"... Pascoe's claims to Aboriginality have been publicly refuted by multiple investigators, including Andrew Bolt ..."

I laughed and cried so much it hurts. I can't possibly take this guy seriously and finish reading.

I accept that there are only two genders.
However, in practical day to day living there can be more variations.
The simple way I see it helps me understand those variations.
I see people as having three main characteristics.
Physical shape, sexuality, emotional outlook or drive.
Male shape, male sexuality, male emotional state, we have a standard male.
Female shape, female sexuality, female emotional state, we have a standard female.
Sometimes, a male body is born with female sexuality, and less than ideal emotional drive.
Similarly, a female body can have male sexuality and less than ideal female drive.
That is where the variations come in.
Female sexuality means being attracted to a male SHAPED person.
Male sexuality means being attracted to a female SHAPED person.
So a male shaped person with female sexuality will be attracted to other male shapes.
The only one who would respond to 'him' would be another male shape with female sexuality.
Similarly for female shaped persons with male sexuality.
It appears there can be various levels of sexuality and emotional state in all these people.
So many 'mixtures' result.
I hope this is not too difficult to follow.
Others can comment on the remaining assertions made by Mr O'Reilly.

On Pascoe, I think that Aries54 is one of those who want to believe Pascoe's narrative irrespective of the evidence. Genealogical evidence of non-Aboriginal origin is emphatic in cases where all ancestors can be traced to arrivals from overseas. Whatever Aries54 thinks of me or Andrew Bolt, the balance of academic assessments no longer support Pascoes thesis either.

Ipso Fatso is closer to my view than he concedes. We both agree that there are only two biological sexes/genders, which cannot be altered after conception/birth. I also agree that there can be any number of sexual orientations that a person can self identify as having. People can identify with any sexuality they like, as long as they don't interfere with others.

The point is that sexual identity is a different concept to biological sex/gender. A transsexual male person (transitioned to "female") can legitimately state that they identify as a female. This reality cannot alter the fact that biologically they remain a male

The remedy to correcting the response to the “real problem” of which becomes a question in and of itself, which is usurped by the need to bury a mistaken belief that all complaints are of a genuine nature, and need an urgent and universal solution based on correcting mistaken beliefs and negative outcomes by unproficient experts towards the arguable identification of a victim, as presented in that argument, towards a remedy which is conclusively flawed, and guaranteed to inflict broader pain than the original claimed injustice, is a crime that the broader community, bullied by one sided law-fare, submitting to the imagined facts of a fantasy, as unequivocal evidence to be acted upon, shall in future of this point of judicial change, submit noiselessly as new and real victims of official State crimes of a new morality order, dictated into agonised compliance, obediently against its better and more educated collective judgement, or be publicly vilified for similar free thought and personal moral judgements, as perceived by the original claimants.

Aries wrote: "I can't possibly take this guy seriously and finish reading."

Well since you didn't finish the article let me fill you in. The underlining theme was that we get lied to by people relying on us not seeking the truth and who fall for the yarns spun to misled them.

Like those who fell for the Pascoe malarkey and who, despite the overwhelming evidence that he (Pascoe) is a fake aboriginal who stole funding meant to help real first peoples, continue to believe the fables about him because they suit the narrative.

So fall about laughing if you wish, but just note that the joke is on you.

Oh Mhaze, it went over your head like a hear net didn't it, so let me spell it out for you. You say "... us not seeking the truth and who fall for the yarns spun to misled them." And you believe Andrew Bolt can clarify this (or any other issue)? No sunshine, the joke's on you.

Oh so you're not concerned about the truth, just who's telling it to you?

mhaze

Truth is what members of your tribe tell you. Lies are from the province of outsiders. So your mum can be Polish and your dad can be Filipino, yet you can sign a single page document (alleged by outsiders* to be thirteen pages) along with other alleged first nations people. The document is of such importance that cult leader Albo has a copy of it on a wall at his home that he claims to read every morning. I say "claims", because he also has a report on antisemitism which he claims to have acted on, yet has allegedly long been gathering dust on his desk.

