Part One

All, must say that those philosophies you write about are touched on by the Murdoch School of Humanities, but what Murdoch philosophies are on about now is the mess our global politics is in mainly through two things, neo colonialism and economic imperialism, alsmost as if we have slipped back into the 19th century - some say just into the greedy Roaring 1920s - when compamies like Dreyfus, beat our cockies down, in 1929-30, wheat producers with no price information, getting paid anything between five bob and one and eightpence a bushel, owing to the lack of phone lines.

Our interests in philosophies at present are to try to get rid of first in economics this trickle down marketing mentality with Big Biz, as we used to call them holding all the ace cards. You see it now so frightenly in Western Australia with over half our dairy farmers forced to sell out.

As regards agriculture, we are also asking since we were forced to back America and go bi-lateral, why it has weakened our bio-importation laws and allowed a shipment of foot and mouth suspected Brazilian carcase meat to be landed in NSW. George Negus gave the report on SBS Dateline, with farmers ropeable about it, but the whole thing quitened down virtually by an increasingly fscist-style government.

We believe it is only right, All, that in philosophy, we ask why these sorts of things are now happening, with one country like America believing its supreme unipolar position, allows it to do pretty well as it likes, as it has done by replacing the UN with the priority of one nation alone, as well as in mouthpiece, the word of one man alone

Part Two

The only reason these days, ALL, you would throw out the wise philosophies of Immanuel Kant, is that you could believe in Darwin’s survival of the fittest concept, as placing humanity in the same evolutionary position as the animals, with brute force being the only answer for survival.

Surely in your intellectual position you have read Darwin’s final statement in the Second Edition of The Mainstream of Humanity in which Darwin intimates that his survival of the fittest concept, is mainly physical and thus might only relate to the animal kingdom. Humanity, different to the animals has that gift of intellect, which means that humans do have that growing ability to reason, which also could mean that the survival of the fittest for us humans, could mean, and we sincerely hope so, that true fitness means the added addition of mental fitness - loving thy neighbour, and even loving thy enemy, which means, of course, to put ourselves in our enemy’s shoes for a while, offering to share the blame, as Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu have tried to achieve in South Africa.

Those are our philosophies, All - you really have not yet told us yours

To the WEAKEST responses I have had.

SCOUT

I stated, “Yes, peoples of all colours and cultures rape within and across culture - but, in Australia no one else rapes based on racial lines”.

I do not see how this is inconsistent with a ‘blue-eyed Anglo’, as I stated, “… people of all colours and cultures rape…” DID I NOT!! DID I NOT POST A RECOGNITION TO THAT ABOVE… (Thank you for the apology…)

The one who raped you DID NOT refer to you as an “Aussie slut’… NOR state, “you deserve to be raped because you are Australian”… NOR “f@#K you Leb style”… No. No I don’t think so…

You were NOT raped by up to 20 Middle Eastern men because you are Australian, WERE YOU?!!
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

NEXT PLEASE
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Strewth

I stated, “I am a Christian, I am not Jewish and not a Zionist at all”.

You responded, “And Thor, Judaism and Zionism are not one and the same”.

Yes, I DID know the distinction between Jewish and a Zionist – that is precisely why I stated,

“I am not Jewish “AND” not a Zionist …”.

HAD I NOT known the distinction, I would have written one or the other as then I would have seen them as one and the same – Note the above grammatical conjunction “AND”.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The above = WEAK responses with no reason purposely ignoring statements of recognition which are posted by others and charges about posters not knowing distinction between Jewish and a Zionist to end discussion on realities for which you have run out of excuses and smoke screens.

It is fruitless to discuss such realities with people who are either so uneducated so as not to understand them, or choose not to recognise them because of emotions and fear.

It seems you studied a B. Arts or something similar and had contact with a lot of literature, but you never studied a course where analytical reasoning is key – it is clear from your INVALID response to the above statistics and your clear inability to comprehend statistical inference and reasoning.

Your last post did not refer to your premise which I have shown to be INVALID, therefore I will take it that you recognise its invalidity – I will take it step by step for you nonetheless:

1

The premise is that unemployment, low housing, and low education “explains” rape. I will take unemployment alone as I have a 350 word constraint, but I can also take low housing or low education later.

2
Denmark has a rate of unemployment of 6.1%.

Muslims immigrants make up about 2% of the population of Denmark [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark ]

“If” ALL Muslim immigrants were unemployed, then 4.1% of Danish are unemployed (Note, the assumption that ALL Muslim immigrants are unemployed overstates the frequency in favour of the premise).

In aggregate there is a higher frequency of Danish who are categorised by unemployment, 4.1% ofTotalPopulation, than the frequency of Muslim immigrants who are also categorised by unemployment, 2% ofTotalPopulation. (NoteItIsTheAggregateThatMattersForFrequency).

3

If the premise that unemployment “explains” rape is correct, then one expects the Danish to have a higher rate of rape than the Muslim immigrants as they have a higher frequency categorised by unemployment.

4

The Danish who are categorised by unemployment, low housing, and low education have a rate of rape of up to 32% of all rapes.

Muslim immigrants who are categorized by unemployment, low housing, and low education have a rate of rape of up to 68% of all rapes.

As the Muslim immigrants have a higher rate of rape but have a lower frequency categorized by unemployment, low housing, and low education the premise that unemployment, low housing, and low education “explains” rape is FALSE.

The statistical reasoning above is clear and clean. Is there truly anyone who can reasonably say it is not?

I will no longer be viewing comments or posting on this thread as I am assured that I will be painted as a racist by Muslims, Islamists, and Islamofacists, and the leftists and liberalists who protect them, a response to realities for which they have run out of smoke screens.

Benjamin, correct, Muslims AtWar WithAustralianSocietyandInfidels

Benjamin: factoids, not "factual information". Define the difference between Islam and "the culture of Islam". "Some" Muslims are rapists: what a revelation! Like, how long is a piece of string? And why is alchohol a mitigating factor? Because it gets non-Muslim rapists off the hook? "A section of the Muslim community has a problem with the way it views women." You don't say. As does a section of the non-Muslim community: "We lived vicariously through [the boys I grew up with in Cronulla]. And we girls were just second class citizens...sort of nothing more than a life support system to a vagina." (Kathy Lette, Puberty Blues)/ "Shiksa n. 'gentile girl' from Hebrew siqsa, from sheqes, 'a detested thing'" (Philip Roth, Portnoy's Complaint) "The problem of racially motivated gang rapes is...UNIQUE to Muslims", you rant. And when other non-Muslim examples are raised you weasel out with: but that's "only in wartime". "Such views are common" - and your extensive research is..? You pretend concern about Pakistani women, yet dismiss Abu Ghraib as "uni pranks". Pure surrealism! The abyss between your Islamaphobic bigotry and reality really comes through when it's compared with the verdict US Major General, Antonio Taguba's 2004 report on Abu Ghraib: "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses."

Baoz: So, you're a Christian? Everyone equal in the eyes of God? Yet you believe in "divine mandates" over bits of land? Yes, as you say, "the Palestinian reaction is quite understandable in human terms" - and they're the only ones that really matter. Why should the Palestinians, alone of all peoples, bear the burden of your private religious fantasies? And Thor, before you go, and in light of your proclamation that you are "not a Zionist", if Israel/Palestine is not to become a binational, secular, democratic state for all of its citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish, a concept you scoffed at in an earlier post, what should it become?