From my reading of history, the vast majority of casualties in new world populations came from diseases europeans had immunity to but the native populations did not. This is true of the americas Australia and pacific. As one commentator has put it the america revenge was limited to VD and tobacco.

The point of this is that 5 minutes research on the net will establish this so the view that there was wholesaele butchery as the main cause of population decline is either lazy or a deliberate lie

Sharkfin:-
"I believe all the wars in the world are inevitably between two tribes or more over territorial control. "

So what about my mob then? No Romany ever wanted to have territorial control; no Romany ever wanted to claim land for themselves, or control others, or engage in economics or politics.

Yet Hitler was more virulent towards us even than the Jews - and started uh.."ethnic cleansing"..on us before the Jews. He also only went back two generations with Jewish people, but for us it was three. Which would mean that my two children (one of whom, by the way, was presented with a Young Australian of the Year Award) would not be considered fit to live.

It wasn't just Hitler, either:- just about every country in Europe considered us candidates for genocide. In fact the last law against us was only repealed in 1987. So how does your theory explain this?

As to all this "Left-wing/Right-wing crapola?" Geez what is it with this obsession for labelling and stereotyping others? THATS the sort of garbage that leads to genocide and ethnic cleansing.

People have differing views. Period. If one is interested in bringing up children with open minds then as long as one stays involved in their lives and their home and schoolwork; and discusses things with them; and teaches them about research and differing ideologies they will make their own judgements. And if we, their parents, have done our jobs correctly we will respect their judgements.

Btw, - who ever made the "Freelance Journalist=out of work hack" comment? .....Oh, harsh, man, harsh.

Hi Pericles.. just noticed you ripping into me again... on many issues.

My daughter loves me :) end of story.
but.. you asked.. I'll provide "Spare the rod..spoil the child" Prov 13:24 ('rod' in my understanding here means 'dicipline' in general, but does not exclude a real rod, - have fun with that)

On your oft repeated charge of me being 'selective'... well no more selective than the police when they SELECT which charge to apply on the basis of the evidence.

65:4 is A SPECIFIC instruction in regard to divorce. It cannot be clearer than that.

You know.. 10 commandments kind of thing. "Thus...says the Lord"....

But you really demonstrate again.. your shabby disregard for truth and facts by suggesting I claim 'all Muslims are pedophiles'... when you either know jolly well I've not said that.. or.. you are just inventing it for impact.

What I've CLAIMED for the record is.. that "Islam permits Pedophilia" which.. as I understand it means sexual relations with pre-pubescent children.

I backed that claim up.. with a scholarly opinion from one whom much of the Islamic world relies, including the Muslim Students Association of LA California in their web site of hadiths and Quran.
i.e Abul ala Maududi who states in unmistakable terms that the meaning of that verse is that sexual relations were understood to have occurred with thos pre-menstrual girls. Now.. that is pedophilia, but if you like "Child abuse".

This.. I feel it is highly damaging to our society to see the overall values framework in which this little 'gem' dwells.. to be encouraged or sugar coated to our impressionable student youth.

BOAZ_David,

Re your claim that an Islamic scholarly source gave the green light for Muslims to engage in paedophilia or child sexual abuse, I once heard a Christian scholar make the same claim on behalf of Christianity. Then, of course you have (among many others) the notorious Father Gerald Ridsdale (Archbishop, later Cardinal, Pell repeatedly stood by this paedophile until the publicity started to be damaging to Pell). And we won’t forget Governor-General Peter Hollingsworth’s inept handling of child sex abuse allegations while he was Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane.

Ridsdale is now in gaol - on a second series of offences - where he belongs, but his Christian church shielded him for many years.

But you know David, I discount and reject these 'scholars' and professional Christians as aberrant. I do not accept that they speak for their religions as a whole. Even if they did, my intuitive but deeply-held belief is that paedophilia or child sexual abuse is absolutely unacceptable and should always be regarded as wrong on the grounds that it is coercive exploitation of an unequal participant in sexual action.

So don’t point the finger at a whole religion on the basis of a rogue element – but if you do, don’t confine your remarks to one religion. If you are going to claim, as you did, that "Islam permits Pedophilia", you'd also have to say "Christianity permits paedophilia".

I thought for a moment you were ignoring me, Boaz, as is your habit when I ask too many questions.

I don't see it as "ripping into you" though, merely pointing out inconsistencies in your arguments.

You refer to a Surah that - according to you - permits "wife beating", and now provide a Bible quote that - according to you - permits child-beating.

I would like to point out that in today's world, both practices are unacceptable in polite society, and potentially criminal acts.

But at the same time, you protest that your selected quotes from the Qur'an are not intended to indicate that your interpretation applies to all Muslims. How does that work?

>>your shabby disregard for truth and facts by suggesting I claim 'all Muslims are pedophiles'...<<

So, how would you phrase it. Boaz?

Would you say "based on this evidence, some Muslims are paedophiles". Or "It might be that some Muslims are paedophiles?" Or "paedophilia is a common Islamic practice"?

OK, come on now, how would you move from the general to the specific. From "here's a phrase I picked up from a religious text that might possibly indicate that paedophilia was not unknown when this book was written back in the Dark Ages", to a specific denunciation of today's realities?

If you cannot do so - if you cannot draw any inferences from the text you have chosen, and apply them directly to twenty-first century behaviour - than I'm afraid you are simply stirring the pot, aren't you?

Boaz, it's time to fish or cut bait.

Are you accusing Muslims of being paedophiles or are you not? If not, would you please be kind enough to spell this out for us, in a simple sentence.

If you cannot do this, then I'm afraid my accusation stands, and your protests are nothing but hot air.

Which is it to be, Boaz?

johncee1945 “Some are extreme right wing positions…. "Women were treated as possessions.” "Women had no personal rights."

I will answer what is, obviously, the rantings of the intellectually challenged, with a single quotation.

(Refering to the status of women in the western style democracies)

“The battle for women's rights has been largely won.”

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/quotes/a/m_thatcher.htm


I would further observe, much to her credit, the lady who said it was what many would declare “extreme right wing” (but history will record as balanced and practical) oh, and of course, ordered a victorious battle fleet into the South Atlantic to repel the aspirant demands of the “right-wing fascist government” of Argentina to military possession of the Falkland Islands.

Somehow, I doubt you can come close to competing with that level of credentials

Now for an extreme left wing position,

Quotes “While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.” Lenin

Who cynicism in life and leadership allowed him to observe

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

Neither women or men had individual rights under the communist collective system, especially the right to hold private property or, when Stalin needed to pay for his grandiose schemes, the right to feed their children.

Hence, the mass starvations under USSR collectivization of the 1920-1930’s.

Compared to that, supposed criticism of “Howards new IR laws” is misguided.