*Curiously for the outsiders, the main authors of the document also used to claim that it was thirteen pages until cult leader Albo claimed that it was a single page.

mhaze

Your summary of the article is -

"... we get lied to by people relying on us not seeking the truth and who fall for the yarns spun to misled them."

If anyone turns to Andrew Bolt to deliver the truth, we're screwed. He's way too busy vilifying anyone who isn't a clone of himself to be concerned with the truth.

Maybe so... I don't follow him all that much, and clearly he lives in your head rent-free.

But in the case of Pascoe, Bolt was one of the first to bring the truth to light and the first major media figure to publicise the efforts of others to reveal Pascoe's lies about all manner of things. Maybe he's wrong on all sorts of other things, yet on this one point made by the article's author, Bolt was very correct. If you are going to ignore all articles that favourably mention Bolt on any issue, you are going miss out on all manner of truths.

Still some prefer it that way.

diver dan
That was the longest sentence I think I have ever seen.
And Charles Dickens had a few I seem to remember.
I congratulate you on a splendid effort.

To the ambiguity-intolerant, everything looks like malice.

1. Pascoe
Contested scholarship isn't fraud, and silence isn't proof.

2. Sex / gender
You're discussing biology in a dispute about law and social categories.

3. Renewables
Bad slogans aren't lies, and system costs aren't ignored.

4. Consent law
That's a policy choice you dislike, not the state "lying."

Next...

"Contested scholarship isn't fraud, and silence isn't proof."

But falsely claiming Aboriginality most definitely is fraud. OTOH referring to what Pascoe did as 'scholarship' is probably the biggest fraud of all.

That depends, mhaze.

//...falsely claiming Aboriginality most definitely is fraud.//

Only if intent, false representation, and material deception can be established by a court, regulator, or tribunal. Pascoe's ancestry claims are disputed and controversial, but they haven't been found to be knowingly false. You're doing precisely what Brendan O'Reilly did in his article: asserting fraud as a conclusion and then redefining the terrain to avoid having to demonstrate it.

Calling Pascoe's work "not scholarship" doesn't solve this. It simply shifts the goalposts.

His historical claims have been debated, criticised, and in some cases rebutted by other academics. That's precisely how scholarship works. You can argue that his interpretations are weak, selective, or wrong, but declaring them "not scholarship" is merely a rhetorical manoeuvre. Contested scholarship is still scholarship, even when you think it's bad.

You're also collapsing several distinct questions into one moral accusation:
- Are Pascoe's ancestry claims accurate? (contested)
- Are his historical interpretations sound? (debated)
- Did institutions respond appropriately? (arguable)
- Does any of this amount to fraud? (not established)

Treating all of that as settled dishonesty is exactly the ambiguity-intolerance I was pointing to. It replaces evidentiary thresholds with moral certainty.

None of this requires defending Pascoe or his work. It requires keeping categories straight. Dispute is not proof. Silence is not admission. And disliking conclusions does not transform disagreement into deception.

If you want to argue fraud, Fine. But as it stands, you're doing precisely what you accuse others of doing: asserting intent where complexity already explains the outcome.

"Contested scholarship is still scholarship,"

Fiction isn't scholarship.

And his aboriginality is only contested by those who haven't examined the facts.

mhaze,

Have you heard of the fallacy known as "begging the question"?

//Fiction isn't scholarship.//

I could respond to that with a sentence using exactly the same structure, minus the fallacy:

An assertion isn't evidence.

Neat, huh?

//And his aboriginality is only contested by those who haven't examined the facts.//

As you would say: If you say so.

As usual JD provides no evidence but demands it of others

"As usual," mhaze?

//As usual JD provides no evidence but demands it of others//

There needs to be multiple instances of me doing such a thing before we can get to "as usual." We haven't even had the first instance, so "again" would have been accurate either.

I haven't made a substantive factual claim about Pascoe that would require evidentiary support. I haven't asserted that his work is good, that his ancestry claims are true, or that institutions handled the matter well. What I've done is question your assertions and the way you're treating them as settled facts without showing how they're established.

There's an important distinction here:

- Challenging a claim is not itself a competing claim.
- Asking for evidence is not an assertion that needs evidence of its own.

