it.

As for a "rant against the left again."

If you can demonstrate where I rant against the left I'd be interested. I'll have you know I reserve most of my rants on behalf of the 'left' against the right. Though I tend to think the 'left' as a united entity is more of a concept and less of a reality, and most of my rants are directed at those at the extreme end of either spectrum.

I'll also have you know I don't buy into the doom and gloom BS either. Note that on the 'don't worry, be happy' thread, I'm against those who try to paint everything as negative.

On this case, I just think Terpstra's attack on the 'left' is condenscending and doesn't actually address anything of substance. He tries to claim that the left just opts out of arguments claiming that there is no more debate. The fact of the matter is, that we have a conservative government and there is most definitely a debate.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 25 May 2007 2:05:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Terpstra is a desperate man when he attacks Rachel Carson's review on organochlorines and he's reduced to validating his argument by mentioning the renewed use of DDT in African nations to eliminate malaria.

DDT has been re-introduced in Africa, as a last ditch, desperate effort to reduce the scourge of malaria, simply because there are no effective alternatives.

The scientific fact remains: DDT is among the persisent organochlorine pollutants (POPS), which affects the reproductive and immunological systems of all living species including the destruction of sea grasses and corals.

The asymptomatic long lag time for diseases to show in humans, from exposure to DDT, is well documented, where this chemical can also affect the kidneys and liver.

So while many millions of Africans can be saved from malaria, by the use of DDT, others will eventually die from long-term exposure to the spraying of DDT and the biosphere will degrade even more.

I shall place the author's credibility rating at zero, along with Andrew Bolts - another desperado, who appeared rather pathetic in the interview conducted by the ABC in last night's documentary on "Crude."
Posted by dickie, Friday, 25 May 2007 4:13:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Too true Dickie, note news today that cancer is now the leading cause of death in Australia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1932748.htm

nothing to do with pollution of course
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2557617.stm
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/health/news/article_1307147.php/Government_Pollution_has_made_cancer_top_cause_of_death_in_China
http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/execsumm.php

Back to Mr Terpstra, if he is keen on stamping out fear mongering perhaps he should look to this glorious leader
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/24/bush_to_reporter
Bush telling reporters to fear for their childrens lives.
Posted by Liam, Friday, 25 May 2007 4:57:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for those threads, Liam.

You may like to call up any of the "Stockholm Convention" websites to find that Australia is a signatory to that Convention where many countries have pledged to eliminate the man-made, "dirty dozen" chemicals - DDT included.

While the Convention acknowledges that African countries have reverted to the use of DDT, it urges these countries to quickly find an alternative. Additionally, malaria bearing mosquitoes can become immune to DDT's effectiveness. Unfortunately, the environment and humans are not immune to the ghastly effects of DDT.

Mr Terpstra would be well advised to seek out the science before making rash claims over his "ecochondria" and "environmental angst" garbage.

It is imperative that the children of today understand the stuff-ups their forefathers have created so that they, unlike the ill-informed Mr Terpstra, do not continue down the path of self-destruction.
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 27 May 2007 2:28:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The debate is indeed far from over .Scientists experienced in the study of risk management are the ones who can calmly and with confidence set boundaries that avoid fear and false reactions. They inspire confidence if they are known .....but does anyone know who they are? http://productionecologists.blogspot.com
Posted by sirhumpfree, Monday, 28 May 2007 3:22:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You didn't mention, Liam, that cancer is now the leading cause of death because of a reduction in deaths from heart disease and stroke. Thanks for the link to the full story.
Posted by Richard Castles, Monday, 28 May 2007 11:58:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, the hilarious thing about all the animated anti-human Hollywood cartoons is that the animals ARE human. This seems to go over some people's heads. My goldfish never talked or showed the range of emotion and cognition of Nemo, my turtle wasn't a narly surfer dude, and if I had a shark in my swimming pool I wouldn't trust him to be vegetarian.
Posted by Richard Castles, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 12:23:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Australian Institute for Health and Welfare have advised that by 2011, the prevalence in cancers will have increased by 31%, from the 2001 statistics.

That's hardly a stable rate as you are suggesting Richard - would you not agree?
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 7:31:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard Castles wrote:"You didn't mention, Liam, that cancer is now the leading cause of death because of a reduction in deaths from heart disease and stroke. Thanks for the link to the full story."

Cardiovascular disease deaths falling, as are cancer death rates, but cancer incidence is rising - so please ignore BT & RC's uninformed opinions.

"Cancer death rates in Australia are low compared to other developed countries, but cancer incidence rates are relatively high, according to a new report released today by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW).
Cancer in Australia 2001 shows that, excluding skin cancers, the Australian incidence rate for cancer was 18% higher than the average for 'more developed' countries for males, and 28% higher for females, in 2000. The rates, while the same as in the USA, were lower than in New Zealand, but up to 10% higher than in Canada and much higher than in the United Kingdom-36% higher for males and 19% higher for females.
http://www.aihw.gov.au/mediacentre/2004/mr20041215a.cfm
Posted by Liam, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 3:41:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You say I am uninformed, Liam, yet my comment only referred to your statement and the link you provided. So who is it who is 'uninforming' me? A case of self-entrapment I'd say.
Posted by Richard Castles, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 3:38:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fine Richard, but i come here to swap views and information not play 'gotcha' word games.
Posted by Liam, Thursday, 31 May 2007 9:22:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gotcha.
Posted by Richard Castles, Friday, 1 June 2007 3:09:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy