Yuyutsu,

I don't think hate has anything much to do with this subject. It's basically a straw-man, or red herring. What are the issues, that's the question ?

Did Triggs keep silent for all those years, until Labor was chucked out and Abbott/Morrison rapidly cut back the number of people in detention (including children) by succeeding in stopping the boats ? What proportion of refugees are now coming to Australia through the proper channels, filling out the forms and waiting their turns in the vast camps of Africa and the Middle East, totally unable to ever accumulate enough thousands to get on a boat ?

Did Triggs, for God knows what reason, reward a wife-killer (so much for opposing domestic violence) to the tune of hundreds of thousands ? Is there something she knows that the rest of us don't ? Is that bloke actually some sort of saint, totally innocent of lifting a finger to his dear wife for whom he grieves constantly ?

So many unknowns !

Joe

Craig Minns,

What possible purpose is served by this then?

Quote, "Clearly you hate Sarah and Triggs to the core (as they hate you just the same, as expressed by this article)."

Joe, I'm not sure that you're quite right. The author's article is arguably based on her "hatred" of "TAT's and I suspect that a fair amount of that is reciprocated, as Yututsu points out, while the Triggs issue is the real red herring on both sides.

In other words, in the absence of Triggs, a similar piece and a similar reaction would be likely to emerge, based on whatever premises seem to suit at the time.

What is really interesting is that it may well be that there is no article the author could write that would not be subject to a similar reception to this one from some of the respondents here.

So while "hatred" may not be the right word, it seems to me that the behaviours evinced may well be almost indistinguishable.

Crai Minns, "So while "hatred" may not be the right word, it seems to me that the behaviours evinced may well be almost indistinguishable"

You too are poisoning the well.

"Given this hate, what if anything still makes you want, perhaps even insist, to share and belong to the same "nation" as they, where you keep fighting bitterly and endlessly, rather than split the land and live peacefully each according to their beliefs and preferences?"

I'm sorry Yuyutsu but this 'question' actually doesn't make any sense; once again you haven't thought through the big picture or ramifications of your solution.

Here we have two parties that disagree so you suggest we simply divide up the nation and then give them each half to live in. The problem is this is only one issue of disagreement; there are hundreds of other interest groups that can't see eye to eye; how many ways do we carve up the nation.

Maybe we should just redistribute the populace into the existing states and territories... Tasmania for all the greenies; WA for the climate deniers'; SA for Libs; ACT for the feminists; NT for all non-white ethnic types; NSW for the Laborites; and Queensland for outdoors minded folk. Then close the borders... but no that doesn't work because you believe anyone should be allowed to travel freely across any border without restriction.

I really think you should re-read your posts; they may seem genius inside a cloud of wacky-tabaccy but more often than not much of what you say simply defies logic and doesn't stack up in a practical sense.

CH, I took Yuyutsu's question to be an example of reductio ad absurdum, designed to make people think, rather than being a seriously literal proposal.

How do people with viewpoints that are so completely at odds ever arrive at compromises that might minimally satisfy?

And as for poisoning the well, perhaps a bit less talk of "wacky-baccy"?