Have you heard of a concept known as the "burden of proof"?

We have extensively covered this in previous threads which is why I have zero interest in bringing you up to speed.

Perhaps these comments and the threads they were in might help you learn more about Pascoe and similar charlatans.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8840#286521
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10177#349439

mhaze,

Pointing to past threads and declining to engage isn't a response to the issue I raised - it's an avoidance of it.

I didn't ask whether these claims have been asserted before, or whether there exist long threads in which similar conclusions were reached. I asked how the conclusions you're asserting here are justified, given that you're treating them as settled fact while dismissing disagreement as ignorance. Linking to prior debates doesn't answer that question; it just gestures at volume.

If your position is that the matter is so conclusively resolved that it no longer needs to be argued, then the burden is on you to show why - not to wave at earlier discussions and declare the case closed. Repetition isn't adjudication, and prior confidence doesn't convert assertion into evidence.

Notice what happened over the course of both debates you linked to?

You made categorical claims ("fiction", "only contested by those who haven't examined the facts"), were asked to support them, and then responded not with evidence or reasoning, but with dismissal and fatigue. That doesn't strengthen the claims, it sidesteps scrutiny of them.

You performed as poorly then as you do now.

Anyway, I'm not asking to be "brought up to speed", and I'm not disputing that Pascoe has been criticised before. I'm questioning a method: the habit of treating disagreement itself as proof of ignorance, and certainty as a substitute for justification. Refusing to engage while insisting the conclusion is settled simply reinforces the point.

If you don't want to defend those assertions, that's your choice. But declining to do so doesn't make them facts, and pointing to old threads doesn't resolve the reasoning problem I've identified. It just confirms that we've reached the point where certainty is being asserted rather than argued.

When you're prepared to explain how your conclusions follow from the evidence - rather than referring me elsewhere or declining to engage - we can continue.

Until then, there's nothing substantive to respond to.

You just struggle with this whole opinion thingy,don't you?
I've looked into the Pascoe issue thoroughly and, based on all the facts, determined he's a charlatan. I showed you a snippet on that research and it clearly bamboozled you.

Nonetheless based on the sum total of the data, it is completely appropriate to declare him a liar.

No, I don't, mhaze.

//You just struggle with this whole opinion thingy,don't you?//

This isn't about me "struggling with opinions", it's about you collapsing the difference between opinion, evidence, and declaration.

Of course you're entitled to an opinion, but what you're doing goes further: you're asserting that your opinion settles the matter for others, and then treating disagreement as confusion rather than as a request for justification.

Saying you've "looked into it thoroughly" isn't evidence, it's a report of your confidence. Likewise, saying you've assessed "the sum total of the data" tells us nothing unless you explain how that data supports the specific conclusions you're drawing. Personal conviction isn't a substitute for showing how contested facts establish deliberate deception.

This is the same problem that's been present throughout. You repeatedly move from "I'm convinced" to "it is therefore appropriate to declare him a liar" without bridging the gap. That gap is exactly where standards of proof live. Declaring someone a liar or a charlatan is not a neutral evaluative judgment, it's an accusation about intent. That requires more than confidence, snippets, or familiarity with the material.

Notice how the ground keeps shifting?

When asked for evidence, you reply with assertions about having already done the work. When challenged on method, you reply that it's "just opinion". But you can't have it both ways. Either this is merely your opinion, in which case it doesn't settle the matter, or it's a claim about fact and intent, in which case it needs to be defended on grounds others can assess.

None of this requires defending Pascoe or denying that his work has been heavily criticised. It requires keeping categories straight. Strong belief does not become proof by being repeated, and confidence does not turn interpretation into established deceit.

If your position ultimately rests on "I've looked at everything and I'm satisfied", then that's where it rests. But thinking that's sufficient for others to accept as a declaration of lying is precisely the epistemic leap I've been questioning from the start.

Looking at all the data and forming an informed view is a hell of a lot better than being ignorant of the facts and asserting that therefore all conclusions are possible.

And of course, as the article shows, the charlatans rely on such ignorance. That's how the naive, ( deliberately so?) get led down the garden path.

