PT 2

Note that most reactions to Andrew Fraser start with "i don't agree with him,but...".It is an unthinking reaction,like saying "i don't agree the earth is round,but...". I suppose such reactions are more intellectually honest than those that spout "but i know lots of nice,smart black people",as if Fraser's theory is on a micro,rather than macro level.

The only real room for debate is in fact his conclusion:that the costs of diversity outweigh the benefits.Therefore most people will respond only from personal experience,political loyalty or their own minority ethnic genetic interests.For example,see todays action by the Sudanese community http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16601391%255E1702,00.html .The truth is irrelevant as their ethnic interests are being compromised.

I assume a white Australian living in 'diverse' south-western Sydney would respond quite differently from a white Australian living on the homogenous North Shore.It has been said that the further one resides from the heart of multiracialism,the more one endorses it.Then again,we don't see many Japanese or Malaysian people arguing that their societies need more 'diversity' through immigration and refugee programs.We have an innate sense of needing to be overcome,and will shout down anyone in our midst who disagrees just to prove our superior aracial ways to the world.Perhaps sometime in the future,scientists will study us and find out why we,out of all the races in the world,have this tendency.It could possibly have something to do with our recessive genes.

steven_29_au

Well, what an interesting post. I will have to read it several times, follow your links and re-think my position before I can comment on your assertions.

Even so, you have not drawn the same conclusions about Indigenous Australians - and I trust that you will not go there!

Cheers
Kay

Is there some kind of secret stats society on this forum?? Is there some kind of kudos we get for dumping stats on the readers? we seem to be constantly bombarded with stats and links to more stats. Some of Stephen29's statements/stats include hispanics and some don't, so it's all a bit all over the place. I too noted the absence of aborigines from your post. And I won't even ask about the *scientific fact* for fear of being shoved in the direction of more links with stats stats stats.

What's happened in New Orleans has shown the world that blacks are treated like dirt and that's why they're sociologically and economically disadvantaged and inferior.

"....but white-on-black gang rapes are so rare they do not even show up in the statistics." Can you immediately discount that this is probably because white-on-black gang rapes aren't reported?

I also loved the bit about replacing african american with arab, etc, etc. What is that? poetic licence?

The bottom line is that until we individually take a real interest in learning about different races and cultures, racism and bigotry will never go away, more and more erroneous stats will be pushed in our faces and we'll all troddle off to our comfortable little safety zones, happy with our circular little arguments that we're smarter than the rest of em and therefore we should keep them out.

lisamaree "Is there some kind of secret stats society on this forum?"

Some of our posters enjoy reference to statistics.

Personally, I prefer quotations from Margaret Thatcher - they are, whilst as contentious, invariably more accurate and based on insight with which I experience a strong correlation.

Of course people of different political views would see that differently - example - Latham and his vilifying diaries - I would find his view representative of what is found 4+ standard deviations from my own, except (fortunately) their is nothing "standard" about Latham - he is clearly and obviously an abberition (of the sociopathic variety).

Still Voltaire would suggest, and I would agree, he has every right to express his "view" and from these diaries we find out why he should.

I have long held the belief that "Censorship" treats the Sage and the Idiot as equals; whilst "freedom of speech" allows the sage and the idiot to distinguish themselves by what they say.

Latham has certainly proved the wisdom of that belief.

Through his diaries, the Australian voting public can observe the crippled and manelvolent character (or substitute for) which resides within the body of an arm-breaking and bullying pustule.

How the idiot is exposed and how his own words will vilify his memory.

Voltaire was right.

As for statistics - their are lies, damn lies, statistics and now we can add a new catagory "the Lathams Diaries"

I see the publishers have doubled the print run - it was only 5000 to start with - I might go and get one - whern they aare being binned out at KMart - just for a belly laugh and as a prompt to remember - how close cynical labor voters went to look into the abyss.

Strange how folks are still repeating the error that Helen brought to our attention - with great style, I might add - two weeks ago.

Helen, 6th September: "Voltaire never said anything remotely like this."

Col Rouge, 21st September: "Voltaire was right."

Unless there is some postmodern ironic undertone to Col's statement, Helen's good deed to bring this common mistake to our attention (I certainly won't forget it, or all the fun I had checking it out) has gone entirely unnoticed.

You get my thanks and appreciation anyway, Helen, for what it's worth.

Yes my focus did drift away from Voltaire I know but I couldn't resist!

I took a different slant on Helen's article - yes it's interesting that Voltaire has been misquoted so often for so long...but let's face it, that in itself wouldn't excite much debate. And anyone visiting this forum would agree we have a right to "Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too". I saw the Voltaire mis-quote as a red herring, with Fraser's assertions used as a forum for our right to "defend discrimination to the death". Most of us would agree with this. (Interestingly though, Rainier has given us an example of how emotions can transcend this right. And yet he subscribes to this forum. Go figure). But from ColR : "....Censorship" treats the Sage and the Idiot as equals; whilst "freedom of speech" allows the sage and the idiot to distinguish themselves by what they say." That to me pretty much condenses the whole debate into one sentence.