Col, Your simplistic – it’s all a matter of choice – is a logical travesty “A womans right to choose to get or remain pregnant: personal choice?” If she is raped and becomes pregnant, was it her personal choice? Many choices are restricted by circumstance.

We could go through your examples one-by-one showing where personal choice is restrained, e.g “Where to mark a cross on an election ballot: personal choice?” In some countries you vote at the point of a gun. Personal choice?

e.g. “Which house to buy or rent: personal choice?” Yes, with unlimited finance. But if you have a disability that makes work intermittent, what personal choice to buy or rent in Vaucluse or Toorak?

You dismiss my examples as ‘hypothetical and incidental’ - not worth pursuing. Why are my examples any more hypothetical than yours? Your personal choice to call mine hypothetical? Do I have personal choice to call your examples hypothetical?. Or double standards? Or cop-out - because my examples refute your simplistic argument?

I said: “The level of drugs in [adult and juvenile] institutions is rising with clear evidence of 'staff' involvement.” You reply: “…most drugs are smuggled by visitors in babies nappies and ballpoint pens etc.” You ask me to supply evidence – but you offer no evidence yourself. Personal choice?

Anyway, for children’s institutions see the Senate Report “Forgotten Australians”. On adult prisons, see the “Victorian Prison Drug Strategy” and associated research. A major aim is to try to reduce drug trafficking in prisons. (www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/DOJ+Internet/Home/Prisons/) Quote: “Whilst substance use in prison is commonly regarded as a continuation of pre-prison substance use, drug use may also either begin, or intensify, in prison…” A recent press release said: “…the Bracks Government doubled the number of prison visitor searches, more than doubled prisoner drug tests, doubled the number of sniffer dogs, boosted prisoner searches and strengthened perimeter security.” Still it rolls on.

It’s my free choice to live to not be specific on staff involvement in drugs.

Thoughtful uncertainty does not equate to 'hiding from reality'. Thinking you know it all is a delusion.

Oh Frank your analogies become more puerile as we progress,

The rape example merits thought.

Someone’s personal choices are violated (the woman by the criminal actions of a rapist scumbag) and what happens?

We prosecute the rapist and hopefully incarcerate the scumbag for a long, long time.

Society’s response to the violation of the woman’s “personal choice”, is to imprison the violator.

That certainly illustrates how "personal choice", what you describe as a “shallow concept” is, in fact, at the heart of our accepted social and legal values systems.

Re ““Where to mark a cross on an election ballot: personal choice?” In some countries you vote at the point of a gun. Personal choice?”

That is a laugh – darn it when were you last threatened with a gun to force your vote?

I would support the notion, on another thread currently running, that the process of compulsory attendance at a voting booth is undemocratic but that is not in the same ludicrous league which your hyperbole is extending things to.

So what you claim “We could go through your examples one-by-one showing where personal choice is restrained,” is bunkum.

Unsubstantiated by your examples and left unassailed by your reasoning.

Re - “You ask me to supply evidence – but you offer no evidence yourself. Personal choice”

It is not up to me to supply evidence of the non-occurance of what you claim, that is a rational nonsense, a path of reason which you seem to be wandering down and previously trod by Alice, in pursuit of a white rabbit.

Re “the Bracks Government doubled the number of prison visitor searches, more than doubled prisoner drug tests, doubled the number of sniffer dogs, boosted prisoner searches and strengthened perimeter security.” Still it rolls on.”

Exactly – in response to the criminal endeavours of prison visitors.

Frank, your arguments are inferior and more excuses than reason. You have lost the debate and are gradually loosing the plot.

My conclusion, you are slowly going around in ever decreasing circles, inevitably heading in the direction of disappearing up your own vortex.

Col,
Asserting you're right and I'm wrong, again, reminds me of schoolyard arguments. "Ya did'; 'I never'; 'ya did'.

I repeat - but don't expect you will give me an answer: Why are my examples any more hypothetical than yours?

I repeat - but don't expect you will give me an answer: When you say “…most drugs are smuggled by visitors in babies nappies and ballpoint pens etc”, why aren't you obliged to give evidence when you require it of me for my statements?