"But thinking that's sufficient for others to accept as a declaration of lying "

Thinking that I have the slightest interest in convincing you of things you'll never accept irrespective of evidence was your first mistake.

mhaze,

You're still sliding between three different things and treating them as interchangeable:

- having an informed view,
- asserting a conclusion,
- and justifying that conclusion to others.

Of course forming an informed view is better than ignorance. No one has argued otherwise. The issue is what follows from that. Looking at data and reaching a personal conclusion does not, by itself, license declaring contested matters settled for everyone else, especially when those declarations hinge on claims about intent ("liar", "charlatan") rather than on disputed interpretation alone.

Notice what you're now saying?

On the one hand, you frame disagreement as ignorance or naivety. On the other, you say you have no interest in convincing me and that I wouldn't accept evidence anyway. Those two positions can't both do the work you want them to do.

If you're not trying to persuade, then appeals to ignorance, naivety, or being "led down the garden path" aren't arguments, they're just boundary-drawing. They signal who you think is inside the circle of the informed and who isn't. That's the point I've been making from the start.

The moment disagreement is treated as proof of ignorance, and confidence as a substitute for justification, the conversation stops being about evidence and becomes about authority. At that point, assertions no longer need to be defended, they only need to be repeated with sufficient certainty.

You're entitled to your conclusions. You're entitled to think Pascoe is wrong. What doesn't follow is that your having reached that view makes it appropriate to declare lying as a settled fact, or to treat requests for justification as evidence of ignorance.

If you're not interested in persuading, that's fine. But then what's left here isn't an argument about evidence at all, It's simply a statement of belief accompanied by a refusal to engage with scrutiny. That may be satisfying, but it isn't the same thing as demonstrating that alternative conclusions are excluded.

That distinction - between being convinced and being justified - is the one you keep stepping past.

JD,

Its all very well to be uninformed and to then say that, due to not having examined the evidence, you'd prefer to not offer an opinion. That's sensible.

But I have looked at the evidence and, being informed, have formed a view. I've tried to show you some of that evidence, but alas you'd prefer to remain uninformed and claim its invalid to form a view.

That type of thinking that, since you don't have the wherewithal to form an opinion, therefore no one else is permitted to voice an informed opinion, baffles me.

mhaze,

I haven't said it's "invalid to form a view". I haven't said no one is "permitted" to voice an informed opinion. And I haven't claimed that because I'm uninformed, all conclusions are possible. None of that reflects what I've actually argued.

What I've been questioning is something much narrower: the move from "I've examined the evidence and reached a view" to "it is therefore appropriate to declare lying as a settled fact, and to treat disagreement as ignorance." Those are not the same step, and pointing that out is not a refusal to engage with evidence.

You keep framing this as a contrast between being informed and uninformed. That's a convenient framing, but it does all the work for you. Anyone who disagrees is, by definition, placed in the "uninformed" bucket. At that point, the conclusion is protected from scrutiny not because it's been demonstrated, but because dissent has been reclassified as deficiency.

I've never suggested that you shouldn't form or express an opinion. I've questioned whether the certainty and moral weight you attach to that opinion are warranted given the nature of the disputes involved. That's a question about standards, not about permission.

There's also a slippage here between interpretation and intent. You can think Pascoe's history is wrong, selective, or misleading. You can think the ancestry claims don't stand up. Where the bar rises is when you move from those judgments to declarations of lying or charlatanism, which are claims about deliberate deception. That step requires more than confidence and familiarity with the material; it requires showing why alternative explanations are excluded.

So no, this isn't about me lacking "wherewithal" or trying to stop others having opinions. It's about resisting the idea that once someone feels informed enough, their conclusion becomes insulated from challenge and disagreement becomes proof of ignorance.

If you want to say "I've looked at the evidence and I'm convinced," that's straightforward. What I've been pushing back on is the further step: treating that conviction as if it settles the matter for everyone else.

Try again.

This is just so silly. You have no knowledge on the issue, have no intention of looking into it, have no understanding as to the overwhelming evidence that Pascoe fabricated his aboriginality, yet declare that we can't be confident on the issue.

