Oh well, I tried.

But I'd just like to point out to the shrill-brigade that takes exception to my critique of Ms Heinrichs' effort, that being constructive requires more than just spluttering indignation.

How dare I criticise the lady's approach to the topic! She's so young and has a way with words, surely that's enough!

Well, not in my book.

Presenting the argument in the manner that she does is mere polemic. Any and all contrary positions are not evaluated, they are simply sneered at. Industry is described as permanently corrupt, as are politicians who disagree with the position she has adopted. It can only possibly carry any weight with her cheer-squad.

The proposition - that "collapseology should be shaping Australian public policy" falls into the trap of using sound-bites, instead of reasoning. Is this the way we would like our students to think? As if they were reporting for Today Tonight?

And on the topic of thinking...

>>So by your logic, Pericles, if Fiona gets a positive comment she's being manipulated and if she gets a negative comment she's being taught how to think for herself. Got that? Patronizing just doesn't do it justice.<<

You didn't read the reference I provided, did you Emma*? Or if you did, you clearly didn't understand it. If you look at the supportive comments here, it is quite possible to form the view that none of them has read the document in question.

This one from wild is typical:

>>Very refreshing to see the younger generation who are not brainwashed by the enormous growthist mob<<

And you call me patronizing?

How... refreshing.

Seriously Pericles, you need to get a grip of yourself...(or let go, whichever is bothering you).

The article addresses many of the arguments growthers use. These arguments are systematically dismantled and rebutted using referenced material.

On the other hand, what have the critics here offered to defend their positions? Who is "sneering", "patronising", "spluttering indignant" etc.?

Until you present arguments based on the issues in the article and stop attacking the author on the basis of her age and gender you'll come across as nothing more than the half-baked sideshow clowns.

To reiterate my first comment, just grow up and deal with the substance of the arguments for once. Or is that all just too hard?

@Pericles: Presenting the argument in the manner that she does is mere polemic.

No, what she said clearly it isn't mere polemic. It consisted of polemic mixed in with a fairly liberal serving of fact and quotes. You are choosing to address the only polemic, thus conveniently managing to side step to main thrust of her argument.

The example you quoted of profiteering, exploiting university system is a case in point. Yes, the girl is obviously a starry eyed socialist. This is, as you say, a common failing of youth.

But that doesn't make her her central thesis wrong, and the reference she quotes nails it: "The universities aim to seek full fee-paying foreign students and as Universities Australia, the peak body representing the 39 Australian universities makes clear on its website, are strong advocates of continuous immigration to Australia and economic growth." The universities have indeed been forced into the position of needing to fill lots of places with foreign full time students to bridge funding gaps, and they did react as you might expect when the tie been education attainment and residency was cut, causing a drop in numbers.

Her point is a strong one. It wasn't like this 10 years ago, so in less than a decade we have creating an industry that needs immigration to survive. And surprise, surprise, along with it we have create a vocal support group of "big Australia" in a highly influential part of society.

The irony in the way you are critiquing her is you are doing the very thing you are accusing her of. You mention her youth, her politics, make vague unsubstantiated claims on "mythology held by all students", you say her "writing style rather falls apart" but in the next breath "overall, the writing isn't bad". What on earth has any of this got to do the main thrust of her argument or the facts she rests it on?

The problem is not your reference Pericles, its your fatuous rhetoric. Sardine and rstuart have summed it up quite well. If you can't identify either errors of fact or errors in logic in Fiona's work, what's your point?

Ok, let's have a look.

>>...what she said clearly it isn't mere polemic. It consisted of polemic mixed in with a fairly liberal serving of fact and quotes.<<

It's more a collection of opinions, really. Normally one would expect a few facts to go along with them, but it is simply polemic, supported by nested opinions, one inside the other.

Tell you what, I'll give you an illustration of my opinion of her opinion, then you can come back with "a liberal serving of fact". Fair enough?

Here goes.

"In examining the massive research about Australian immigration – books, academic journal articles and opinion pieces in the print media, I was reminded of the tradition of apologetics in theology where defences are made of Church dogmas. Similarly, the massive pro-immigration works trade on power politics and intimidation, typically using the ‘racist’ master card to silence debate."[68]

The "evidence" for this is provided in one of the 326 footnotes. Not surprising, since finding a place for it it within the text would be beyond the capability of most. Here it is:

[68] "See for example Buttrose, I. ‘The Shadow of Hanson’s Smile on the PM’s face.’ The Australian. 9 July: 2010, p.12, ‘Gillard’s Refugee Policy Panders to our Latent Racism.’ Further, Barry Cohen observes that ‘The advocates of a big Australia have bundled a range of immigration issues – asylum-seekers, refugees, cultural integration and economic growth – into one debate and branded opponents as racists, rednecks or worse: Hansonites.’ Cohen, B. ‘Most People have Little Doubt Bigger Isn’t Better.’ The Australian. 6 August: 2010, p.14."

Does this strike you, even with the rosiest-tinted spectacles, as evidence that "...the massive pro-immigration works trade on power politics and intimidation, typically using the ‘racist’ master card to silence debate"?

Supporting your opinion with someone else's opinion is merely that: someone else's opinion.

It might help, if those opinions were worth taking seriously. But they're not. What are Ita Buttrose's qualifications, that she should be called as a credible source?

And Barry Cohen? You mean, this Barry Cohen?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/opposing-gay-marriage-doesnt-mean-im-barking/story-e6frgd0x-1226038720460

Polemic. That's all. Your turn

My point, Emma*?

>>If you can't identify either errors of fact or errors in logic in Fiona's work, what's your point?<<

My point is that there are no facts presented, simply a collection of other people's opinions. Nor is there logic with which to disagree, because it always leads to more opinions.

The opening chapter sets the scene.

“Andrew Markus, James Jupp and Peter McDonald argue in their book... A Galaxy Poll for The Sunday Mail of 1,000 people found that 66 percent of the sample believed... 72 percent of locally born Australians favoured ... 55 percent of those living in Australia but not considering themselves Australians, also favoured … Over half of all respondents (52 percent) thought that … a poll by Essential Research of 1,000 people yielded similar results: 75 percent of the sample believed... over 60 percent wanted... the majority of the sample believed... over half of the sample rejected the idea... Another survey by the Lowy Institute think tank of 1001 Australians found that 69 percent of the sample... A larger survey of over 3,000 people by Monash University’s Centre for Population and Urban Research also found that 69 percent of the sample... 75 percent of women in the survey did not want... a survey by global research organization TNS of over 1,300 people, found that 69 percent of the sample... 80 percent of respondents believed...”

There is absolutely nothing wrong with trawling for statistics that demonstrate the opinions of the Australian people on various topics. If this were presented as such, it could make an interesting snapshot of.. something or other. Possibly the manner in which news is presented, possibly the general ignorance (or perspicacity) of the populace at large, something along those lines.

The fact that it is misleading, is clear from Sardine's contribution:

>>The article addresses many of the arguments growthers use. These arguments are systematically dismantled and rebutted using referenced material.<<

But they are not “dismantled”, are they. Just quotes from a bunch of supporters, selected because they agree with the author.

Very 1960s. Very Aldermaston. Very commendable.