Your dishonesty is exposed by your blatant sophistry: "It is not up to me to supply evidence of the non-occurance of what you claim." But it was you Col who alleged that "most drugs are smuggled by visitors in babies nappies and ballpoint pens etc". That's what I asked you to supply your evidence for - and you know it. Free choice takes you only so far, Col. Truthfulness in debate is also a prerequisite. Now where's your evidence?

You claim I am losing the argument Col (how often the self-righteous appoint themselves as both prosecutor and judge in their own cases). But your aggressive language is a giveaway. Listen to yourself: 'your analogies become more puerile as we progress'; and 'you are slowly going around in ever decreasing circles, inevitably heading in the direction of disappearing up your own vortex'. That doesn't sound like the language of a winner to me, Col.

Frank Gol “Why are my examples any more hypothetical than yours”
your examples were specific and conditional

like your refugees, conditioned by specific events.
A boy abused in particular circumstances.

My examples were general, a woman’s basic right to choose an abortion or not, the selection of a marriage partner, examples which can be applied to a far greater proportion of the population and without the specificity which your examples contrive to require.

Hence, the greater the level of specificity, the more particular and limiting an example becomes and thus, the less pertinent it is to general discussion or debate.

I would have thought the actions of the State government in increasing searches and surveillance of prison visitors was evidence enough that the "educated view" is the major source of drugs in prisons are the visitors and villans throwing things over the wall. I would also observe, a prison official caught dealing drugs would find the consequences of their action a serious deterrent. Loss of employment, loss of income, loss of pension, a public pariah, likely gaol sentence, possibly in the institution they were previously a staff member of and of course the stigma of being a protected prisoner with greater loss of movement and freedom than a regular prisoner, for reasons of their own safety.

I would also observe that, in Victoria a prison official is subject to search processes, just like a general visitor and every time I went through the security scanners/ entry processes I and anything I was carrying was thoroughly searched (although I was not strip searched).

I am reading what you wrote and what I have written, your basis for debate is weak and you have not successfully challenged any point I have made. Your vernacular, suggesting I am self-righteous is as inflammatory as it is inaccurate.

That I have standards of conduct and that I hold them as suitable for anyone defines who I am. That you interpret holding standards of behaviour and conduct as “self-righteous” says a lot more about your absence of, than it does about my adoption of same.

dear col
your reasoning is without fault. i commend you on your venacular, very impressive. i have watched your words with frank over the past days and you seem almost godly the way you dispense your ideology. i do not sniff anything mr col. i don't need too. life is great. you on the other hand need to get out a little . your judgement and rule of thumb is scary. god help any unfortunate that comes your perfect way. and more importantly god help you mr col if misfortune deals you an awkward hand. good day.

Col

You say your examples are 'general' and my examples are 'specific and conditional'. Exactly the point. You make rules for every circumstance, whereas I say that you must take specific circumstances into consideration. You conceded the point in relation to a woman who gets pregrant through rape. My boy was abused, you say, in particular circumstances. Of course, isn't that always the case?

You say: 'the greater the level of specificity, the more particular and limiting an example becomes and thus, the less pertinent it is to general discussion or debate'. By contrast, I say: 'the more general the example the more easily people get away with sweeping judgements on human behaviour'. Consider why our courts are able to ask if there are any mitigating circumstances. Consider why many good parents ask children for the reasons for misdemeanours before they decide on a punishment.

I notice in your little dissertation on drugs in prison you (again) fail to rise to my challenge to provide evidence for your initial claim that 'most drugs are smuggled by visitors in babies nappies and ballpoint pens etc'. You'll recall you demanded that I provide evidence for my claims. Could it be that you don't actually have any evidence, Col?

As for the fear of dire consequences being a deterrent to crime for prison staff, well why do we need prisons at all if fear of consequences is sufficient deterrence? Corrupt officials and criminals have been with us since the beginning of time. They choose to take the risk (or do not fully appreciate the risk).

I note your claim that my 'basis for debate is weak' and that I have not 'successfully challenged any point [you] have made'. Perhaps you might let others make up their minds on that.

As for self-righteousness, I accept that you have standards of conduct and you are happy with those standards.

It's both sad and instructive that you judge me as not having standards. Perhaps you might consider this final proposition: we both have standards but they happen not to be the same.