If you don't open Schrodinger's box, you can't know if the cat is alive or dead. And you have no intention of opening the box. Yet you can confidently tell those who have had a peak, that they can't be certain of the cat's status.

Of course, all of this just illustrates the author's point, that people are being lied to and don't have any intention of seeking the truth. Well done.

Fin....because this is just so bloody stupid.

mhaze,

Again, I haven't claimed that "all conclusions are possible", nor that one must suspend judgment indefinitely.

What I've challenged is your leap from having examined material and reached a conviction to declaring deliberate deception as a settled fact and treating disagreement as ignorance. That is not the same thing as refusing to "open the box".

Your analogy fails because Schrodinger's cat has a determinate state that can be resolved by a single act of observation. Historical interpretation, identity claims, and questions of intent don't work that way. There is no equivalent act that collapses uncertainty into certainty. What you call "peeking" is weighing contested evidence and drawing inferences - something reasonable people can do differently without one side being ignorant or dishonest.

You keep asserting there is "overwhelming evidence" of fabrication. If that evidence were as decisive as you claim, it wouldn't need to be insulated by repeatedly redefining disagreement as ignorance or bad faith. Overwhelming evidence doesn't need that kind of rhetorical protection.

Notice your pattern that's now explicit. Anyone who disagrees:

- "has no knowledge",
- "won't look into it",
- "doesn't want the truth".

They're character judgements, not evidence. Once disagreement is reclassified as deficiency, certainty becomes effortless - but only because scrutiny has been excluded by definition.

Nothing I've said requires denying that Pascoe has been heavily criticised, that his ancestry claims are disputed, or that some people find the evidence decisive. What I've resisted is the idea that personal conviction, however strongly held, entitles one to declare lying as established fact and to insist others cannot reasonably withhold certainty.

If you want to say "I've examined the material and I'm convinced", that's straightforward. When you go further and insist that this conviction settles the matter for everyone else, you're no longer arguing from evidence - you're asserting authority.

If you're done engaging with that distinction, that's your choice. But it answers the methodological question far more clearly than repeating how confident you are.

//Fin....because this is just so bloody stupid.//

Perhaps try addressing what I'm actually saying then? Yeah, fat chance.

Off you trot.

An excellent quote, mhaze. I like it.

However, Sowell’s point presumes honest engagement with what the other person is actually saying, not repeated mischaracterisation.

You should take note of what he's said there.

Tell ya what, JD.

You go off and get up to speed on how Pascoe's claims about his family have unravelled and then we can have an honest engagement.

mhaze,

You're still trying to make agreement with your conclusion the price of "honest engagement", and that's the move I've been resisting from the start.

I don't need to "get up to speed" on Pascoe in order to point out a reasoning problem in your argument. I haven't denied that his ancestry claims are disputed, or that criticisms exist, or that you find the evidence decisive. What I've questioned is your insistence that this decisiveness is self-evident, that disagreement can only be explained by ignorance, and that declarations of lying follow automatically.

That's not a knowledge gap, it's a standards issue.

Notice how the ground keeps shifting. First, the claim was that the evidence is overwhelming. When asked to show how that evidence establishes deliberate deception, the response became "I've already looked into it". When that wasn't accepted, it became "go read old threads". Now it's "come back when you agree the matter is settled".

That isn't engagement; it's gatekeeping. It turns disagreement itself into proof that the other person hasn't done the work, which conveniently removes the need to explain how your conclusion is justified rather than merely believed.

An honest engagement doesn't require prior assent. It requires articulating why a conclusion follows from evidence in a way others can assess, and responding to challenges without recasting them as ignorance or bad faith. If the case is as clear as you say, it should survive that scrutiny without needing these preconditions.

So no, this isn't about me needing to catch up before discussion is allowed. It's about whether certainty is being asserted as a substitute for justification. If you want to explain how your conclusion about deliberate fabrication is established - rather than insisting it must be accepted before discussion can begin - I'm happy to engage.

If not, then we're not disagreeing about Pascoe. We're disagreeing about what counts as argument.